Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1351Re: The ID movement

Expand Messages
  • Stephen E. Jones
    Oct 7, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Group

      On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:29:29 +1200, Donald Nield wrote:

      As previously advised, I have decided that I will break my critique of
      Don's `review' of Icons and start responding to his article "Intelligent
      design theory: the way forward?", Stimulus, Vol. 9, Issue 2, May 2001,
      pp. 8-13, posted in five parts in July:

      The ID movement
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/779

      ID: Irreducible Complexity
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/780

      Design inference
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/781

      Applications of design theory
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/782

      An advance on ID?
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/967

      But I emphasise it will still take a *long* time before I get through
      them all, and Don should not expect me to answer them according to
      his timetable. It all depends on what else is being posted (including
      any responses to my critiques of the above extracts), my study
      commitments, and other `real-world' commitments I have.

      I had already briefly responded to this first extract on 26 July. For the
      sake of completeness, I will repeat some of my comments and/or expand
      on them.

      [...]

      DN>Below is the first of a series of extracts from my article "Intelligent Design
      >theory: the way forward?", Stimulus, volume 9, issue 2, May 2001, pp.8-13.

      Don in his self-introduction had said that "Stimulus" was "The NZ
      Journal of Christian Thought and Practice". This is significant in that
      Don is writing as a Christian, in a Christian journal, attacking a
      movement that advocates design and defending Darwinism, a
      movement that denies design.

      What I am interested in is Don's set of priorities. Don evidently saw his
      highest priority in his four public articles was to attack YECs and ID.
      Yet I would have thought that a higher priority for a Christian, would
      be articles to attacking *atheistic* evolution, or at least arguing for
      Don's own Theistic Evolution position.

      DN>I invite you to comment on whether or not I have been accurate and
      >fair in this introduction to the ID movement.

      Speaking as a member of "the ID movement" (and hence on the
      receiving end) IMHO Don has *not* "been accurate and fair in this
      introduction to it.

      Don makes a number of ad hominems and errors in this opening part of
      his article. Also, he chose to use two atheist/agnostic websites for his
      sources of information about ID, apparently in order to use a stolen
      draft ID document, rather than use *abundant* official ID sources.
      And where Don could, as a Christian, writing in a Christian journal,
      have expressed agreement with ID, he choses not to do so.

      So I assume that Don was not even *trying* to be "accurate and fair in
      this introduction to" the ID movement!

      [...]

      DN>The modern Intelligent Design (ID) movement was to a large extent
      >sparked off by the publication in 1985 of the book Evolution: A Theory in
      >Crisis by the Australian medical geneticist Michael Denton, who
      >now works at the University of Otago.

      In my earlier brief response, I pointed out that while Denton's 1985
      "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" was very important, Thaxton et al.'s
      "The Mystery of Life's Origin" (1984) is a better candidate for the
      beginning of the modern Intelligent Design movement (IDM), because
      "That book specifically mentioned non-supernatural intelligent agency".

      Curiously, Don was apparently aware of this, but he said he "wanted to
      highlight Denton" for other reasons:

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 13:48:57 +1200, Donald Nield wrote: [...]
      Yes, I agree with Steve about the Thaxton et al. book. In fact, I was aware
      of its importance, but I wanted to highlight Denton because I came back to
      him, in connection with his 1998 book, later in my article. [...]
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      DN>Today the leading lights are
      >Phillip Johnson (lawyer), Michael Behe (biochemist) and William Dembski
      >(mathematician).

      Jonathan Wells is also one of the "leading lights" of the IDM, but Don had
      a reason for omitting him here (see below).

