Thanks to Phillip Johnson (or, Darwinism in its Death Throes)

_{Gil Dodgen

November 18, 2007

Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

On a private listserve which shall remain unnamed, I posted the following to Phillip Johnson. Phil deserves a tremendous amount of gratitude for his insight and courage.

Dear Phillip,

Neither you nor I have any notion of the magnitude of the ripple effects that have emanated from Darwin On Trial, but I can tell you this: That book cut through all the Darwinian story-telling presented as science like a razor. Darwin On Trial, combined with Michael Denton’s first book, made me slap myself on the forehead and proclaim, “Holy mackerel, I’ve been conned!”

Darwinism is in its evidential, mathematical, intellectual, philosophical, and ethical death throes — thus all the hysteria on the part of its adamant proponents, whose meaning in life (or lack thereof) is inextricably linked to it.

Thanks for your contribution in helping to reveal and clarify the essential issues, which have been, and continue to be, veiled in a pedantic smokescreen by Dawinists.

Gil

Comments

tyke: "Who exactly are you talking about, Stephen? If you mean me, I would take exception to your characterization." I did not have you in mind. My references apply to those who make extravagant claims about religion's so-called hold on ID. Also, I am not too pleased about all those mindless comments, implying that ID logic is subsumed into "Christian logic."StephenB_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

#100:
Some people need to remember that we platonists, we pagans, were the very first design proponents.
That’s false. It seems that someone like you should never forget the Jews. If you mean those naive, anthropomorphised creation stories of Genesis, then I think you are wrong to characterize them as philosophically rigorous arguments for design (which is what we're talking about, right?) Any philosophical content, any "design theory" in Judaism came from Platonism and Stoicism, via hellenized Jews like Philo of Alexandria.
It is perfectly possible to come to ID type conclusions as a noble pagan searching for the truth who is willing to let Nature speak of its own limitations, yet clearly impossible as the sort of pagan who adheres to a Nature based religion of one form or another. The latter sort of pagan has always blurred forms together in unnatural ways based on their own imagination instead of letting the evidence of form throughout Nature speak to its origins in the way that it is naturally designed to do so.
Oh yeah? Says you! I'm not sure I understand at all the last sentence. And I don't think that you can characterize either Plato or Plotinus as "let it all hang out" nature worshippers. Paganism was perfectly capable of recognizing the limits of design in nature - better, I would say, than someone wedded to the idea of a single, omnipotent god. At the same time, they did not entirely remove God from nature, as Christianity has done so destructively. Through progression and reversion, the hypostases separate from each other only by containing and imitating their superior. The human soul, and the rocks of the earth contain not only the marks of their own hypostasis (Psyche, or the formative logoi of nature) but also traces of Nous, even of the henads - and the possibility of return and assimilation to those hypostases.
Being a Wiccan has more to do with believing the pontifications of some unemployed fellow in a bathrobe saying “Do what you will.” than with good or bad faith. Make of that what you will.
What I make of that is that you sound like a religious bigot! I used to be a Gardnerian witch; yours is a grotesque caricature of a beautiful Craft (one I left only because of my discovery of the path of Proclus and the Olympic henads). Love, life and light, Zoe. Alexandria, 415. We shall never forgetPlatosPlaything_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

tyke, "If they can do it in the faint hope that one day they can detect intelligent alien life, why isn’t anyone willing to step up to the plate in the cause of intelligent design research?" Actually, if you take a look at a lot of the posts on this site, I think you'll find the response of: They already are. (There's quite a number of posts about recent scientific developments, where the OP mentions how ID research is carrying on whether or not people choose to call it that.) There's a diversity of views in support of ID. Mine is that the main benefit ID brings to the table is philosophical and related perspective. Looking at the same data from a different vantage point, with a different appreciation and attitude. I'm just one lone person, but I'm more concerned that people with ID inclinations are not ostracized or punished. Sure, ID projects like what was supposed to go on at Baylor would be nice, and certainly shouldn't be stomped down on, but the moment proponents aren't subject to institutional pressure, I'll be quite happy.nullasalus_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Who exactly are you talking about, Stephen? If you mean me, I would take exception to your characterization.tyke_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

