Allan Harvey wrote: "This plays a sleazy rhetorical trick by lumping the
science together with philosophical positions that need not accompany it.
This allows them to present "Darwinism" as something any Christian
should oppose. Since most people think of "Darwinism" as being
synonymous with the theory of evolution, they can make it seem like
opponents of those philosophical positions must oppose the scientific
theory of evolution. Treating the philosophical baggage some attach to
the theory as inseparable from the science is shameful, whether the
perpetrator is this Website, or Phil Johnson, or Richard Dawkins."
Usually I agree with you on things of this nature; this time I do not.
Calling it a "sleazy rhetorical trick" does not make it so. They have
been up front in a definition of "Darwinism," and while a case can be
made that the term admits of other definitions, it is that fairly tight
definition they are addressing.
I am not in agreement with your belief that "most people think of
'Darwinism' as being synonymous with the theory of evolution." Some do,
that is no doubt true. But we need words with which to communicate; they
have been (I think) careful to define their terms. I do not see an
equating of "Darwinism" with the theory of evolution on the website. Nor
do I see them attaching philosophy to science; rather, I see them trying
hard to separate the two.
Is the web site perfect? Of course not. Is it useful? Maybe, I don't
know. Can it be improved? Of course. I've already expressed my
reservations to the site owner, who has replied cordially.
Best for the New Year, my friend.
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 - 14:12:03 EST