      DN>Robert Pennock2 lists a couple of dozen other
      >people who are also associated with the movement

      Pennock's strawman strategy is to try to make out that the ID
      movement is "Intelligent Design *Creationism*" (my emphasis),
      presumably so it can be tarred with the same brush as YEC? But he
      includes in his list "Michael Denton" who is not even a theist! And
      there are AFAIK only two YECs in the list, "John Mark Reynolds" and
      "Paul Nelson". Moreover, at least four in the list (Denton, Ratzsch,
      Behe and van Inwagen) AFAIK accept universal common ancestry:

      "There are a dozen or two names that appear most frequently in
      association with the ideas of intelligent-design and theistic science,
      but because this variation of creationism is still relatively new and
      its advocates have not all published or explicitly identified
      themselves under these labels it is not yet clear whom to list among
      its leaders. Walter Bradley, Jon Buell, William Lane Craig, Percival
      Davis, Michael Denton, Mark Hartwig, J. P. Moreland, Hugh Ross,
      and Charles B. Thaxton are important figures. Another is John
      Angus Campbell, a University of Memphis rhetorician, and he
      mentions Nancy Pearcey, Del Ratzsch, Tom Woodward, John Mark
      Reynolds, Walter ReMine, and Robert Koons (who is a colleague
      of mine in the philosophy department at The University of Texas at
      Austin), as being among the "key players" of "our movement."
      Among the more well-known names to sign on to the crusade are
      Michael Behe (Lehigh University) and Dean Kenyon (San Francisco
      State University) on the scientific side, and Alvin Plantinga and
      Peter van Inwagen (both of Notre Dame) on the philosophical side.
      Perhaps more significant, however, are the younger members of the
      group-William Dembski, Paul Nelson, Stephen C. Meyer, and
      Jonathan Wells. These "four horsemen" have dedicated their lives
      to the creationist cause and have been collecting multiple graduate
      degrees (Dembski in mathematics, philosophy and theology; Meyer
      and Nelson in philosophy; and Wells in religious studies and
      molecular and cellular biology) so they will be fully armored and
      ready to ride forth." (Pennock R.T., "Tower of Babel: The
      Evidence Against the New Creationism," The MIT Press:
      Cambridge MA, 1999, Fourth Printing, p.29).

      DN>and it is noteworthy
      >that virtually all are U.S. Americans (Hugh Ross, a Canadian, is an
      >exception).

      Why is it "noteworthy" that "virtually all" the couple of dozen other
      people" listed by "Pennock ... who are also associated with the [ID]
      movementare U.S. Americans"?

      Apart from anything else, Pennock himself is a "U.S. American"!

      I presume Don's subliminal message here is that the reason is that IDers
      are all closet YECs? But this is simply false because not one of the
      above "leading lights" of the IDM mentioned by Don: "Johnson",
      "Behe" and "Dembski" was ever a YEC.

      Leaving aside deeper principles of spiritual warfare (Eph 6:12), which I
      presume as a Christian writing in a Christian journal, Don and his
      readers would all accept, it is only to be expected that the ID
      movement (like the creationist movement) is strongest in (though not
      exclusive to) the USA, because it is there that the Darwinists have been
      most insistent on excluding Christian theism from the public square and
      using the power of the State to force children to be indoctrinated in
      their naturalistic, anti-Christian philosophy.

      This is seen by the fact that wherever Darwinism tries to export its
      anti-theistic program to other countries (e.g. Britain, Australia and
      New Zealand) there is "an equal and opposite reaction" from its
      opponents.

      Historically, creationism (and ID) is a *reaction* to prior Darwinist
      agression:

      "Third, in an argument paralleling the persuasive case made by
      Robert Wuthnow in The Restructuring of American Religion,
      Numbers suggests that the intrusion of the national government
      into local educational concerns has politicized all the topics that
      are seen to lie on the borders between science and religion.
      After Sputnik, the United States poured unprecedented
      amounts of money into a frenzied effort aimed at reinvigorating
      the teaching of science in American schools. One of the
      byproducts of this effort was the production of influential
      biology textbooks that not only introduced major contemporary
      findings, but also propounded grandly phrased metaphysical
      claims about the evolutionary character of the cosmos. Such
      hegemonic governmental intrusions have regularly produced
      intense localist reactions. Creationism has been one of the most
      intense. Fourth, Numbers notes that creationists embody some
      of the widespread resentment toward America's self-appointed
      knowledge elites. As such, they are part of a natural reaction to
      the intellectual imperialism so regularly practiced by a number
      of scholars at the nation's best-known universities." (Noll M.A.,
      "Ignorant Armies." Review of Numbers R.L.,"The Creationists:
      The Evolution of Scientific Creationism," Knopf, in First
      Things, No. 32, April 1993, pp.45-48.
      http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9304/noll.html)

      DN>Several of those named have contributed to a
      >proceedings of a Mere Christianity conference3.