There is something very abnormal about this discussion, and I am not sure that I can detect the abnormality. For one thing, normal people make statements, get responses, and then make new statements based on the feedback received from former statements. If the feedback is negative, they will normally ask increasingly subtle questions that direct the discussion in a slightly different direction. As one thinker put it, “Education is a series of questions, the answers to which cause confusion and frustration and a whole new series of questions at a higher and more important level.” This discussion does not even come close to meeting that standard, which is one reason why my interest in it has been limited. My guess is that some folks around here are probing for a sore spot, presumably in hopes of generating a mindless response or a thoughtless quote that might entertain the gallery at other websites. I think Gil is right about one thing. This could have been a tribute to a great man. Philip Johnson was a big thinker, a trailblazer, and a man of great courage. There are at least a hundered different ways of saying that, and that is what this thread should have been about. Having said that, I appreciate kairosfocus' heroic attempt to draw inferences about the kinds of mental states that drive this kind of abnormal communication. Perhaps he can do the impossible and make sense out of all this foolishness. Meanwhile, I will go with my instincts, which tell me that the probings do not constitute good faith diologue.StephenB_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

I'm with tyke. Let's cure cancer. That'll turn some heads.Nochange_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

but that there has been a subversion of science by ideologues in service to an agenda that IMHCO actually blocks — and even in certain well-known current cases persecutes — scientific progress; namely evolutionary materialism.
Then why not do an end-around? There are enough billionaires and wealthy institutions sympathetic to the cause of ID to set up several fully staffed, fully funded research programs, and I am sure that there are dozens of private Christian colleges who would be more than willing to host them. When NASA abandoned SETI funding, private donors like Microsoft's Paul Allen stepped into the breach and there is now a vibrant, if small, set of SETI research programs around the country. All that in the face of skepticism from mainstream astronomers. If they can do it in the faint hope that one day they can detect intelligent alien life, why isn't anyone willing to step up to the plate in the cause of intelligent design research? I keep hearing that such a revolution would change everything, that our outlook on the world would never be the same again. Yet I see nothing. Not even the slightest effort to get serious funding. And the only journal set up for publishing ID papers hasn't even had a new edition for several years. That's what's so frustrating about the appointment of Michael Medved to the DI fellowship. While he may be an able speaker, it's just more money and time spent on PR. Bankrolling a half dozen authors to keep churning out popular science books on ID once per year isn't going to cut it. The DI, or some other organization, needs to get serious about doing the research. Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, have all created, from scratch, institutes of higher education focusing on theology, education, and the legal profession, completely circumventing the traditional powers that held sway in those fields, and they have been very successful -- especially Robertson's Reagent University. So it can be done, and can be done successfully. And given the importance attributed to ID within those same communities, there is no reason I can see why it cannot be done for ID too, and soon.tyke_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

If you say that these material things actually constitute evidence, YOU ARE LYING. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD.... Etc.etc. Would you limit the Word to the Bible? Were the brain events and hands which wrote the biblical texts material or immaterial to its creation? A note from a satirist, "From a torch something drops occasionally. A little lump of pitch." --Karl Kraus I thought I'd mention it, randomly.mynym_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Some people need to remember that we platonists, we pagans, were the very first design proponents. That's false. It seems that someone like you should never forget the Jews. ...provide some apparently much needed historical perspective. Indeed. Christians are still using our best arguments without acknowledgment! It is perfectly possible to come to ID type conclusions as a noble pagan searching for the truth who is willing to let Nature speak of its own limitations, yet clearly impossible as the sort of pagan who adheres to a Nature based religion of one form or another. The latter sort of pagan has always blurred forms together in unnatural ways based on their own imagination instead of letting the evidence of form throughout Nature speak to its origins in the way that it is naturally designed to do so. Rather than accusing pagans of bad faith, other ID supporters could reach out to the Wiccan... Being a Wiccan has more to do with believing the pontifications of some unemployed fellow in a bathrobe saying "Do what you will." than with good or bad faith. Make of that what you will.mynym_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

