John W Burgeson wrote:
> George wrote: "Both versions rule out any belief that God has anything to
> with the evolutionary process at any level. If you do that you can then
> cite a lot of Christians who accept evolution through natural selection
> as opponents of "Darwinism." This is very misleading."
> The purpose of the definition was to do exactly that, rule out "a god."
> One needs to have words with which to communicate -- I think they have
> done a good thing in defining (tightly) what it is they are talking
> about. The fact that the word "Darwinism" admits of other definitions is
> understood, but really not pertinent.
I strongly disagree. First, the fact that the word "Darwinism"
admits of other definitions is
NOT understood by many of the people who - I venture to guess - are the
target audience for this website. Many have only hazy ideas about what
evolution is as a scientific theory, & others have already have the
misconception that will be reinforced by this definition. & this ambiguity
is extremely pertinent to the the success of what is essentially a bait and
switch operation. In your recent reply to Howard I think you've recognized
the basic point that he & I & others have tried to make here.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
> The list is a simple one -- assume the "Darwinism" definition they make,
> and the following persons have a problem with the concept it defines. Use
> their definition, or my suggested change -- the point is the same.
> 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 - 19:58:41 EST