Kent Johnson's List: Intelligent Design

• "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science," says the  conference's prime mover, law professor Phillip Johnson of the University of  California at Berkeley. "It's about religion and philosophy."

  • This is a very clear statement that, at least, Phillip Johnson does not consider ID to be a scientific issue. This conflicts with the Discovery Institute's (DI) position that, while ID has religious implications, it is strictly a scientific endevor.
    
    Being that Johnson is frequently considered the father of the ID movement and frequently mentioned by the DI on their podcast, it is quite interesting that DI can speak so favorably of Johnson's work without adressing this disagreement on such a fundamental point. It must be fundamental since one of DI's main complaints of ID coverage is that the media and ID critics (and Judge Jones) misrepresent ID as being principally religious. I believe I've even heard Casey Luskin (on a DI podcast) say that the ID critics ignore the definition that ID proponents, themselves use ... but not making an exception for at least one of the most promenant ID proponents.
  Add Sticky Note

• Phillip Johnson, a senior fellow at the Institute, stated last year on a  Christian radio talk show that "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."

  • Much of what I hear form ID proponents is that ID does NOT make a claim as to who the designer is. Though they do say that most of them believe it is God, ID itself does not make such a claim. At least P.J., one of the founders of ID, seems to have a different position.
    
    
    
    It also seems that this understanding (that the designer IS God) is true of the general ID supporters, as well. One classic, and public, example is assoicated with Pat Robertson. In response to Judge Jones' ruling in the 2005 Dover case that ID is not scientific but, rather, religious in nature, Robertson said that Dover had rejected God. It seems that P.R. didn't understand that ID was NOT suposed to be about God.
  Add Sticky Note

• Governing Goals
• Governing Goals
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic  understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by  God.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic  understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by  God.

2 more annotations...