#90:
I think anyone looking at this site in particular would be happily surprised. The amount of sectarianism is minimal - from catholics to baptists to anglicans to mormons to shintoists to buddhists to agnostics (and who knows, maybe even atheists), ID’s a subject exclusive to no one side or faith.
Thank you, nullasalus, for a much-needed injection of moderation and sanity. I don't like the implication of another writer that my presence here is just a college stunt. Some people need to remember that we platonists, we pagans, were the very first design proponents. Perhaps some time spent with Proclus's commentary on the Timaeus would do everyone some good, and provide some apparently much needed historical perspective. Christians are still using our best arguments without acknowledgment! What attracted me to ID in the first place was something I read about multiple designers hypothesis, and idea which seemed to be suggested by some of the field-work of ID scientists. This seemed to me to be a remarkable piece of pagan natural theology (although I hasten to repeat that I see ID as, in itself, religiously neutral. That is just my interpretation of the hypothesis). Thanks also to Carl for welcoming me in to the "big tent"! Rather than accusing pagans of bad faith, other ID supporters could reach out to the Wiccan, Asatru and classical pagan communities. There is an untapped vein of support there. Peace and blessings, Zoe. Alexandria, 415. We shall never forgetPlatosPlaything_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

"Also, some religious people like Solon seriously scare people away from anything with religious implications" So are you suggesting Intelligent Design is a materialistic science? If so then it is no different from Darwinism. If people are scared of the Truth let them burry their heads in the sand. Gosh if we're afraid to speak openly why speak at all? TimToolbox_Tim_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

tyke
I just think it's counterproductive to claim victory so boldly when really the first skirmishes have barely begun.
Once again, my point has been missed. I didn't claim "victory," and I am perfectly realistic about the length of time it will take for a paradigm shift (just read "The Priority of the Paradigm" chapter in Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis). I said that Darwinism (RM/RV + NS and step-by-tiny-step incrementalism -- the core bio-generative mechanism and claim) is in its evidential death throes. I said nothing about the imminent rejection of the theory within the science community or the imminent triumph and acceptance of ID. When a theory is true, accumulating evidence will point ever more forcefully to its truth, but the exact opposite is happening for Darwinism, as pointed out in Behe's Edge. The unwillingness of some to accept the evidence is irrelevant concerning the truth status of a theory.GilDodgen_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

PS: Thanks yet again Patrick and Mark et al over at Akismet -- to my surprise that went straight through! (And yes -- sigh! -- I am now on a first name basis with Akismet's trouble-shooters.) --> I also add that the evo mat research programme is in serious trouble with the facts on the ground, with several credible reseaerch programmes that impinge on it, and with the methodology of science. --> So, if not dead, it may well be mortally wounded. However, a mortally wounded animal at bay can be very, very dangerous indeed. [And, mortally wounded is I think more accurate than either "dead," or "not in trouble at all."]kairosfocus_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT}

