"Thanks" for the info, Keith.
The pattern is familiar: (1) Presume that evolution = Darwinism; (2) Define
Darwinism to include explicitly anti-theistic, naturalistic propositions;
(3) Allow no distinction between the scientific concept of biotic evolution
and the exploitive rhetoric of naturalism; (4) Accept the rhetoric of the
preachers of naturalism when they claim that evolution warrants their
naturalistic worldview; (5) Conclude that any teaching favorable to
evolution is the enemy of Christianity.
On this YEC and ID agree. However, ID's allowing or encouraging the YEC
advocates to jump on the ID bandwagon may cost the ID movement dearly in the
long run. The ID advocates may have to admit their episodic creationism
(which focuses attention on episodes of form-imposing divine intervention as
essential to their concept of divine creative action). As I've been saying
for years, what is called ID Theory is really a claim that some organisms
and biotic subsystems could have been actualized only by episodes of
extra-natural assembly. IDT is really EAT (Extra-natural Assembly Theory).
Howard Van Till
----------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 19 2001 - 11:52:26 EST