Honorable Opponents

On the "big name" creationist scene, outside of this forum, I've felt some sort of vague affection for IDist Michael Behe and old earth creationist Hugh Ross. Not that I've followed their output that much.I tried reading Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", and found it too technical. Behe is, as I see it, a 99% evolutionist, who is trying to find God's fingerprints.On the evolutionist side, I find ex-YEC Glenn Morton to be real interesting.Here at , on the creationist side, I think we thought highly of both TrueCreation and Tranquility Base. I think TC might still be making an occasional appearance, but TB has totally dropped out of sight. TC made some sort of move towards more of an "old earth" position, but in the process his statements ceased to be clear (albeit wrong). Instead he just became evasive - what I sometimes refer to as being a "lawyer creationist".On the evolutionist side, a tend to like to see messages from both Mammuthus and Quetzal, although the bio-jargon tends to easily get beyond me.Well, another one of my wishy-washy responses.Moose

Of the top of my head:Phillip Johnson is a lawyer and an old earth creationist. He seems to accept the fossil record as representing the change of the nature of life on earth, down through time. As such (IMO) he recognizes and accepts the fact of evolution. He, however, attributes these changes to be from a series of special creations. He does not accept the theory of evolution.Henry Morris (Senior I presume, Henry Jr. is also a creationist) - Henry Sr. is deceased (for a fair while now, I believe). He was a young earth creationist (founder of the Institution of Creation Research?), and was trained and worked somewhere in the general area of geology. While his creationist beliefs were staunch, he also did seem to recognise that the worldly evidence seemed to go against young earthism. He seemed to maintain a faith that ultimately, the apparent worldly old earth evidence would be proven wrong.Some of the above (about H.M) I pulled from Kenneth Millers "Finding Darwin's God". I believe I have the source material posted in the "FD'sG" topic. I will track it down, and edit add it to this message.Johnson (again IMO) is much closer to being an evolutionist, that to being a YEC - Certainly, from the evo perspective, that merrits some respect.Morris seemed to have a fairly good touch on the worldy realities, even though he denied their ultimate truth.Once again, I'm pulling this from memory - often a dangerous thing to try.Cheers,
MooseAdded by edit - The Miller / Morris conversationI also posted it at "Terry's Talk Origins", which resulted in a strange conversation, found here

quote:

---

Also I noticed that you stated that Phillip Johnson was closer to being an evolutionist that a young earth creationist. Interestingly another individual stated that Michael Behe was 99 % evolutionist.

---

Both of those opinions came from minnemooseus (minnemooseus is the non-admin mode of Adminnemooseus - We are the same person).

quote:

---

I ask this with no malice intended, but why do you assume that the creationists who have a deep knowledge of science and who can defend their own beliefs well, are more evolutionist?

---

Michael Behe is probably the most prominent advocate of intelligent design. Much of his workings on the ID details (often referred to as "God of the Gaps") have been refuted by others of science. Regardless, Behe accepts both the fact of evolution, and the vast bulk of the theory of evolution. This includes accepting that man and the great apes descended from a common ancestor.Philip Johnson (and I hope I'm not confusing him with someone else) is an old earth creationist. As I understand it, he accepts the bulk of old earth theory. He accepts that the fossil record is indeed an accurate record of the nature of life, down through the many millions of years. To me, in a sense, this makes him a believer in that evolution happened. I will concede that my calling him an evolutionist was at least a bit of an exaggeration. Again, essentially he accepts that some sort of progression of life did indeed occur, BUT instead of accepting the theory of evolution, he believes and advocates that this fossil progression (represented by the fossil record) was a result of a vast series of Godly special creations.

quote:

---

Phillip Johnson speaks of evolution synonymously with materialism. He states at times that most evolutionists see know difference between their materialist beliefs and their evolutionary beliefs. Do you agree with him on this?

---

There was a big topic on "Methodological Naturalism". I presume this is synonymous with "materialism". I don't believe I took part in that debate, by I'll try to venture an opinion here.That "know" (sic "no" threw me for a bit. Slow down those fingers .The study of evolution, and the resultant theory of evolution, is the study of nature, and the study of the processes of nature. God may indeed have had a part in it, but the considerations of God is outside of the considerations of nature. At least from the scientific perspective. As I understand the question, I do agree.

quote:

---

When I read Phillip Johnson's works, I do not see an evolutionist.

---

I admit that my contact with Johnson's ideas came second hand. I've never read any of his works.Like I said above, I concede I went a bit to far, in calling him an evolutionist. I still think he is a lot closer to being an evolutionist, that to being a young earth creationist.I must again plug the "Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God", and the book itself, that that topic refers to. Miller discusses both Behe and Johnson in the book.Cheers,
Moose------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links