H'mm: I see Carl is asking where I am when needed. Unfortunately, I am battling a return of the Akismet bugs that have relegated me to all sorts of difficulties at UD several times now. That, on top of local IP headaches that lead to intermittent inability to access even commonly proxy-stored pages like Yahoo. But, enough of my web headaches. On key points: 1] Selective hyperskepticism? Nope, the issue is not that several commenters have used double-standards, but that there is credible reason to doubt the coherence of Solon as a real -- as opposed to artificially set-up -- personality. In short, there is a legitimate question on the sorts of evidential issues summarised here. Notice especially principles 7, 9, 10, 11. Excerpting:
7] Credit due to testimony: The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances. [p.31.] 9] Internal coherence and external corroboration: Every event which actually transpires has its appropriate relation and place in the vast complication of circumstances, of which the affairs of men consist; it owes its origin to the events which have preceded it, it is intimately connected with all others which occur at the same time and place, and often with those of remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to numberless others which succeed. In all this almost inconceivable contexture, and seeming discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the fact, which really happened, tallies exactly with every other contemporaneous incident, related to it in the remotest degree, it is not possible for the wit of man to invent a story, which, if closely compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may not be shown to be false. [p. 39.]
"Solon," it seems -- and pardon this if it comes across as condescending, S if you are as you present yourself -- may simply be of low ability [being unfortunately unacquainted with say a sophisticated reading of the natural theology of Rom 1 - 2 and related texts [e.g. start with Locke in section 5 of his intro to his Essay on Human Understanding . . . .], much less the wider issues of the philosophy of inference to best explanation on matters of causation and origins, long before we actually get to the issues of origins/ "historical" science addressed by ID thinkers]. But equally, someone above has IMHCO tellingly pointed out an inconsistency in the level of language -- and the resulting consistency with the competing explanation of a less than perfectly executed Sokal-style parody. And, given the context of the wider controversy, prudence is a sufficient issue to warrant the caution that "Solon" -- absent a change of approach consistent with the Spirit of Christ [diversity of approach, disagreement or even error are not lying! Cf here 2 Tim 2:23 - 26, 1 Pet 3:15 - 16] -- may well be an inept, intended Sokal-style parody. So, on balance of evidence, caution is required here. Not yet proof to moral certainty, but we need to be cautious given the extremely hostile environment. Solon, if you are real and serious, follow up my always linked to the contact me in my reference web site, and then let us discuss, maybe in my own blog. If I have reason to conclude that you are a parody or find that you are abusive, I will label you a spammer in my email account and will report back here on my findings. (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt accorded to the real-world Apollos by A & P in Ac 18 - 19.) Oddly, this is a case of inference to characterisation of agents and motivations of agents -- extensions to the issues currently addressed in Design Theory. Once we are confident there is an agent, then we can try to figure out who or what it is, and why it is acting. Such further issues are familiar in the courtroom or the History Department, but AFAIK, no-one has come up with a successful scientific framework for such investigations [discounting, for good reason, e.g. Marxist theories]. Of course, if someone has, it may well be under deep wraps as that would be of great interest to several intelligence agencies. ( [TFIC] H'mm, where is DI getting all of that money from to run its "infamous" Wedge . . . ?[/TFIC] [TFIC -- Tongue firmly in cheek . . . ;-) ] Now, referring to my always linked: why is it that no-one has entertained the notion that Solon is "lucky noise" that just happened to in this sub-cosmos of the multiverse, emerged from the net's inevitable noise? What does that tell us about the relevance of the Dembski-style explanatory filter? 2] Tyke,57: [(1) Warning: selectively citing GEM of TKI, 35] Instead, it is a question of how one looks at and seeks to explain the empirical data. [(2) responding . . .] Which is precisely what young-Earth creationists have been saying for years . . . Now, isn't it interesting to see what the excerpt looks like if Tyke were to go on to the very next words I posted in 35 [thanks Patrick . . .]:
Once one imposes evolutionary materialism as a criterion of science — and so-called methodological naturalism boils down to only accepting explanations/ models/ theories compatible with a cascade of such claimed chance + mechanical necessity only “unfoldings” from hydrogen to humans — then, one has pre-judged the question individually or institutionally long before evidence is ever given a voice [snip off remarks on Judge Jones, ACLU and NOVA] . . . . There is a name for that sort of thing: begging the question. . . . . If it is in fact true that agency — the third causal pattern in the triad, chance, mechanical natural regularity, agency — had something to do with origin of life, body-plan level biodiversity, irreducibly complex biosystems etc, or the observed intensely fine-tuned cosmos, then “science” as the materialists who dominate key science, education and philosophy institutions CANNOT find out the truth. In short, sadly, science has been betrayed and corrupted by the materialists. So, we have to first of all clearly and consistently address this question-begging distortion of the nature of science.
I then linked a discussion on the issue. In short, by selectively citing out of context, Tyke here plainly set up and knocked over a strawman. What I in fact was addressing is a much more basic question, namely that there seems to be a focus on the need for new research. The root problem, though, is not that new research is nice or needed [which I actually agree with], but that there has been a subversion of science by ideologues in service to an agenda that IMHCO actually blocks -- and even in certain well-known current cases persecutes -- scientific progress; namely evolutionary materialism. For, as anyone who looks at my always linked will see, I point out there, with reasons, why I hold that the evolutionary materialist research programme [i.e the philosophy in its scientific guise] is seriously challenged so soon as it has to face the unfettered implications of basic, well-established information theory and statistical thermodynamics. [Cf 35 for more details and follow up the always linked through my handle for my main argument.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

