|"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Joined: Feb. 2005
|Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 20 2006,23:25)|
Now, moving on, for all those who think ID and YEC have something in common let's look at this a little more closely:
From Walter Lammerts, the co-founder of the Creation Research Society, 1975: "Our aim is a rather audacious one, namely, the complete re-evaluation of science from the theistic viewpoint."
From the DI's Wedge Document, 1989: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Yeah, I can, uh, really see the big difference there . . . .
[ID only real statement is the complexity of life implies a Designer, YEC says that designer is the God of the Bible and the only relevant science text is the Old Testament.]
From William Dembski: "Intelligent design is the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
From Phillip Johnson: ""Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
From the Wedge Document: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
By golly, Skeptic, you're right --- certainly no mention of God or the Bible anywhere by ID . . . . (snicker) (giggle)
Oh, I noticed that you didn't answer my questions, so I'll ask again:
What is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI says it wants churches to defend, why does it want them to defend it, and where are these humungous differences between ID and creationism?
Take your time, Skeptic.
Next time, I'll ask you why the authors and editors of "Pandas and People" wrote four drafts of their book using the word "creationism" and then suddenly in 1987 changed all the "creationism" references to "intelligent design theory", without changing anything else in the book -- if, as you want us to believe, the two have utterly absolutely completely totally unalterably nothing at all whatsoever to do with each other in any way shape or form.
I'll be polite and not ask you about the Supreme Court decision in 1987 that, um, might have prompted that rather sudden change.
I look forward to your not answering my simple questions. Again.
Editor, Red and Black Publishers