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

The ID movement

Expand Messages
  • Donald Nield
    Dear Group: 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,
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 19, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Group:
      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.
      I invite you to comment on whether or not I have been accurate and fair in this introduction to the ID movement.
      ********************************************
      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. Today the leading lights are Phillip Johnson (lawyer), Michael Behe (biochemist) and William Dembski (mathematician). Robert Pennock2 lists a couple of dozen other
      people who are also associated with the movement, and it is noteworthy that virtually all are U.S. Americans (Hugh Ross, a Canadian, is an exception). Several of those named have contributed to a
      proceedings of a Mere Christianity conference3. Philosophers are represented in the movement by William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, Paul Nelson and Stephen C. Meyer. 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.

      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. 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". A CRSC document "The Wedge Strategy" started circulating on the internet in 1998. This describes a 3-phase strategy to implement
      ID over the next 5 then 20 years. 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." 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. Jay Richards , Director of Program Development for CRSC, has admitted 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). 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.

      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. 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.

      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)
      *****************************************
      Don
    • Stephen E. Jones
      Group On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:29:29 +1200, Donald Nield wrote: ... Thanks to Don for posting this series. I will respond to them all as time permits. DN The
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 26, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Group

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

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

        Thanks to Don for posting this series. I will respond to them all as time
        permits.

        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.

        This is a reasonable assumption, but I personally would claim that the
        modern ID movement began with the publication of Thaxton, Bradley and
        Olsen's "The Mystery of Life's Origin" in 1984. That book specifically
        mentioned non-supernatural intelligent agency:

        "Implicit in this [uniformitarian] assumption is the requirement that
        no supernatural agency 'entered nature' at the time of the origin,
        was crucial to it, and then withdrew from history." (Kenyon D.H. &
        Steinman G., "Biochemical Predestination," McGraw-Hill: New
        York, 1969, p.30). (Actually all that is required for this assumption
        is that no intelligent- purposive-interruption or manipulation of the
        workings of natural forces ever occurred at the time of life's origin
        or since.)" (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The
        Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories," Lewis &
        Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992, p.8)

        But Denton's book was certainly *very* important in highlighting the
        problems of Darwinian evolution.

        DN>Today the leading lights are Phillip Johnson (lawyer), Michael Behe
        >(biochemist) and William Dembski (mathematician). Robert Pennock2
        >lists a couple of dozen other people who are also associated with the
        >movement, and it is noteworthy that virtually all are U.S. Americans
        >(Hugh Ross, a Canadian, is an exception).

        The predominance of Americans in the leadership of the ID movement is
        interesting. But the movement itself is international. Hugh Ross is not
        strictly speaking a member of the ID movement, and he has been publicly
        critical of ID for not being explicitly Christian.

        DN>Several of those named have contributed to a proceedings of a Mere
        >Christianity conference3. Philosophers are represented in the movement
        >by William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, Paul Nelson and
        >Stephen C. Meyer.

        Plantinga is also not strictly speaking a member of the ID movement,
        although he is sympathetic to it. And Jay Richards (mentioned further
        down) is also a philosopher.

        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 Wells singled out "of particular interest" just because he is a
        member "of the Unification Church" and because he "has publicly stated
        that he has dedicated his life to destroying Darwinism"? The ID movement
        is not a specifically Christian movement (it has at least one member,
        philosopher Todd Moody, who is not even a theist), and a number of
        members who are religious Jews. And that Wells has "dedicated his life to
        destroying Darwinism" is nothing strange, since Darwinism is the very
        antithesis of design, as Darwinists from Darwin to Dawkins have made
        *very* plain.

        BTW, I have reconsidered my previous decision not to respond to Don's
        critique of Wells' Icons of Evolution at:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/733 It
        was posted just before I went on holidays and on returning I had 500+
        messages to read and hence no time to respond to it. I still have no time to
        respond to it (!), but I now feel I am obligated to do so, since I have read
        Icons from cover to cover and I am familiar with Wells' thinking. As it
        happens I also am familiar with the Biology text (Campbell, Reece &
        Mitchell) hat Don referred to in his review, since it was the main textbook
        in my two Biology units last year. I hope to post my response (or at least
        the first part of it) in the next few days.