I am sympathetic to ID, but victory is far from close. Major reason why scientists don't entertain ID ideas seriously is because past had taught us that claims of "magic" are eventually debunked, and they don't want to look like fools. Also, some religious people like Solon seriously scare people away from anything with religious implications. If only the more fervent IDists insisted less that they and God are BFF's and stopped insisting that people believe their bizarro stories and dogmatic ideas of right and wrong, then scientists might become more open to ID, especially since there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that complex chemical systems can self-organize for no apparent reason, or that mind can "emerge" from nerve cells.Anna_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT}

I tried to submit 2 comments in the past, only to be told I type too quickly?????Anna_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

I apologize if I have offended anyone. All I was trying to do was inject a bit of reality into the discussion. I just think it's counterproductive to claim victory so boldly when really the first skirmishes have barely begun. I was being serious about likening the current state of ID to pin pricks. That's all they are so far. Does anyone think ID will win the day if we simply sit on our backsides and wait for the scientists to suddenly "get it"? It ain't gonna happen. There's a lot more to winning the hearts and minds of scientists than publishing a few books critiquing their theories. I think getawitness is correct in saying that it was probably unwise to publish a letter containing such hyperbole in a public forum. While the sentiment may be well intended, it really does lay you open to criticism. If you think I was harsh, what do you thing the Darwinists reading this forum are saying right about now?tyke_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

Let’s see, the pseudonym is Solon. I assume the reference is to Solon the law giver, who came to prominence in Athens early in the 6th century B.C.E. during a war with Megara for possession of Salamis, and was elected eponymous archon in the year 594, as recounted in Plutarch’s Lives around 100 C.E. Now, unless our Solon is an accomplished polymathic autodidact, it’s extremely unlikely that this moniker would have been chosen by someone who only claims to repair small engines, teach Sunday school, and shepherd a youth group, especially when the diction in all of Solon’s posts alternates between the correct use of a Latinate vocabulary and very simple, clear, but ungrammatical English. It’s as if Shakespeare had put bits and pieces of Hamlet’s soliloquies in Falstaff’s mouth. Give me a break.D.A.Newton_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

bFast, "It is quite intriguing that many of the ID community find ourselves in church on Sunday, and in prayer every day, yet we agree that the exploration of scientific truth needs to be unfettered by an a-priori committment to the holy writ." I think anyone looking at this site in particular would be happily surprised. The amount of sectarianism is minimal - from catholics to baptists to anglicans to mormons to shintoists to buddhists to agnostics (and who knows, maybe even atheists), ID's a subject exclusive to no one side or faith. Actually, a long time ago, I remember some materialists in here crowing about how Jonathan Wells was affiliated with Sun Myung Moon, and railing how this should infuriate christians. What a laugh.nullasalus_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

Hmmm... I didn't read this PlatosPlaything fellow when i last posted. Perhaps this is a college stunt.Nochange_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