      This is an interesting `Freudian slip' by Don! The conference was, as Don's
      own footnote says, called "Mere *Creation*" (my emphasis). The attached
      table of contents shows it was not specifically Christian, and in fact
      "David Berlinski" is Jewish:

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/toc/code=1515
      Table of Contents
      Foreword/Henry F. Schaefer III

      Introduction: Mere Creation/William A. Dembski

      Part One: Unseating Naturalism
      1. Nature: Designed or Designoid/Walter L. Bradley
      2. Unseating Naturalism/Jonathan Wells

      Part Two: Design Theory
      3. "You Guys Lost"/Nancy R. Pearcey
      4. Redesigning Science/William A. Dembski
      5. The Explanatory Power of Design/Steven C. Meyer
      6. Applying Design Within Biology/Paul A. Nelson

      Part Three: Biological Design
      7. Intelligent Design Theory as a Tool for Analyzing Biochemical
      Systems/Michael J. Behe
      8. Basic Types of Life/Siegfried Scherer
      9. Apes of Ancestors?/Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer
      10. Evolutionary Accounts of Altruism & the Problem of Goodness by
      Design/Jeffrey P. Schloss

      Part Four: Philosophy & Design
      11. The Explanatory Relevance of Libertarian Agency as a Model of Theistic
      Design/J. P. Moreland
      12. Design, Chance & Theistic Evolution/Del Ratzsch
      13. God of the Gaps/John Mark Reynolds
      14. Design & the Cosmological Argument/William Lane Craig

      Part Five: Design in the Universe
      15. Big Bang Model Refined by Fire/Hugh Ross
      16. Design in Physics & Biology/Robert Kaita
      17. G"del's Question/David Berlinski
      18. Artificial Life & Cellular Automata/Robert C. Newman

      Afterword: How to Sink a Battleship/Phillip E. Johnson

      Postscript: The Twenty-first Century Has Arrived/Bruce Chapman

      Contributors

      Index
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      DN>Philosophers are
      >represented in the movement by William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Alvin
      >Plantinga, Paul Nelson and Stephen C. Meyer.

      I would not regard "Alvin Plantinga" as a member of the IDM. I presume
      Don only says that he is on Pennock say-so? But Pennock lumps Plantinga
      into his strawman category of "Intelligent-design creationist" only because
      Plantinga also "oppos[es] evolution" and "reject[s] methodological
      naturalism":

      "Intelligent-design creationists unite in this attack and on their
      insistence in the viability of theistic science. Johnson continues to
      write as though methodological naturalism is essentially
      synonymous with metaphysical naturalism, but others acknowledge
      that methodological naturalism is a distinct view and attack it
      directly. Notre Dame philosopher of religion Alvin Plantinga, for
      example, joins the IDCs in opposing evolution and in rejecting
      methodological naturalism." (Pennock R.T., "Tower of Babel: The
      Evidence Against the New Creationism," The MIT Press:
      Cambridge MA, 1999, Fourth Printing, p.203)

      DN>A person of
      >particular interest is Jonathan Wells, of the Unification Church, who has
      >publicly stated that he has dedicated his life to destroying Darwinism, and
      >to that end has collected two PhD's, one in Theology
      >from Yale and the other in Biology from U.C. Berkeley. In a recent
      >book4 he attacks prominent arguments for evolution as presented in
      >current textbooks.

      Why is this "of particular interest" that "Jonathan Wells" is a member "of
      the Unification Church" (i.e. the Moonies) and he "has publicly stated that
      he has dedicated his life to destroying Darwinism"?