        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. 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".

        Sounds good! :-)

        DN>A CRSC document "The Wedge Strategy" started circulating on the
        >internet in 1998. This describes a 3-phase strategy to implement ID over
        >the next 5 then 20 years. 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." 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. Jay Richards , Director of Program Development for CRSC, has
        >admitted that much of the content of the document can be found in
        >Johnson's book Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds (1995).

        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)?

        DN>Johnson has updated his arguments in a new book, The Wedge of
        >Truth (2000). 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.

        This policy briefing is often commented on. But there is nothing strange
        about members of Congress being fully informed about both sides of the
        `culture war' that rages in their electorates.

        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.

        How does that follow? The ID movement itself makes no claims for
        Creationism (in the Biblical sense). ID is strictly a *scientific* theory, i.e.
        that there is empirical evidence of design.

        That ID's opponents react to it as though it is just "the new face of
        Creationism" exposes their naturalist (i.e. anti-supernaturalist) agenda. And
        I include those so-called "Theistic Evolutionists" who are strongly opposed
        to ID, in this. There is no reason why true "Theistic Evolutionists" should
        be opposed to ID, unless they are strongly influenced by naturalistic
        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.

        Yes. This showed the inroads that naturalism has made even in ostensibly
        Christian institutions like Baylor. However, it looks like Dembski is going
        to win that one:

        http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=11381 July 24, 2001
        Intelligent design advocate asserts reconciliation with Baylor
        faculty By Tammi Reed Ledbetter WACO, Texas (BP)--A
        prominent intelligent design advocate said July 23 that
        reconciliation with the faculty and administration of Baylor
        University could lead to positive dialogue on the relationship of
        science and religion. Associate research professor William
        Dembski's July 23 statement, released through the university's
        public relations office, praised the support he has received from
        Baylor President Robert Sloan and expressions of goodwill
        following a year of conflict ignited by Dembski's demotion as
        director of the Polanyi Center for Complexity, Information and
        Design. Rejecting allegations that intelligent design had suffered a
        setback at Baylor, Dembski stated that his own research on
        intelligent design "continues unimpeded and with the full support of
        the Baylor administration," and cited a growing interest in such
        study. "Despite the tensions of last fall, I have experienced a
        substantial reconciliation with Baylor faculty and administration,"
        he said, noting that he used the term reconciliation deliberately. "I
        am not referring merely to a cessation of hostilities or truce. I have
        experienced genuine goodwill on the part of the Baylor faculty and
        administration, and in particular from President Robert Sloan. ..."

        >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)
        >*****************************************
        >Don

        Steve

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "Barring an external intelligence, which evolutionists do not detect, nothing
        in nature can select sets for positive preservation. The process can only be
        one of negative elimination in which, after different sets have formed, some
        are eliminated more or less promptly, while others survive for a while-that
        is, their elimination is deferred." (Darlington P.J., Jr., "Evolution for
        Naturalists: The Simple Principles and Complex Reality," John Wiley &
        Sons: New York NY, 1980, p.55)
        Stephen E. Jones. sejones@.... http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
        Moderator: CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com
        Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      • Donald Nield
        Dear Steve and Group: ... 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
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 29, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Steve and Group:

          "Stephen E. Jones" wrote:

          > Group
          >
          > On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:29:29 +1200, Donald Nield wrote:
          >
          > DN>Dear Group:
          > >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.
          > >I invite you to comment on whether or not I have been accurate and fair
          > >in this introduction to the ID movement.
          > >********************************************
          >
          > Thanks to Don for posting this series. I will respond to them all as time
          > permits.
          >
          > 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.
          >
          > SJ: This is a reasonable assumption, but I personally would claim that the
          > modern ID movement began with the publication of Thaxton, Bradley and
          > Olsen's "The Mystery of Life's Origin" in 1984. That book specifically
          > mentioned non-supernatural intelligent agency:
          >
          > "Implicit in this [uniformitarian] assumption is the requirement that
          > no supernatural agency 'entered nature' at the time of the origin,
          > was crucial to it, and then withdrew from history." (Kenyon D.H. &
          > Steinman G., "Biochemical Predestination," McGraw-Hill: New
          > York, 1969, p.30). (Actually all that is required for this assumption
          > is that no intelligent- purposive-interruption or manipulation of the
          > workings of natural forces ever occurred at the time of life's origin
          > or since.)" (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The
          > Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories," Lewis &
          > Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992, p.8)
          >
          > But Denton's book was certainly *very* important in highlighting the
          > problems of Darwinian evolution.