(85) Now that's excellent! The "big tent" just got a whole lot bigger!Carl Sachs_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Now I've heard it all. 'Athiests' proclaiming the Bible is true, and the so-called Christians calling him a phony, because 'we're not practicing Christianity here'. Careful you don't denounce Christ 3 times... Why don't you just give the guy a break.Nochange_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

Gil, I, for one, wholeheartedy understand your frustration with this thread. As an appreciation to Philip Johnson, well, it started out very well, but died at about post #16. That said, I think that this is a very useful thread. It portrays the clear separation of church and science that is at the heart of the ID community. There is a refreshing universal rejection of Solon's "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" philosophy. If ever there was a thread that proves that ID is not fundimentally a "Christian" or "Religous" perspective, this is it. It is quite intriguing that many of the ID community find ourselves in church on Sunday, and in prayer every day, yet we agree that the exploration of scientific truth needs to be unfettered by an a-priori committment to the holy writ. ID is a search for truth, all truth will prove to be God's truth without us forcing it to fit the mold.bFast_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

I'm appalled by comments from Solon such as:
I would never attempt to classify ID as religion. In the broadest sense, it is not, it is the explicit formulation of the book of Genesis and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
and
The goal cannot be reached with out acknowledging our debt to the Creator of the bible, and all this postmodern mumbling about we don’t know who the designer is IS LYING. IF YOU SAY THE DESIGNER COULD BE ALIENS YOU ARE LYING. WE KNOW WHO THE DESIGNER IS: JESUS CHRIST.
I certainly want to see ID taught in schools, as much as anyone here. But as a follower of classical pagan Neoplatonism, I certainly don't want my children indoctrinated with any nonsense about a Galilean carpenter being a god! I teach my children, at home, about the Olympic gods and their place in the henadic realm; schools have no business contradicting the religious instruction they receive at home. I should also add that I want ID to be teaching only the faults in Darwinism. Critics here sometimes complain that ID needs to provide causal explanations, set time limits to the action of the designer etc. But this is nonsense. I suspect that my idea of creation (via emanation from the henads through to natural logoi) will be very different from that of a Christian. Specifying anything beyond the fact of design would be to commit to a religious viewpoint. And ID, I sincerely believe, is religiously neutral.PlatosPlaything_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

For my part Gil, I apologize. To any with administrator privileges, please delete my comments on this thread.Apollos_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

Gil I don't understand what is the problem. I love Phillip Johnson like you apparently do and I think he would make a much better President of these United States than any of the impostors or charaltans that either party has produced so far. And nothing I said after that is contrarian or against the bible but is sound Christian reasoning. And if we cannot use good Christian reason to address intelligent Design then maybe it is not friendly to christians or not friendly to reason. However I believe that you are wrong, that ID is good christian reason. but when you try to take the Christian God out of Intelligent Design you are constructing a false idol that does not exist. And there are repercussion for this. Remember, the key point of resisting materialisms and athiesm is to win souls for Christ. And if that is not important to you I wonder why you are interested in Intelligent Design?Solon_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

Gil, I understand you're disappointed at what's happened with the letter. But it may have been a tactical error to post what was, in effect, a gushing fan note to a widely read blog. The outcome is bound to be unpredictable. Who could have imagined that your letter, which says that "Darwinism is in its evidential, mathematical, intellectual, philosophical, and ethical death throes," would be followed by a post including a quote from Dr. Dembski that ID critics "have been announcing intelligent design’s demise every year since 1990"?getawitness_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

I am extremely disappointed. My hope was that my post would inspire those in the ID community to express their appreciation to Phillip Johnson for his wisdom, insight, and courage, but this thread has completely degenerated. I am not a moderator at UD, just a contributor. If I were a moderator, I would delete Solon's first comment and all that has ensued as a result of it.GilDodgen_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

In any case, how many born-again Christians do you know who would go by the name of a pagan lawgiver and reformer?tyke_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Well, sock puppet or no, he/she/it is sure taking up a load of you peoples' time on this thread...tyke_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply