Phillip Johnson
This isn't really,
and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and
philosophy.
Date: November
30, 1996.. Source: World Magazine.
Location:
http://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=374/
Phillip Johnson
If we understand our
own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by
challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world
of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a
strategy for doing this....We call our strategy the "wedge."
Date:1997.
Source: Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Pages 91, 92
Phillip Johnson
The mechanism of the
wedge strategy is to make it attractive to Catholics, Orthodox,
non-fundamentalist Protestants, observant Jews, and so on
Date: June
2002. Source: Touchstone Magazine
Phillip Johnson
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.
Date: January
10, 2003. Source: American Family Radio
Phillip Johnson
[Reporter first,
then Johnson; unclear how much is paraphrase of PJ] Taking Christian
morality out of the culture is the logical consequence of the
acceptance of Darwinism. That has led to no-fault divorce, legalized
abortion, a pro-homosexuality agenda, and all the other tragedies of
Darwinist moral relativism. If creation is random and purposeless,
all truth is relative and God is rightly "relegated to the
Never-never Land of Zeus and Santa Claus." Mr. Johnson explains,
"Once God is culturally determined to be imaginary, then God's
morality loses its foundation and withers away. It may stay standing
for a historical moment without a foundation until the winds of
change blow hard enough to knock it over, like [a cartoon character]
staying suspended for an instant after he runs off the cliff. We're
at the end of that period now.
http://arn.org/docs2/news/JohnsonDaniel121303.htm
Date:13 December
2003.. Source: Perry, John (2003). "Dr. Phillip
Johnson is World Magazine's 'Daniel of the Year'." World
Magazine, December 13, 2003
Location: World
Magazine, online at:
http://arn.org/docs2/news/JohnsonDaniel121303.htm
Jonathan Wells
"Father's words,
my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life
to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists
had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father
chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter
a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself
for battle" [Note: 'Father' refers to Rev. Moon].
Date: 1996.
Source: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
Location:
http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm
Jonathan Wells
"If God exists,
then human beings, at least, are designed by God; Darwinism denies
that human beings are designed by God; therefore, Darwinism is
tantamount to atheism"
Date: 1988.
Source: Wells, Jonathan (1988). Charles Hodge's Critique of
Darwinism: an historical-critical analysis of concepts basic to the
19th century debate. Studies in American Religion series, vol. 27.
Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, New York. p. 207..
Michael Behe
Mr. Behe responds
that he prefers other venues. "I just don't think that large
scientific meetings are effective forums for presenting these ideas,"
he says. [When asked why he has never exercised his right as a member
to present his ideas at the annual conference of the American Society
for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.]
Date: 21
December 2001. Source: Chronicle of Higher Education: "Darwin
Under Attack" by Beth McMurtrie
Location: http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i17/17a00801.htm
George Bush
[Interviewer] I feel
like I'd be remiss if I didn't ask a couple of question[s] on some, I
guess, controversial subjects of late, one of which is this whole
creationism debate in Kansas.
[Bush] I believe in
the alignment of authority and responsibility away from the federal
government when it comes to issues of governance and schools.
Secondly, my own personal opinion is that I believe that it's
important for children to understand there's different schools of
thought when it comes to the formation of the world. I have no
problem explaining that there are different theories about how the
world was formed. I mean, after all, religion has been around a lot
longer than Darwinism. And I think it's important for people to know
what people believe in-but whatever the case, here's what I believe.
I believe God did create the world. And I think we're finding out
more and more and more as to how it actually happened.
Date: 12
December 1999. Source: George W. Bush: Running on his
Faith US News & World Report.
William Dembski
[A]ny view of the
sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as
fundamentally deficient.
Date: 1999.
Source: Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science &
Theology, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill, page. 206.
Bill Graves
{Former Oklahoma
legislator who introduced proposed textbook disclaimer
on evolution each year
2000 through 2004, none passed]
"I think so many
of the textbooks make it appear that evolution is a scientific fact
and it's not," said Graves, R-Oklahoma City. "Even the U.S.
Supreme Court says it's a theory, so I was just trying to make that
clear. "I think it's very important for children to know,"
Graves said. "If they just believe that they came from some slime
in a swamp that's a whole lot different from being created in the
image of God."
