Howard wrote: "I'll not try to rewrite the definition now, but I would
suggest that the word "materialism" is entirely out of place. Including
it makes the common error of defining a scientific concept in a way that
entails the rejection of any form of theism."
I think you miss the point. If you wish to argue that their definition of
"Darwinism" is misplaced, you no doubt have a point. But they are up
front in defining "Darwinism" a certain way -- and it is for sure that
many folks think of it with their definition. Like it or not, the word
"Darwinism" DOES connote the rejection of any form of theism. As such, I
would argue, the word "Darwinism" is not a scientific concept at all, but
a philosophical one.
I suggest to them that they might well indicate on their web site that
the definition of "Darwinism" is not a tight one, and perhaps they could
use "Darwinism1" and "Darwinism2" in a way to differentiate.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 04 2002 - 14:11:55 EST