Valentine Pontifex

<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4116_evolving_banners_at_the_discov_8_29_2002.asp" target="_blank">NCSE on evolving DI banners</a>

And note the recent name change for the CRSC.

Mageth

Lizard

If I were a YEC who had been drawn into the Discovery Institute's "big tent" in support of ID, I would begin to question the reason behind their moving farther and farther away from God.

ps418

What's a mere logo when you've already abandoned the biblical account of the creation?

Lizard

True enough. But YECs and OECs (and Turkish fundamentalists, apparently) are willing to crowd into the big tent with the IDers, because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If it comes to pass that "teach all theories" is adopted by some state board of education, then watch the knives come out. None of these factions really want "all theories" taught. They want *their* theory taught.

Phillip Johnson said all the occupants of the big tent should ignore doctrinal disputes about the veracity of Genesis for now and concentrate their combined energies on vanquishing evil naturalism first. So far, they seem to be doing so, but you'd think the YECs would be up in arms against the IDers because they accept evolution at all. Apparently, they realize that with the exception of Alabama and Georgia, most states' boards of education won't adopt creationism because it's too obviously religious. Now, ID, on the other hand, is more sneaky. They don't mention the G-word, but it's clearly based on conservative Christian theology. The IDers are actively looking for a court case, and they may sue in Ohio if the Board of Education doesn't allow teaching "alternate theories" to evolution. This should be interesting.

Albion

They are. But they recognise a convenient thing when they see it. Check out thi spage from AiG:

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1399.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1399.asp</a>

"It would seem foolish to reject the contributions of the IDM altogether. Many of their works, which we stock, can, if used with care, help bring people to Christ. Even though most of their points were made long ago by overt believers in Genesis, they cannot be as easily (albeit unfairly) marginalised.2

However, believers should not again be lulled into a false sense of security. Assume the IDM succeeds, and the establishment does come to believe in some god-like ‘intelligent force’ which manipulated billions of years of death and suffering. Would that not highlight for people just how far removed such a deity would be from the holy God of the Bible, and how the Bible’s account of the origin of (and solution for) human sin must indeed be flawed?

Man in rebellion against his Maker has obviously found Darwinian evolution (creation by chance) a convenient way to evade responsibility to Him. However, if forced to accept the evidence that intelligent design was in fact necessary, the next best way to avoid unpleasant notions of sin and judgement would be to ensure that the Bible, and the character of God revealed therein, remained discredited. A scientific paradigm of ‘intelligent design’ would, if it rejected the Genesis Creator (the one who became flesh and died on Calvary's cross precisely because of Adam’s rebellion), be just another expression of that rebellion."

And this from ICR. The honesty of these people!

<a href="http://www.icr.org/faqs/sgp137.html" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/faqs/sgp137.html</a>

"so we should simply use the evidence of intelligent design as a "wedge" to pry them loose from their naturalistic premises. Then, later, we can follow up this opening by presenting the gospel, they hope. - 1999 H Morris"

Albion

Oh, now they're being coy about wanting to renew science, are they? Wonder who they think they're fooling.

tgamble

"Between the World Wars, many Christian books smugly provided quotes from prominent scientists which indicated they were opposed to Darwinism. Actually, the scientists concerned were not abandoning evolution, just Darwin's idea of how it happened. The result? One anti-Biblical concept (Darwinism) was replaced with another (neo-Darwinism)."

um, doesn't AIG have a list of scientists who allegedly rejected evolution? Hypocrites as usual.

tgamble

Maybe these articles and similar ones could be used when states consider equal time. It might help.

scombrid

Cal Thomas for one.


<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001304" target="_blank">thread</a>