          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). Robert Pennock2
          > >lists a couple of dozen other people who are also associated with the
          > >movement, and it is noteworthy that virtually all are U.S. Americans
          > >(Hugh Ross, a Canadian, is an exception).
          >
          > SJ: The predominance of Americans in the leadership of the ID movement is
          > interesting. But the movement itself is international. Hugh Ross is not
          > strictly speaking a member of the ID movement, and he has been publicly
          > critical of ID for not being explicitly Christian.

          Thanks to Steve for the clarification on Ross. I believe that the interest in ID as
          a movement in the USA is directly linked with the constitutional difficulty of
          teaching science and religion together in public schools in that country.

          >
          >
          > DN>Several of those named have contributed to a proceedings of a Mere
          > >Christianity conference3. Philosophers are represented in the movement
          > >by William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, Paul Nelson and
          > >Stephen C. Meyer.
          >
          > Plantinga is also not strictly speaking a member of the ID movement,
          > although he is sympathetic to it. And Jay Richards (mentioned further
          > down) is also a philosopher.

          Thanks again.

          >
          >
          > 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.
          >
          > SJ: Why is Wells singled out "of particular interest" just because he is a
          > member "of the Unification Church" and because he "has publicly stated
          > that he has dedicated his life to destroying Darwinism"? The ID movement
          > is not a specifically Christian movement (it has at least one member,
          > philosopher Todd Moody, who is not even a theist), and a number of
          > members who are religious Jews. And that Wells has "dedicated his life to
          > destroying Darwinism" is nothing strange, since Darwinism is the very
          > antithesis of design, as Darwinists from Darwin to Dawkins have made
          > *very* plain.

          Thanks!

          >
          >
          > SJ: BTW, I have reconsidered my previous decision not to respond to Don's
          > critique of Wells' Icons of Evolution at:
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/733 It
          > was posted just before I went on holidays and on returning I had 500+
          > messages to read and hence no time to respond to it. I still have no time to
          > respond to it (!), but I now feel I am obligated to do so, since I have read
          > Icons from cover to cover and I am familiar with Wells' thinking. As it
          > happens I also am familiar with the Biology text (Campbell, Reece &
          > Mitchell) hat Don referred to in his review, since it was the main textbook
          > in my two Biology units last year. I hope to post my response (or at least
          > the first part of it) in the next few days.

          Thanks!

          >
          >
          > 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. 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".
          >
          > Sounds good! :-)
          >
          > DN>A CRSC document "The Wedge Strategy" started circulating on the
          > >internet in 1998. This describes a 3-phase strategy to implement ID over
          > >the next 5 then 20 years. 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." 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. Jay Richards , Director of Program Development for CRSC, has
          > >admitted that much of the content of the document can be found in
          > >Johnson's book Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds (1995).
          >
          > SJ: 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)?

          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.

          >
          >
          > DN>Johnson has updated his arguments in a new book, The Wedge of
          > >Truth (2000). 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.
          >
          > SJ: This policy briefing is often commented on. But there is nothing strange
          > about members of Congress being fully informed about both sides of the
          > `culture war' that rages in their electorates.

          Perhaps. It seems significant to me, but then I am not a citizen of the USA.