      The IDM is not a Christian movement and so it is open to all-comers. Don
      would not think it is "of particular interest" that UC Berkeley did not
      discriminate against Wells because of his religion, so why should Don think
      the IDM should have? If Don doesn't think that the IDM should have
      discriminated against Wells because of his religion, then what was Don's
      point?

      And since Darwinism is implacably anti-design, what is so strange about a
      person who has "dedicated his life to destroying Darwinism" joining the
      IDM which advocates design?

      Does Don think that the IDM should refuse membership to anyone who
      has "dedicated his life to destroying Darwinism"? Otherwise, what exactly
      was Don's point?

      What is of "particular interest" is that Don, like other Darwinists, just can't
      pass up this opportunity for a `shoot-the-messenger' ad hominem by
      mentioning that Wells is a member of "the Unification Church" (i.e. a
      Moonie) and that he is an avowed anti-Darwinist!

      Maybe Don should have been as equally candid as Wells and disclosed to
      his Stimulus readers that he has "dedicated his life to" *defending*
      "Darwinism"?

      DN>Together with Nelson and Meyer, Wells now works at the Seattle-based
      >Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture,
      >which was founded in 1996. According to its web site
      >(www.crsc.org) the CRSC "strives to replace materialism and its
      >destructive cultural legacies with a positive alternative.

      This is false. Nowhere on the CRSC's web site does it say that it "strives to
      replace materialism and its destructive cultural legacies with a positive
      alternative." This is from a stolen draft document (see below) that has
      never, AFAIK, actually appeared on any CRSC web site.

      The use of this obscure web address "www.crsc.org" (which I didn't even
      know existed-the usual CRSC address is http://www.discovery.org/crsc/) is
      a dead giveaway that Don got this from the atheist/agnostic website
      Freethought Web's article, which, according to Google, is the only place on
      the web where the words "www.crsc.org" and "strives to replace materialism"
      appear:

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/archive/thomas_wedge.html
      The Wedge: A Christian Plan to Overthrow Modern Science? Doubting
      Thomas: Feature Story, No. 6, April/May 1999. by Keith Lankford [...]
      The CRSC, according to its web site (www.crsc.org), "strives to replace
      materialism and its destructive cultural legacies with a positive scientific
      alternative. The Center seeks to develop a robust science for the twentyfirst
      century, illumined by an empirically fruitful Theory of Intelligent Design
      (ID). [...]
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      DN>The Center seeks to
      >develop a robust science for the twenty-first century,
      >illuminated by an empirically fruitful Theory of Intelligent Design
      >[namely] a scientific research program that seeks to detect intelligent
      >causes in natural systems, as well as apply the explanatory
      >power of intelligent design to empirical problems in scientific research".

      This comes from the same stolen draft document. It is correct as far as
      it goes, but the official CRSC website says:

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      http://www.discovery.org/crsc/
      Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture [...]
      Design Theory: A New Science for a New Century
      Materialistic thinking dominated Western culture during the 20th century in
      large part because of the authority of science. The Center for the Renewal
      of Science and Culture seeks, therefore, to challenge materialism on
      specifically scientific grounds. Yet Center Fellows do more than critique
      theories that have materialistic implications. They have also pioneered
      alternative scientific theories and research methods that recognize the
      reality of design and the need for intelligent agency to explain it. This new
      research program-called "design theory"-is based upon recent
      developments in the information sciences and many new evidences of
      design. Design theory promises to revitalize many long-stagnant disciplines
      by recognizing mind, as well as matter, as a causal influence in the world. It
      also promises, by implication, to promote a more holistic view of reality
      and humanity, thus helping to reverse some of materialism's destructive
      cultural consequences. [...]
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      DN>A CRSC document "The Wedge Strategy" started circulating on the
      >internet in 1998.

