Re: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Sat Sep 27 2003 - 03:29:50 EDT

  • Next message: Darryl Maddox: "Re: It happened!!"

    Why it should baffles me as Darwin was such a well-meaning caring and moral
    person, who happened not to be a Christian.
    Consider his care for animals; picking upa nd saving a toad lost on the
    Menai Bridge in Wales
    storming out of a sheepdog trial because of cruelty to dogs (what would he
    do at a rodeo)

    Care for people; his abhorrence of slavery and mistreatment of blacks (how
    come he's charged with racism?)
    support of chimney sweep boys, South American Missionary Society and many
    good causes.

    Why - he was more moral than most Christians.

    So Darwinian should have good vibes.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Keith Miller" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 5:10 AM
    Subject: Re: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)

    > In my experience, "Darwinism" is commonly used as a pejorative that
    > simply means "all aspects of evolution that I find objectionable." It
    > is hardly ever defined, and is certainly not used in any consistent
    > manner. I doubt whether many who use the phrase in public debate could
    > even give a clear definition.
    > An interesting part of this is that back during the conflict over
    > science standards in Kansas, it was the anti-evolutionists who wanted
    > to change the word "evolution" in the standards to "Darwinian
    > evolution." Attaching the word Darwin to evolution produces an almost
    > visceral negative reaction in some people.
    > Keith

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 27 2003 - 15:13:34 EDT