          >
          >
          > 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.
          >
          > SJ: How does that follow? The ID movement itself makes no claims for
          > Creationism (in the Biblical sense). ID is strictly a *scientific* theory, i.e.
          > that there is empirical evidence of design.
          >
          > That ID's opponents react to it as though it is just "the new face of
          > Creationism" exposes their naturalist (i.e. anti-supernaturalist) agenda. And
          > I include those so-called "Theistic Evolutionists" who are strongly opposed
          > to ID, in this. There is no reason why true "Theistic Evolutionists" should
          > be opposed to ID, unless they are strongly influenced by naturalistic
          > philosophy.

          If ID was just a *scientific* theory , and the debate about it was just a matter of
          philosophy, then I would agree with Steve on this. However, to my mind IDT cannot
          be separated from the ID political movement, and it seems to me that this is indeed
          a continuation of the "creation science" movement, and both are concerned with what
          is allowed to be taught in public schools in the USA.

          >
          >
          > 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.
          >
          > SJ: Yes. This showed the inroads that naturalism has made even in ostensibly
          > Christian institutions like Baylor. However, it looks like Dembski is going
          > to win that one:
          >
          > http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=11381 July 24, 2001
          > Intelligent design advocate asserts reconciliation with Baylor
          > faculty By Tammi Reed Ledbetter WACO, Texas (BP)--A
          > prominent intelligent design advocate said July 23 that
          > reconciliation with the faculty and administration of Baylor
          > University could lead to positive dialogue on the relationship of
          > science and religion. Associate research professor William
          > Dembski's July 23 statement, released through the university's
          > public relations office, praised the support he has received from
          > Baylor President Robert Sloan and expressions of goodwill
          > following a year of conflict ignited by Dembski's demotion as
          > director of the Polanyi Center for Complexity, Information and
          > Design. Rejecting allegations that intelligent design had suffered a
          > setback at Baylor, Dembski stated that his own research on
          > intelligent design "continues unimpeded and with the full support of
          > the Baylor administration," and cited a growing interest in such
          > study. "Despite the tensions of last fall, I have experienced a
          > substantial reconciliation with Baylor faculty and administration,"
          > he said, noting that he used the term reconciliation deliberately. "I
          > am not referring merely to a cessation of hostilities or truce. I have
          > experienced genuine goodwill on the part of the Baylor faculty and
          > administration, and in particular from President Robert Sloan. ..."

          Thanks to Steve for the update on the Baylor situation.

          >
          >
          > >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)
          > >*****************************************
          > >Don

          Don
        • Andrew Gough
          Subject: Re: The ID movement Group, Thanks to Don for his helpful article and to Steve for his critique. I have added some comments towards the end of this now
          Message 4 of 7 , Jul 30, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Subject: Re: The ID movement


            Group,

            Thanks to Don for his helpful article and to Steve for his critique.

            I have added some comments towards the end of this now rather long post.