      As I pointed out in my brief response:

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 22:59:36 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote: [...]
      While there was nothing in the document that was not already in the public
      domain, the document itself was an early draft which apparently some
      Darwinist `fishing' on the CRSC web site, struck it lucky. One can imagine
      the outraged indignation if a creationist or IDer did that to a Darwinist
      website. But apparently the end justifies the means for Darwinists (since no
      Darwinist, AFAIK has ever expressed even mild disapproval of the way
      this document was obtained)? [...]
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      this document was a draft that some Darwinist apparently managed to find on
      the CRSC's website by trying various plausible document names (it was called
      "http://www.discovery.org/crsc1.html"), and struck it lucky. So it was stolen,
      but that does not seem to trouble Darwinists, even Christian ones like Don.

      I wrote:

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 22:59:36 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote: [...]
      One can imagine the outraged indignation if a creationist or IDer did that to a
      Darwinist website. But apparently the end justifies the means for Darwinists
      (since no Darwinist, AFAIK has ever expressed even mild disapproval of the
      way this document was obtained)? [...]
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      To which Don replied:

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 13:48:57 +1200, Donald Nield wrote: [...]
      I understand that. Steve will appreciate that I came on the document second hand,
      and it just helped to highlight the ID wedge agenda in my article. [...]
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      I would be interested in Don clarifying just *how* "he came on the document
      second hand". Did he ask for it or was he given it unasked?

      Either way, it does not explain why Don did not use mainstream, official
      CRSC webbed documents and writings.

      There is no question that Don would have know that from the source that
      the document had been obtained by dubious means:

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/archive/thomas_wedge.html
      The Wedge: A Christian Plan to Overthrow Modern Science?
      Doubting Thomas: Feature Story, No. 6, April/May 1999.
      by Keith Lankford [...]
      The Wedge Strategy" document began circulating the Internet early last
      March. It was not long until Doubting Thomas acquired a copy and traced
      the source of its circulation from someone who wishes to remain
      anonymous. "Wedge" caused a great stir and soon the Internet Infidels
      published an article on it in their online newsletter, ii. [...]
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      The link to the Internet Infidels site confirms this:

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html
      Feature Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project" Circulates Online
      by James Still [...]
      On March 3, 1999, an anonymous person obtained an internal white paper
      from the CRSC entitled "The Wedge Project," which detailed the Center's
      ambitious long-term strategy to replace "materialistic science" with
      intelligent design. The paper describes the CRSC's mission with a sense of
      urgency: [...]
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Quite frankly I regard this as disgraceful in a *Christian* journal to use a
      stolen article, rather than mainstream published articles, of which there
      were *many* in "May 2001", when Don's Stimulus article was published.

      In fact, why even use an article dated "1998" in 2001? It seem to me that Don
      was deliberately `scraping the bottom of the barrel' trying to `dig up dirt'
      rather than trying to be "accurate and fair in this introduction to the
      ID movement".

      DN>This describes a 3-phase strategy to implement
      >ID over the next 5 then 20 years.

      If ID *really* has a "3-phase strategy to implement ID over the next 5 then
      20 years" I would be interested to know about it. One of my criticisms
      within the ID movement is that it does not seem to have any formal "strategy"!

      DN>Its goals are to "defeat scientific
      >materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" and
      >"replace materialistic explanations with the theistic
      >understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

      It is interesting that in a *Christian* journal Don does not signify any
      agreement with this! Does Don not agree that it is a worthy goal to "defeat
      scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political
      legacies" and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic
      understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"?

      If not, why not?

      But if so, what are TE/DE's like Don doing about it? If nothing: a) why
      not? and b) why criticise a movement which *is* trying to do something
      about it?

      DN>The
      >document focuses on overthrowing evolution, not from within the scientific
      >establishments, but through convincing the public that ID
      >theory is the morally acceptable one.

      Clearly if a major part of the problem is that "the scientific establishment" is
      strongly anti-ID, then ID is not likely going to be allowed to criticise Darwinism
      and advocate design within that "scientific establishment".

