Re: Evolution and the Image of god

From: Keith B Miller (
Date: Thu Oct 04 2001 - 22:50:00 EDT

  • Next message: Keith B Miller: "RTB interview"

    >Joel noted that "B.B. Warfield, a seminal fundamentalists, called himself
    >a "Darwinian of the purest water.""
    >That's true, of course. But in reading the latest book on Warfield last
    >year, I suggest that he was using the term "Darwinian" in a different
    >sense than, for example, Dawkins, Gould, etc. use it. Even in a different
    >sense than most ASA members might use it (I personally stay away from the
    >Griffin's book, which I recently reviewed, has a rather excellent (IMHO)
    >discussion of the term "Darwinism," dissecting it into 14 parts. I talk
    >about this in my review at the web site below.

    I think that one big problem in the debate over evolution within the church
    is that "Darwinism" is rarely defined. Most commonly it seems to mean "all
    the things about evolution that I don't like." When it is defined, it is
    usually defined in a way that makes it equivalent to atheism or deism. The
    result is circular reasoning. Evolution is _defined_ as godless and then
    all of evolutionary science is condemned on that basis.

    The term "Darwinism" is rarely used in scientific publications. It seems
    to be used primarily when people are trying to make some metaphysical

    If "Darwinism" simply meant what Darwin thought about the evolutionary
    process, then I suspect there are no Darwinists living today.


    Keith B. Miller
    Department of Geology
    Kansas State University
    Manhattan, KS 66506

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 04 2001 - 22:40:46 EDT