Re: views of scientists-help needed

From: george murphy (
Date: Fri Jan 04 2002 - 19:59:36 EST

  • Next message: Intelligent des Evolution awareness: "Regarding the IDEA website"

    John W Burgeson wrote:

    > George wrote: "Both versions rule out any belief that God has anything to
    > do
    > 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