      But Don puts it sounds like ID was not going to make a scientific case at all. But
      one of Don's sources, infidels.org. quotes the Wedge paper as proposing that .
      "Phase I" would be "Scientific Research, Writing, and Publicity" involving "the
      Paleontology Research Program (led by Dr. Paul Chien), the Molecular Biology
      Research Program (led by Dr. Douglas Axe):

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html [...]
      The paper outlines a "wedge strategy" that has three phases. Phase I, "Scientific
      Research, Writing, and Publicity" involves the Paleontology Research Program
      (led by Dr. Paul Chien), the Molecular Biology Research Program (led by Dr.
      Douglas Axe), [...]
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      DN>Jay Richards, Director of Program Development for CRSC, has admitted

      What is the "admitted" bit? Don tries to makes it sound like there was something to
      apologise for. The original Infidels.org report just has "Jay Richards said":

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html [...]
      However, CRSC Senior Fellow and Director of Program Development Jay
      Richards said that the mission statement and goals had been posted on the
      CRSC's web site since 1996. [...]
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      DN>that much of the content of the
      >document can be found in Johnson's book Defeating Darwinism By
      >Opening Minds (1995). Johnson has updated his arguments in a new
      >book, The Wedge of Truth (2000).

      Indeed, so if Don's intent was to "have been accurate and fair in this
      introduction to the ID movement" why did he not use "Johnson['s] ...
      updated ... arguments in" his "new book, The Wedge of Truth" dated
      "2000"?

      DN>In May 2000 the Discovery Institute
      sponsored a policy briefing for Members of Congress on Capitol Hill,
      >Washington. The speakers (Behe, Meyer, Nancy Pearcey, Dembski,
      Johnson) presented their version of the scientific debate between Darwinian
      evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory, and also
      >addressed the social, moral and political consequences of Darwinism.

      It is again interesting that Don, writing in a Christian journal, does not say
      anything himself about "the social, moral and political consequences of
      Darwinism".

      What is Don or his TE/DE colleagues doing about "the social, moral and
      political consequences of Darwinism"?

      DN>Thus it is not surprising that the ID movement is seen by many people as
      >the new face of Creationism, and that it has aroused opposition.

      Don does not point out that the "many people" who see "the ID movement ... as
      the new face of Creationism" are almost all *Darwinists* (including Christian
      ones) who it is only to be expected would have their "aroused" their
      "opposition" to anything that threatens their philosophy.

      DN>This has been exemplified by the removal in October 2000 of
      >Dembski from his job as Director of the Michael Polanyi Institute at
      >Baylor University (in Waco, Texas) as a result of opposition from members
      >of the Biology faculty. The Institute had been formed the
      >previous year on the initiative of the President of the University, which is
      >a Southern Baptist institution.

      Even if the IDM *was* "the new face of Creationism" (which it isn't) does
      Don think it is *right* that a "Southern Baptist" (i.e. supposedly
      *Christian*) institution" should be "remov[ed] ... from his job as Director
      of the Michael Polanyi Institute at Baylor University (in Waco, Texas) as a
      result of opposition from members of the Biology faculty" because of it?

      If so, why?

      If not, why did Don not indicate in this "Journal of Christian Thought and
      Practice" that this was and unacceptable "Christian ... Practice"?

      DN>2. Robert T. Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New
      >Creationism (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999)
      >
      >3. William A. Dembski (ed.), Mere Creation : Science, Faith & Intelligent
      Design (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1998)
      >
      >4. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Revolution: Science or Myth? (Regnery
      Publishing., 2000)

      In this supposedly "accurate and fair ... introduction to the ID movement"
      Don actually quotes *only* from opponents of ID, like "Pennock" and
      www.freethought-web.org and www.infidels.org (without acknowledging
      the latter in his references BTW).

      Don did not actually quote from "Dembski (ed.), Mere Creation" or
      "Jonathan Wells, Icons of Revolution".

      If Don thinks he has "been accurate and fair in this introduction to the ID
      movement" then I would hate to see him trying to be inaccurate and unfair!

      [...]

      Steve

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned
      exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to
      prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he
      wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern
      in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves." (Huxley A.,
      "Ends and Means: An Enquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the
      Methods Employed for their Realization," [1937], Chatto & Windus:
      London, 1938, Third Impression, p.272)
      Stephen E. Jones. sejones@.... http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
      Moderator: CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com
      Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic