ID movement:
From: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@i...>
Date: Tue May 18, 2004 10:08 am
Subject: Re: I have felt I have had to leave the ID movement due to my advocacy of common ancestry
Group
I wish to announce that I have left the ID movement, my position having
become increasingly untenable, due to my advocacy of of common ancestry within ID, it being finally suggested by Phil Johnson that I leave.
While the ID movement's *official* position is that "intelligent design is
compatible with ... God seamlessly melding all organisms together into one
great tree of life":
"Where does intelligent design fit within the creation-evolution
debate? Logically, intelligent design is compatible with everything
from utterly discontinuous creation (e.g., God intervening at every
conceivable point to create new species) to the most far-ranging
evolution (e.g., God seamlessly melding all organisms together into
one great tree of life). For intelligent design the primary question is
not how organisms came to be (though, as we've just seen, this is a
vital question for intelligent design) but whether organisms
demonstrate clear, empirically detectable marks of being
intelligently caused. In principle an evolutionary process can exhibit
such `marks of intelligence' as much as any act of special creation."
(Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science
and Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999,
pp.109-110)
in fact ID's *real* position is that of the later Phil Johnson (see tagline),
which is still heavily influenced by Biblical literalism, the earlier Phil
Johnson himself in 1993 claiming that "The `evolution of human beings from
apes' is not an unacceptable hypothesis for me":
Phil is simply *wrong* all through this. I (for one) am not a
materialist or an evolutionist (and nor is Mike Behe) and I accept
common ancestry on the basis of the *evidence*.
However, as I also wrote:
"I am not bitter, more *relieved*. I will not go out of my way to
attack the ID movement (and I still believe in the work of Bill
Dembski and Mike Behe), and of course in *design*, but where I
consider that ID merits criticism, e.g. in its claim not to be
influenced by Biblical literalism, but denying common ancestry
primarily on those grounds) I will feel free to make it.
I will continue to pray for the ID movement, as I continue to
pray for the ICR and AIG, in its struggle against materialism-
naturalism, the *real* enemy."