            > > DN>Dear Group:
            > > >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.
            > > >I invite you to comment on whether or not I have been accurate and fair
            > > >in this introduction to the ID movement.
            > > >********************************************
            > >
            SJ> > Thanks to Don for posting this series. I will respond to them all as
            time
            > > permits.
            > >
            > > 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.
            > >
            > > SJ: This is a reasonable assumption, but I personally would claim that
            the
            > > modern ID movement began with the publication of Thaxton, Bradley and
            > > Olsen's "The Mystery of Life's Origin" in 1984. That book specifically
            > > mentioned non-supernatural intelligent agency:
            > >
            > > "Implicit in this [uniformitarian] assumption is the requirement
            that
            > > no supernatural agency 'entered nature' at the time of the
            origin,
            > > was crucial to it, and then withdrew from history." (Kenyon D.H.
            &
            > > Steinman G., "Biochemical Predestination," McGraw-Hill: New
            > > York, 1969, p.30). (Actually all that is required for this
            assumption
            > > is that no intelligent- purposive-interruption or manipulation
            of the
            > > workings of natural forces ever occurred at the time of life's
            origin
            > > or since.)" (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The
            > > Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories," Lewis &
            > > Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992, p.8)
            > >
            > > But Denton's book was certainly *very* important in highlighting the
            > > problems of Darwinian evolution.
            >
            DN> Yes, I agree with Steve about the Thaxton et al. book. In fact, I was
            aware of its
            DN> importance, but I wanted to highlight Denton because I came back to him,
            in
            DN> 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). Robert Pennock2
            > > >lists a couple of dozen other people who are also associated with the
            > > >movement, and it is noteworthy that virtually all are U.S. Americans
            > > >(Hugh Ross, a Canadian, is an exception).
            > >
            > > SJ: The predominance of Americans in the leadership of the ID movement
            is
            > > interesting. But the movement itself is international. Hugh Ross is not
            > > strictly speaking a member of the ID movement, and he has been publicly
            > > critical of ID for not being explicitly Christian.
            >
            DN> Thanks to Steve for the clarification on Ross. I believe that the
            interest in ID as
            DN> a movement in the USA is directly linked with the constitutional
            difficulty of
            DN> teaching science and religion together in public schools in that
            country.
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > DN>Several of those named have contributed to a proceedings of a Mere
            > > >Christianity conference3. Philosophers are represented in the movement
            > > >by William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, Paul Nelson and
            > > >Stephen C. Meyer.
            > >
            SJ> > Plantinga is also not strictly speaking a member of the ID movement,
            > > although he is sympathetic to it. And Jay Richards (mentioned further
            > > down) is also a philosopher.
            >
            DN> Thanks again.
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > 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.
            > >
            > > SJ: Why is Wells singled out "of particular interest" just because he is
            a
            > > member "of the Unification Church" and because he "has publicly stated
            > > that he has dedicated his life to destroying Darwinism"? The ID movement
            > > is not a specifically Christian movement (it has at least one member,
            > > philosopher Todd Moody, who is not even a theist), and a number of
            > > members who are religious Jews. And that Wells has "dedicated his life
            to
            > > destroying Darwinism" is nothing strange, since Darwinism is the very
            > > antithesis of design, as Darwinists from Darwin to Dawkins have made
            > > *very* plain.
            >
            DN> Thanks!
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > SJ: BTW, I have reconsidered my previous decision not to respond to
            Don's
            > > critique of Wells' Icons of Evolution at:
            > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/733 It
            > > was posted just before I went on holidays and on returning I had 500+
            > > messages to read and hence no time to respond to it. I still have no
            time to
            > > respond to it (!), but I now feel I am obligated to do so, since I have
            read
            > > Icons from cover to cover and I am familiar with Wells' thinking. As it
            > > happens I also am familiar with the Biology text (Campbell, Reece &
            > > Mitchell) hat Don referred to in his review, since it was the main
            textbook
            > > in my two Biology units last year. I hope to post my response (or at
            least
            > > the first part of it) in the next few days.
            >
            > Thanks!
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > 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. 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".
            > >
            > > Sounds good! :-)
            > >
            > > DN>A CRSC document "The Wedge Strategy" started circulating on the
            > > >internet in 1998. This describes a 3-phase strategy to implement ID
            over
            > > >the next 5 then 20 years. 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." 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. Jay Richards , Director of Program Development for CRSC, has
            > > >admitted that much of the content of the document can be found in
            > > >Johnson's book Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds (1995).
            > >
            > > SJ: 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)?
            >
            DN> 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.
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > DN>Johnson has updated his arguments in a new book, The Wedge of
            > > >Truth (2000). 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.
            > >
            > > SJ: This policy briefing is often commented on. But there is nothing
            strange
            > > about members of Congress being fully informed about both sides of the
            > > `culture war' that rages in their electorates.
            >
            DN> Perhaps. It seems significant to me, but then I am not a citizen of the
            USA.
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > 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.
            > >
            > > SJ: How does that follow? The ID movement itself makes no claims for
            > > Creationism (in the Biblical sense). ID is strictly a *scientific*
            theory, i.e.
            > > that there is empirical evidence of design.
            > >
            > > That ID's opponents react to it as though it is just "the new face of
            > > Creationism" exposes their naturalist (i.e. anti-supernaturalist)
            agenda. And
            > > I include those so-called "Theistic Evolutionists" who are strongly
            opposed
            > > to ID, in this. There is no reason why true "Theistic Evolutionists"
            should
            > > be opposed to ID, unless they are strongly influenced by naturalistic
            > > philosophy.
            >
            DN> If ID was just a *scientific* theory , and the debate about it was just
            a matter of
            DN> philosophy, then I would agree with Steve on this. However, to my mind
            IDT cannot
            DN> be separated from the ID political movement, and it seems to me that
            this is indeed
            DN> a continuation of the "creation science" movement, and both are
            concerned with what
            DN> is allowed to be taught in public schools in the USA.

            This is a very important point from Don. A major problem with this
            discussion group - very obvious to me working on this from Britain - is that
            several, to me quite separate, issues have all be mixed together to produce
            at times a rather incoherent discussion.

            An exploration of the validity of Don's statment:

            "IDT cannot be separated from the ID political movement, and it seems to me
            that this is indeed a continuation of the "creation science" movement, and
            both are concerned with what is allowed to be taught in public schools in
            the USA."

            could be of crucial importance. However I suspect it would quickly reduce to
            a pantomime of 'O yes it is!' 'O no it isn't!'.

            I would like to suggest another far more objective route: identifying that
            the following are separate issues and not bringing them together unless
            fully appropriate. (The exact wording and number of headings is of far less
            importance than the basic principle):

            1 The exploration of the universe to identify the most accurate model for
            understanding it - this would require contributions from all academic
            disciplines to create a coherent whole.

            2 The wider implications of worldviews eg what system of ethics can be
            derived from 'materialistic' premises?

            3 Appropriate educational presentation of the complex issues of Creation
            Evolution and Design.

            4 Clauses in the American constitution about separation of state and
            religion.

            5 The American public school curriculum.

            6 American political party manifestos.

            7 The agendas of various American pressure groups.

            8 The internal politics of American academic institutions.

            Clearly points 1 - 3 above have international relevance and can be discussed
            fruitfully, rationally *and without any loss whatsoever* if 4 - 8 are never
            mentioned. An international forum such as this should enable us to obtain a
            far more accurate persective on issues rather than simply shaping all
            discussions in terms of America = the world. Which can easily render them
            meaningless to the rest of the world.

            My personal reason for being part of this group is a desire to explore the
            rationality of belief in a designer ie I am simply pursuing a modern version
            of Paley. Which will obviously have implications in many areas of my life -
            but implications I need to work out in a British context.

            I have found the writings of Johnson, Pearcey, Dembski et al very helpful in
            doing this. I would have no problem aligning myself with a genuinely
            international ID movement which supported people in different countries as
            they work out the implications of Creation Evolution and Design issues in
            their own context. However I certainly do not wish to align myself with an
            American ID Movement with a very complex, multifaceted agenda, some of which
            I quite possibly do not agree with; nor a pseudo-International ID movement
            with an American dominated agenda which is what I suspect we may actually
            have.


            > > 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.
            > >
            > > SJ: Yes. This showed the inroads that naturalism has made even in
            ostensibly
            > > Christian institutions like Baylor. However, it looks like Dembski is
            going
            > > to win that one:
            > >
            > > http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=11381 July 24, 2001
            > > Intelligent design advocate asserts reconciliation with Baylor
            > > faculty By Tammi Reed Ledbetter WACO, Texas (BP)--A
            > > prominent intelligent design advocate said July 23 that
            > > reconciliation with the faculty and administration of Baylor
            > > University could lead to positive dialogue on the relationship
            of
            > > science and religion. Associate research professor William
            > > Dembski's July 23 statement, released through the university's
            > > public relations office, praised the support he has received
            from
            > > Baylor President Robert Sloan and expressions of goodwill
            > > following a year of conflict ignited by Dembski's demotion as
            > > director of the Polanyi Center for Complexity, Information and
            > > Design. Rejecting allegations that intelligent design had
            suffered a
            > > setback at Baylor, Dembski stated that his own research on
            > > intelligent design "continues unimpeded and with the full
            support of
            > > the Baylor administration," and cited a growing interest in such
            > > study. "Despite the tensions of last fall, I have experienced a
            > > substantial reconciliation with Baylor faculty and
            administration,"
            > > he said, noting that he used the term reconciliation
            deliberately. "I
            > > am not referring merely to a cessation of hostilities or truce.
            I have
            > > experienced genuine goodwill on the part of the Baylor faculty
            and
            > > administration, and in particular from President Robert Sloan.
            ..."
            >
            DN> Thanks to Steve for the update on the Baylor situation.
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > >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)
            > > >*****************************************



            Andrew Gough
          • Stephen E. Jones
            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
            Message 5 of 7 , 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
              -------------------------------------------------------------------------
            • Donald Nield
              Dear Steve and Group: ... I find Steve s interest in the motivation of writers (rather in what they say) bordering on the obsessive, but since in this post he
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 7, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Steve and Group:

                "Stephen E. Jones" wrote:

                > 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.
                >
                > SJ: 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.

                I find Steve's interest in the motivation of writers (rather in what they say)
                bordering on the obsessive, but since in this post he is not entirely speculating about
                my motives, but rather seeking information, I am happy to oblige.

                With regard to the articles on YEC the answer is very simple. I was just responding to
                articles/books by Sarfati (I have the spelling correct now, thanks to Steve!). In the
                case of Stimulus, it was an article by Sarfati that in turn was a response to an
                article by Neil Broom and Robert Mann. In essence, my article supported Broom & Mann in
                response to criticism by Sarfati. In the case of the NZST my article was in response to
                YEC literature distributed to NZ schools.

                With regard to the Wells book review -- well, that was just a book review supplemented
                by my suggestion of answers that could be made to students who asked the ten questions
                proposed by Wells.

                The remaining article, on ID in Stimulus, was another matter. I thought that I should
                follow up my article on YEC by an article in which I put forward some alternative to
                YEC. The two contenders for that were ID and TE positions. I read up on ID to see how
                it compared with TE. I concluded that ID was a weaker in comparison with TE. Since ID
                is a comparatively new position, I ended up concentrating on ID. In the final section
                of the article I did put forward my TE position, as an alternative to ID.

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

                I read extensively on the DI and ARN websites. I read the whole of "Mere Creation". I
                read recent books by Dembski and Johnson, as well as that by Behe.
                I lurked for some time on the ARN and KCFS forums -- it was there that I picked up
                posted material critical of ID.

                >
                >
                > [...]
                >
                > 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.
                >
                > SJ: 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. [...]

                Yes. Why is it curious?

                >
                > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                > DN>Today the leading lights are
                > >Phillip Johnson (lawyer), Michael Behe (biochemist) and William Dembski
                > >(mathematician).
                >
                > SJ: Jonathan Wells is also one of the "leading lights" of the IDM, but Don had
                > a reason for omitting him here (see below).

                The reason was that I was going to mention him separately later in the same paragraph
                -- and that is not the reason that Steve is implying that I had. This is another
                instance of Steve's off-beam presumptions.

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

                OK. Whether or not Pennock is justified in linking ID with YEC is another matter. All I
                was doing at this stage was saying something about the prominent members of the ID
                movement.

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

                It is noteworthy because the major conflict between Science and Religion has been a
                Yankee affair. The conflict model has been emphasized as a result of political
                consequences of the fact that science and religion cannot be taught together in US
                public schools.

                In a recent article in a Metanexus monthly newsletter ( I have recently given the link
                on another thread) Dembski has acknowledged the US emphasis on design.


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

                I realized that. Why does Steve find that out of ordinary?
                I recognize that Pennock is himself involved in the US conflict.

                >
                >
                > SJ: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.

                Steve presumes wrongly. I wish that he would not keep on making such presumptions.

                >
                >
                > 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.

                Agreed!

                >
                >
                > 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)

                Agreed.

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

                Thanks to Steve! Yes, it was a slip on my part, an unconscious one. I am not a fan of
                Freud, so I would not read to much into my slip. I am aware that the organizers of the
                "Mere Creation" conference that led to the "Mere Creation" book deliberately chose that
                title on analogy with the well known book "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis, a book
                that I have owned for a very long time.

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

                Yes, I relied on Pennock. I thank Steve for his correction, which I have noted for the
                future.

                >
                >
                > 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.
                >
                > SJ: 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"?

                Steve reads far too much into my statement. I have already said repeatedly on other
                threads that I do not regard Wells' membership of the Unification church as significant
                (and members of the group will observe the way in which I interpolated this fact into
                my statement). I regard it as important that Wells has dedicated his life to destroying
                Darwinism. I have not dedicated my life to defending Darwinism, and again I say that I
                wish that Steve would not keep on making such presumptions. In fact, I think that
                Darwinism in the sense of RMNS has serious limitations. I am defending methodological
                naturalism because I think that is the appropriate way for science to progress.

                >
                >
                > 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). [...]

                OK. I made a mistake here in the precise quotation. Does Steve think that the misquoted
                aim of the CRSC is substantially different from the true aim of the CRSC?

                >
                > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                > 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.
                >
                > SJ: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".

                Again, Steve is making an unjustified presumption. I am not aware that any statement in
                the 1998 article refers to any DI policy that has been revoked. Incidentally , there
                was a six month delay between the date that I submitted by article and its publication.

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

                Well, the DI "white paper" talked about an explicit strategy by the DI. I accept
                Steve's statement that no formal strategy has been adopted by the ID movement as a
                whole -- perhaps it would not be practical to cover the whole big tent by a 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."
                >
                > SJ: 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?

                It is the "replace materialistic explanations" that I do not support. To me, this
                implies an attack on methodological naturalism.

                >
                >
                > 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.
                >
                > SJ: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), [...]

                I have yet to see any positive scientific case in support of ID.

                >
                > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                > 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. [...]
                > --------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Steve reads too much into the word "admitted".

                >

                >
                > 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"?

                At that time I had not read the book. I now have a copy.

                >
                >
                > 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"?

                I am doing my best to point out the distinction between RMNS as science based on
                methodological naturalism (which is justified) , and any social, moral and political
                consequences that are based on metaphysical naturalism (which is not justified).


                >
                >
                > 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.

                Again, Steve is failing to distinguish between the "philosophy" of the Darwinists
                (based on metaphysical naturalism) and methodological naturalism. I agree that most of
                those that see ID as linked to YEC creationism would be Darwinists.

                >

                >
                >
                > 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"?

                I think that because of the failure by Dembski to recognize that one CAN separate
                methodological naturalism from metaphysical naturalism, and his insistence that one
                implies the other, Dembski was attacking ethodological naturalism, and so the members
                of the Biology faculty were justified in their opposition to Dembski.

                >
                >
                > 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)
                >
                > SJ: 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!
                >
                > [...]

                We are just talking about the introduction of my article here. I gave "Mere Creation"
                as a general reference. There was no need for any quotation -- and I did not quote from
                any other book in my introduction. "Icons" had only just been published when I wrote
                my article, and I had not yet read the book-- in any case "Icons" would not have been
                directly relevant to the bulk of my article -- it just happens to be written by one of
                the most prominent members (not necessarily a typical one) of the DI.

                Steve has pointed out some inaccuracies (and consequent unfairness) in detail in my
                introduction. He has not demonstrated that it is inaccurate overall.

                Don
              • Brian D Harper
                At 05:57 PM 10/7/01 +0800, Steve wrote: [...] ... I have a hard time understanding this statement unless it is based on the premise that ID is a Christian
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 9, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 05:57 PM 10/7/01 +0800, Steve wrote:

                  [...]


                  >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.

                  I have a hard time understanding this statement unless it is
                  based on the premise that ID is a Christian movement. Can
                  you clarify?

                  Also, IMHO, speculations about motives, priorities etc. should not
                  enter these discussions.


                  Brian Harper
                  Associate Professor
                  Mechanical Engineering
                  The Ohio State University
                  "It appears to me that this author is asking much
                  less than what you are refusing to answer."
                  Galileo as Simplicio in <Dialogue Concerning
                  the Two Chief World Systems>
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.