I thought I would update this thread with this footnote:
[Footnote 3: Stephen C. Meyer. Signature in the Cell. Harper Collins. Retrieved 13 November 2010. Michael Denton, an agnostic, argues for intelligent design in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 326–43.]
Footnote #4: "Michael Denton, an agnostic, argues for intelligent design in EVOLUTION: A THEORY IN CRISIS, 326-343. Antony Flew, a longtime champion of atheism, recently announced his abandonment of atheism based on the evidence of intelligent design, but emphasized that his religion was far from conventional (much less sectarian): "I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins" ("Famous Atheist Now Believes in God," http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=315976 ). See also Flew, “There is a God.”
You have two choices:
Ague that Denton’s God is not a CONSCIOUS God …
Argue that a God doesn’t have to be conscious to be God.
Or, I suppose you could just accept that Denton’s ID work is still working for a God…
I think the special relevance of Denton is what he brings to the party. You once proposed Denton as an Intelligent Design proponent who DID NOT attribute the Designer to God.
So I thought it was important that we get a better understanding of what he thinks about God. It seems that his use of the word “Agnostic” is not exactly how other people use the word. We should understand this.
Are you saying that, in general, anyone who wants to have a view about origins needs to spend hundreds of hours reading original sources in science and theology? What is the role of institutions and trust figures in all of this (considering that 99.5 percent of our audience doesn’t have the time or acumen to read all those sources themselves)?
I suppose we can glean a few relevant points from that article:
Denton acknowledged common descent via natural processes.
Denton critiqued only the idea that all modifications have occurred in small steps. He left space for the idea that natural processes brought about large modifications, instead of rejecting common descent.
Denton drew on a wide variety of respected scientific sources.
Taken together, these points make it logical that Falk was pleased about this book, despite its anti-darwinism rethoric.