tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post113424487103305699..comments2024-03-25T19:00:40.046-06:00Comments on The Constructive Curmudgeon: Groothuis on Intelligent DesignDouglas Groothuis, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-65576658894616243462007-07-04T06:48:00.000-06:002007-07-04T06:48:00.000-06:00gee, how original. Argument from perceived design....gee, how original. <BR/><BR/>Argument from perceived design.<BR/>Argument from irreducible complexity.<BR/><BR/>Very weak arguments, and the best the ID/creationist club can up with. Bah.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-1134925497225042872005-12-18T10:04:00.000-07:002005-12-18T10:04:00.000-07:00I have little idea what Mike Musselman is talking ...I have little idea what Mike Musselman is talking about. There is a group called Reconstructionists (or Theonomists) who want to make "biblical law" the law of the land. The patriarch was the prolific R.J. Rushdoony, who died a few years ago. The leading theorist and theologian was Greg Bahnsen, who died in the late 1990s. Gary Demar is a present writer and speaker of this persuasion, as is Gary North. <BR/><BR/>However, these folks are extreme conservatives (almost libertarians), and oppose the institution of public education entirely. See Rushdoony's, "The Messianic Character of American Education," for example. They never wanted to ban the teaching of Darwinism from the public schools and insert creationism. They wanted to ban publish schools. Moreover, these people did not support the creationist push of the 1980s for just this reason, although they are creationists. Their emphasis has always been on private education. And, no, I am not of their number, although I have learned much from them over the years.<BR/><BR/>The Institute for Creation Research folks pushed for the "two model" approach until some decisive legal failures in the latter 1980s. But they never wanted to keep Darwinism out of the public schools. They wanted creationism taught along with Darwinism. And, no, I am not of their number, but I have learned some things from them as well.<BR/><BR/>So, I have no idea what Mike is refering to. The ID movement is scientifically quite sophisticated and legally savvy. For the reasons why ID is not banned under previous legal rulings against creationism, see the brilliant book by Francis Beckwith, "Law, Darwinism, and Public Policy."<BR/><BR/>Doug Groothuis, ID cheerleaderDouglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-1134847853656520402005-12-17T12:30:00.000-07:002005-12-17T12:30:00.000-07:00While much that is posted here is good and true, I...While much that is posted here is good and true, I think it would be only fair of us to admit that not so long ago, a very vocal segment of the so-called "religious right" would happily have used the political process to strip the schools of biology texts that mentioned evolution, and made no bones about their desire to establish a theocracy, were they to get the chance. And they saw advocacy of "intellingent design" as a first step towrd their goal.<BR/><BR/>That was no "straw man." I met people such as these and they were real. Just as real as the Aldous Huxley's who jumped at the chance to use Darwin's theory to promote their own ends. And these Zealots were sometimes mean-spirited and ... well, unchristian, too. (They certainly scared the wits out of me.) <BR/><BR/>While the theocrats certainly don't speak for the rest of us (they no more represent all of the church than Huxley speaks for all evolutionists), I think we have to "own" them to the extent that we certainly did not stand up and cry with one voice that they were not our representatives.<BR/><BR/>I guess I think "they" came by their fears fo "us" somewhat honestly. Perhaps if we admitted that evolutionists fears are not entirely groundless, and that we had some understanding about why they might have them, then some might grow ears to hear?Mike Musselmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03518667014535869212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-1134415970954990142005-12-12T12:32:00.000-07:002005-12-12T12:32:00.000-07:00Another point of confusion in the debate has been ...Another point of confusion in the debate has been this:<BR/><BR/>Some people on every side assume ID means special creation of each species. I think Behe believes in guided, common descent of species. Most of the "overwhelming scientific evidential support for evolution" is nothing more than fossils, which are irrelevant if Behe believes in common descent.Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071293159669141162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-1134415135652812342005-12-12T12:18:00.000-07:002005-12-12T12:18:00.000-07:00I am wondering if Christians are not shooting them...I am wondering if Christians are not shooting themselves in the foot by supporting ID. <A HTTP://LAWNRANGERS.BLOGSPOT.COM/2005/12/INTELLIGENT-DESIGN-ROMAN-CATHOLICISM.HTML HREF="" REL="nofollow">Here</A> is why I think so.Dignanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07059291825054340836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-1134328732330983542005-12-11T12:18:00.000-07:002005-12-11T12:18:00.000-07:00Great article, sir! Though I doubt it'll change an...Great article, sir! Though I doubt it'll change any evolutionist's mind. After all if they assume materialism how much more would they assume with your article? BTW, I actually replied to a blog by an evolutionist who <A HREF="http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2005/12/evolution-impossible.html" REL="nofollow">straw manned ID</A>.Frank Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126023605395414714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-1134250008215476612005-12-10T14:26:00.000-07:002005-12-10T14:26:00.000-07:00I know I'm insufficiently "schooled" to really bri...I know I'm insufficiently "schooled" to really bring much to this discussion. But I'll try.<BR/><BR/>So the data observed cries out for some metaphysical considerations. In science we arrive to considerations outside the scope of the physical data itself.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if this is the crux of the matter for the status quo. That they will not retreat from their naturalism which seems inherent to science. That any such retreat would become unscientific in their eyes.<BR/><BR/>I'm wondering if within a post-modern influence there may evolve more of an openness to surrendering naturalism while retaining good science.Ted M. Gossardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580691315315271791noreply@blogger.com