Why Does ID Criticize TE?

I will definitely try to be more clear in my response tomorrow. I’m going to try to wind down for the night.

1 Like

3 posts were split to a new topic: The Future of Peaceful Science

Joshua, from my own perspective let me add that the recent hints at theological movement have not been accompanied by any distancing from very different views to which I drew their attention years ago. We are expected to forget that former leaders there ever said things that are incompatible with what is now being said - or perhaps, what is inferred by sympathetic readers from what is being said.

Circumlocution seldom clarifies positions!

No need to let it keep you up at night. God is real, He is worth trusting, and He has already won. But here is a snippet of my musings that I think @swamidass was referring to when I said these ideas have some overlap…

1 Like

A post was split to a new topic: Behind the Shadow of Oz

I would be most interested in seeing how these individuals state their Old Earth Creationism.
It’s the worst possible position… it takes the science of geology as valid … and rejects the science of geology regarding fossils and says it is garbage.

I think the “market” shows the relative weakness of Old Earth Creationism. How many organizations are there for that position, compared to the number of groups for Young Earth Creationism and how many groups for Evolution?

Will Dembski > ? Opposed Global Flood … but also opposes Common Ancestry. < Pretty confused Prof.
Steve Meyer > ? < Okay, I’m convinced… he’s an Old Earth Creationist.
Mike Behe > ? Theistic Evolution
David Berlinski > ?
Doug Axe > ?
Ann Gauger > ? Probably Old Earth Creationist - doesn’t appear to support Evolution
Casey Luskin > Old Earth Creationist (not ever YEC)
Wayne Rossiter > Left I.D., a TE of some type.

Behe is TE. @Agauger, as I understand is on the border of OEC and TE (not 100% sure where she stands on common descent). Doug Axe is a question mark (I’ve heard from some he is YEC).

[In a prior draft, I stated that Casey Luskin was a YEC. That was an error on my part; he is an OEC and as far as I know, he has never been a YEC]

1 Like

Hi @gbrooks9,

Dembski’s story is worth reading here:

Disillusion with Fundamentalism (May 30, 2016).

See also:

Whatever Happened to Intelligent Design Theorist William Dembski? By Scott Buchanan (March 19, 2017)

He’s definitely an OEC.

1 Like

Hugh Ross says that Steve Meyer would prefer to work for RTB, so he’d have more room to maneuver. He’s almost certainly OEC. As am I, as well. I disagree with the characterization above. Nothing in OEC, e.g., requires a rejection of common descent; though I’m having a heck of a time getting Faz Rana to understand my model.

1 Like

Dear all,

I am extremely busy right now with some very important personal matters so this will be my one and only post here (for the foreseeable future):

Vincent Torley is correct: I am not a young earth creationist and I accept that the earth is billions of years old. In fact, I don’t remember having ever been a young earth creationist, so my views on this matter did not “change” because I was never a young earther to begin with.

In fact, the reason I put the statement front and center on my personal website that “I accept that the universe and earth are billions of years old and I am not a young earth creationist” (see Vincent’s comment for the link) is because I’ve been misrepresented so many times on this point over the years that I needed a clear, unambiguous statement of my views on the age issues!

Anyways, I have been publicly on the record as being an “old earther” for many years. One example of this can be seen in a 2013 post at On the Age of the Earth, Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education Misrepresents My View | Evolution News where I wrote (please note that the “Josh” referenced here is Josh Rosenau, not Joshua Swamidass):

Though I have nothing personal against young earth creationists, it’s not my viewpoint. On both scientific and theological grounds, I do not believe everything was created in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago. In fact, Josh should already know this. Here is what I wrote to him in a private e-mail on March 30, 2010:

Plate tectonics / continental drift / standard model of physics / HIV causes AIDS / age of the earth / big bang cosmology — in all of those areas I find the “consensus” view persuasive due to the evidence.

So I was perfectly clear to Josh that I accept the “consensus” view on the “age of the earth” because of “the evidence.” And this is nothing new; I’ve been quite public about my views on this for a long time. Indeed, earlier this year I co-authored a textbook and curriculum, Discovering Intelligent Design, that endorses the Big Bang model (and thus the standard age of the universe) because it’s a compelling argument for cosmic design. Yet Josh still goes around suggesting I might be a young earth creationist.

I don’t get it. I’d like to think that maybe he forgot what I wrote him. I don’t know for sure. But what I do know is this: when you’re dealing with the Darwin lobby and the NCSE, often what you say and what you do don’t matter. Their goal is to spin things and try to paint you in a negative light.

Another example of this sort of thing came in 2015 when David Klinghoffer wrote:

Let’s say that Larry Moran comes along and wants to contribute a comment. In the post I referred to from his own site, he includes a blatant untruth about our colleague Casey Luskin:

Casey Luskin can’t decide how old the universe is but he leans toward Young Earth Creationism. Yet he’s a leading spokesman for the “science” of intelligent design.

