"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> Allan, here's another example of ID sweet-talk:
>
> "Not to put too fine a point on it, the Darwinian establishment views
> theistic evolution as a weak-kneed sycophant that desperately wants the
> respectability that comes with being a full-blooded Darwinist but refuses to
> follow the logic of Darwinism through to the end. It takes courage to give
> up the comforting belief that life has a purpose. It takes courage to live
> without the consolation of an afterlife. Theistic evolutionists lack the
> stomach to face the ultimate meaninglessness of life, and it is this failure
> of courage that makes them contemptible in the eyes of full-blooded
> Darwinists." William Dembski, in _Intelligent Design_, InterVarsity Press,
> p. 112.
>
> If someone wanted to misrepresent and insult his fellow-Christians more
> harshly, how much sharper a point would one need?????
>
> As I said before, there's a lot to learn about the ID movement from its
> tactics.
>
> It has long been a favorite tactic of anti-evolutionists to cite the
> criticisms by hard-core Darwinian atheists of the theistic aspects of theistic
> evolution. The fact that Simpson, Provine et al are then being allowed to
> function not as scientists or even philosophers but as expert theologians
> seems to escape these folks. It's a confusion explainable in many cases by
> the fact that these folks don't know much about theology themselves. I don't
> think that's the case with Dembskii. Maybe that argumentative groove is just
> so well-worn among anti-evolutionists that he slipped into it without
> realizing what he was doing. In the spirit of "put the best construction on
> everything" we can at least hope so.
Shalom,
George
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 22 2000 - 16:15:21 EDT