RE: More on the Georgia Decision, from Cal Thomas

From: Mccarrick Alan D CRPH (
Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 09:25:29 EDT

  • Next message: "Seven More Views on Intelligent Design (Physics Today, September 2002)"


    My desired point in using the term "atheistic evolution" was
    precisely what you observed - it is a philosophical position
    presented as science. I believe that it is true that there are
    scince class rooms where the philosophical position of the instructor
    is being presented more than just the science. Remember the initial
    wording of the "official" definition of evolution by NBTA (?) that
    included the terms "unsupervised", "undirected"... Those words were
    taken out appearantly to remove those philosophical assuptions from
    the fact based science. It is too easy for a reductionist view to
    take hold and "prove" that God has no part in anything.

    Al McCarrick

    -----Original Message-----
    From: []
    Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 10:22 AM
    Subject: Re: More on the Georgia Decision, from Cal Thomas

    >The question is rather "Is the evidence against atheistic evolution
    >worthy of presentation and discussion." The answer is probably
    >"yes", but the details must be fleshed out carefully.

    What on Earth is "atheistic evolution"? It is not any scientific position
    - It is a philosophical position. From a science perspective, there is
    no such thing as "atheistic evolution" anymore than there is "atheistic
    chemistry." Much would be resolved if people would just recognize this,
    and deal with it as a philosophical and theological issue and let the best
    science be taught in science class.


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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 04 2002 - 12:18:30 EDT