Reflectorites
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 10:33:53 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
[...]
>SJ>I don't think that most IDers believe in common descent but
>>it might be fair to say that many IDers (including probably
>>Johnson) don't necessarily disagree with it. For example
>>Johnson seems untroubled that Mike Behe believes in common
>>descent.
WE>Johnson's complacency concerning the beliefs of fellow ID proponents
>is, indeed, a wonder to behold. But Johnson's complacency over Mike
>Behe's mealy-mouthed I-see-no-reason-to-disbelieve-common-descent
What's "mealy-mouthed" about that? It is a perfectly reasonable scientific
statement.
I suspect that what Wesley is really upset about is that Mike Behe
punctures his attempts to equate ID with YEC!
WE>pales into insignificance compared to the complacency Johnson shows
>for Jonathan Wells' rather more enthusiastic belief that Rev. Moon
>is today's Jesus Christ.
><http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/0-Toc.htm>
Wesley is again confusing ID and Christian creationism. The fact is that the
ID movement includes agnostics and Jews, neither of whom would agree
with Johnson on who Jesus Christ is.
The fact is that ID and Christianity are two entirely different things and
nothing better shows this by the fact that one of the leaders of the ID
movement is a Moonie.
When I found about this it actually enhanced Johnson in my eyes. Many
Christian leaders would be concerned about the public relations liability
that Wells might represent. The fact is that Wells from the very beginning
told Johnson he was a member of the Unification Church and Johnson still
welcomed him into the fledgling ID movement. Phil Johnson is a *very*
special human being!
WE>I think trying to conclude that Johnson holds or does not hold any
>particular stance cannot reasonably be argued by his complacency
>towards others who hold antithetical stances. It simply does not
>follow.
The fact is that it *does* "follow" in *both* cases. Johnson is quite
"complacent" about having even in the *leadership* of the ID movement
those who are not orthodox Christians and those who believe in common
ancestry.
Wesley's problem is that this does not fit the "Intelligent Design
Creationist" stereotype that Wesley and his ilk have tried to foster. It
would be so much easier for them if Johnson restricted membership of the
ID movement to orthodox creationist Christians!
Sooner or later it might sink in to Wesley (and others) that the ID
movement is a *scientific* movement, which is concerned with
demonstrating the empirical evidence for the existence of intelligent cause
in the history of life, and not for who the cause Agent or agency was.
Johnson (and I) believe that the Christian God was the cause Agent, but
that cannot be demonstrated from *nature* (that's why there is a Bible).
And since the scope of the ID movement is *nature* (and not the Bible),
Johnson can quite consistently join common cause with anyone who
believes that there is evidence of design in nature, no matter what their
other beliefs are about who was behind that design or how it was effected.
Indeed, if Johnson denied membership of the ID movement to Wells (on
the grounds he had unorthodox views about Jesus Christ), or to Mike Behe
(on the grounds that he believed in common ancestry), then Wesley would
no doubt be among the first to accuse Johnson of hypocrisy. The bottom
line is that it wouldn't matter what Johnson did. In the eyes of Wesley and
his ilk, Johnson would always be damned if he did, and damned if he didn't!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The firm step toward explaining the appearance of living things had been
taken. The elementary organic constituents required for the construction of
the big molecules, from which life subsequently developed, may be formed
spontaneously and easily. It seemed that once the first steps had been
taken, the others would have followed easily. Research scientists threw
themselves unhesitatingly into the frenetic race to be the first to synthesize
living matter in the laboratory; but so far no one has succeeded. There are,
in fact, many thresholds to be crossed. Life is based upon two mutually
interactive systems, one of which makes provision for growth and the other
for reproduction. The systems are also interdependent, and neither may
exist without the other. Which was formed first? The answer that they were
formed simultaneously is too simple to be acceptable. The problem of how
the first living organism was formed has still to be solved." (Minelli G.,
"The Evolution of Life: The History of Life on Earth," [1985], Facts on
File: New York NY, 1986, p.5)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 18:21:19 EDT