Date: February
24, 2004. Source: Claremore Daily Progress
Location: http://www.claremoreprogress.com/archive/article12616
Ken Ham
"Since
President Bush's re-election we have been getting more membership
applications than we can handle,'' said Mr Ham, who expects not just
the devout, but also the curious, to flock through the turnstiles.
"The evolutionary elite will be getting a wake-up call."
Date: Jan. 2, 2005. Source: James Langton,
News.telegraph (UK); In the beginning: Adam walked with
dinosaurs..
Location: on ACWS under Kentucky
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/02/weden02.xml&sSh
Adolf Hitler
Hence today I
believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty
Creator by defending myself against the Jew, I am figthing for the
work of the Lord.
Source: Mein
Kampf, 1925, p 65, first edition.
Michael Behe
I'm not a creationist. I am a biochemist.
Date: 4 March 2002 at the University of New Mexico
Source: New Mexicans for Science and Reason
Michael Behe
But a Darwinist cannot invoke adding staples to traps, because the angels are on OUR side.
Date: 6 March 2002
Place: Calvary Chapel, Albuquerque
Michael Behe
I try to stay completely in my role as a scientist although I'm certainly a Christian and I believe the designer is God.
Date: 20 March 2000
Place: Radio program ‘The Bible Answer Man' with Hank Hannegraff
William Dembski
An argument from ignorance is still better than a pipe dream in which you're deluding yourself. I'm at least admitting to ignorance as opposed to pretending that you've solved the problem when you haven't.
Date: March 2002
Source: In an article by Richard John Neuhaus from First Things
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0203/public.html
Phillip Johnson
On just who the designer is:
It certainly could be God, a supernatural creature, but in principle it could be space aliens who did the designing.
Date: 21 April 2002
Source: Cited by author Louis Freedberg on SFGate.com
Phillip Johnson
Article by Steve Maynard in Tacoma News Tribune (and posted on Discovery Institute web page) concerning a speech by Johnson at Pacific Lutheran University:
Johnson said he and most others in the intelligent design movement believe the designer is the God of the Bible.
Source: [of speech]
http://www.discovery.org/news/life%27sIntelligentDesign.html
John Calvert
Intelligent design promotes a rational basis for belief in God.
Date: February 10, 2005
Source: Jon Hurdle, "Politics and religion enter into evolution debate." Reuters. Feb. 10, 2005.
Location: Online: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6948092/
William Dembski
I predict that in the next five years [by 2003] intelligent design will be sufficiently developed to deserve funding from the National Science Foundation.
Date: 1998
Source: Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design
Location: p. 29
Phillip Johnson
What I offer instead is a genuine intellectual debate, with everybody's philosophical cards on the table. Eventually the scientific establishment will agree to that debate, because there is nothing else it can do that is consistent with its own commitment to intellectual freedom and honesty.
Date: 1993
Source: California Committees of Corrrespondence Newsletter, Third Quarter, 1993.
URL: http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ID-intro/cast/johnson/johnson.htm#Case
Jonathan Wells
[Wells is critically reviewing Noll and Livingstone, who portray Charles Hodge as less antievolutionary than does Jonathan Wells.]
Modern scholars who want to preserve a place for Christianity in the reigning Darwinian paradigm sometimes claim that the two ARE compatible, but they must be talking about something other than Charles Darwin's theory, or something other than the Christian theological tradition.
Design in an essential corollary of Christian belief in God, but Darwin's theory excludes design and thus logically excludes belief in God. This is the essence of Hodge's critique of Darwinism. Hodge wrote in the heat of intellectual battle, however, when the issues were at least as confusing as they are now.
[emphasis added. I'm sure the quote represents Wells view but someone could claim that it refers only to Charles Hodge based on the context of the next sentence]
Date: Spring 1996
Source: Wells, Jonathan (1996). "Politically Dead Wrong" (review of "What is Darwinism? And Other Writings on Science and Religion" by Charles Hodge, Mark A. Noll & David N. Livingstone, editors. Origins and Design, 17(2), pp. 29-30
Location: Origins and Design
Michael Behe
[From official court transcript of Dover, PA Kitzmiller trial, October 2005, questions from plaintiff (ACLU) attorney]
Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q: The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A: Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Paul Nelson
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" - but as yet no general theory of biological design.
Date: July/August 2004
Source: Touchstone Magazine interview