This is intended as a slur, and it’s flatly false. Casey has written countless articles here about cosmic origins, biological origins, and human origins that all, without exception, take for granted the standard time table reckoned in millions and billions of years. He is no Young Earth Creationist, clearly. Yet this doesn’t stop Darwin defenders from painting us with that brush. See here for Casey’s reply to another evolutionary advocate, Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education, on the very same point. Jerry Coyne, evolutionary biologist and emeritus University of Chicago professor, has similarly tried to dismiss Stephen Meyer as a “young-earth creationist,” but at least Coyne then corrected himself and apologized.

David is exactly right: I am a big fan of the big bang model of the universe (which indicates that the universe is billions of years old) because I think the evidence supports it. I even once wrote that “the Big Bang is one of the best arguments for the design of the universe ever offered by science.” (Because I’m a new user, the forum apparently won’t let me post a link to that comment, but it’s from my 2014 post on ENV, “The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity”.)

In any case, just as I am 100% sure that I did not say that I was a YEC during my conversations with Joshua Swamidass (those conversations took place in 2015), I am also 100% sure that Joshua did not say otherwise maliciously, and I am sure that his comment was an unintentional mistake that is probably solely due to an imperfect memory. (It’s also quite possible that what Joshua thought was his memory was actually influenced by false things he read about me online where other people wrongly claimed I was a YEC.) Goodness knows–I don’t have the world’s best memory, so I could never judge anyone for having a memory that failed them!

So while I am a bit frustrated at having to correct the record on this point for the nth time, there are no hard feelings towards Joshua Swamidass.

Again, I am extremely busy right now with some very important personal matters so please don’t expect me to have any further involvement with this discussion thread. Having to post this has already taken up a enough of my limited time. The last thing I have time for right now is to get roped into an online conversation on any discussion forum about anything anywhere!



p.s. I should note that I left this comment because Joshua kindly emailed me to verify if I was a YEC and pointed me to this discussion. So thanks for checking with me, even if it was after some inaccurate comments were already made.


I’m very sorry for the error. As you can see, I deleted my comments above, and will be sure to be sure to references this were relevant.

That is exactly right, though I still feel horrible about it. Sorry about this @CaseyLuskin. You are very kind to give me the benefit of the doubt, as I certainly did not mean this as a slur.

Thanks for joining here too, i’ll hope you can join in the conversation in the future too, when things calm down for you. Peace.

1 Like

@bjmiller, you are an OEC, right? Not a YEC? What has your experience with different positions at DI been?

I was planning on getting around to that article of yours. With some key caveats, your article presents a reasonable position.

Thanks! That definitely helps. I’ve had similar thoughts. Maybe God influenced an event that led to geographic isolation which led to a speciation event. Or he brings a new protein into existence in a population then nature selects for that protein. Along those lines. Do you see these fitting with what you stated in your article?

1 Like

Ok I am breaking my promise to limit to one post here to just say thanks a big to Joshua for his quick and kind response to the situation. I appreciate him acknowledging the error and deleting the inaccurate comments. I not only forgive Joshua for the unintentional memory lapse, but I forgive him very happily!


Ok, so let me try to be more clear on my thoughts and position. So, I think God’s action could be scientifically detectable. I’ve always been agnostic about the fine-tuning argument but I seem to be leaning towards being for it. I think that qualifies as scientifically detectable. I just haven’t seen good evidence for it in biology. But I am completely open to this. I am very confident in common ancestry. I don’t ever see me denying it. It is such a successful franework. Continues to make predictions and guide research. And at this time I’m confident that all the mechanisms put forward by modern evolutionary theory can explain what we see. At this time I see no reason to adopt an intelligence into the explanatory toolkit. But who knows? Maybe one day this will change and I’ll adopt it as an explanatory tool. that’s all I was trying to say. More clear?


So what exactly is speciating in your model? Old Earth Creationists think special creation was used for all species… or at least for humans. So the only way your sentence could be true is if you are talking about non-humans evolving, while humans are getting the special creation.

1 Like


Fine-tuning is not open to scientific investigation. Fine-tuning is a call to faith. You can’t make a scientific case out of Earth being in just the right orbit … because any planet that is in just the right orbit to have life, and that has life, would tend to have life forms that observe they are in just the right orbit.

That’s not a scientific hypothesis… it’s like saying any coincidence must be fate. How can you measure that? First you have to prove fate. And then you how do you know which coincidences really are just coincidences?

1 Like


Perhaps you could explain the nature of your Old Earth Creationist views?

Do you think all life, including non-human life, emerged via special creation?
Or do you think some non-human life evolved/speciated, but humans were definitely part of God’s special creation?

@CaseyLuskin can’t respond in more detail now. I think what you are suggesting lays out the range of possibilities. He probably fits somewhere in there. Maybe later he will explain.