Re: Faith, Evolution, and Tax Dollars?

From: Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat Apr 03 2004 - 19:19:18 EST

Howard responding to Bill writes
> Is that what you (or Hodge) mean by 'design'?

What _do_ thinkers mean when they use the word "Darwinism"? Has anyone done
a study of the use of this word/term among 19th and 20th century
writers/thinkers/theologians/propagandists/proponents/opponents prior to the
emergence (sorry, I couldn't help it) of ID in the early 1990s? It would be
interesting and instructive.

The same could be asked regarding the word "design." It is interesting to
note that some in the ID crowd have hopped on the "anthropic coincidences"
bandwagon recently (Ross sooner than later); some write of it as if it were
their discovery, though the notion has been around for nearly 20 years.
But, in fact, the ID proponents are using "design" equivocally. To speak of
a finally tuned universe as evidence of "design" is one thing; to speak of
the hands-on (a la Howard's last paragraph below) intervention to create an
"irreducibly complex" organism or part thereof as evidence of "design" is
another.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@sbcglobal.net>
To: "William Hamilton" <whamilton51@comcast.net>; "Sarah Berel-Harrop"
<sec@hal-pc.org>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Faith, Evolution, and Tax Dollars?

> On 4/3/04 4:31 PM, "William Hamilton" <whamilton51@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Friday, April 2, 2004, at 09:45 PM, Sarah Berel-Harrop wrote:
> >
> >> As much as they claim to speak for
> >> a *generic* theism, and that they coyly refuse to discuss
> >> doctrinal issues, they are the ones who flatly reject any
> >> religious view that does not conform with their
> >> standards of ideological purity, which tho difficult to
> >> parse, appear to revolve around the rejection of
> >> Darwinism (whatever that is supposed to be!).
> >
> > Hodge, in his book, "What is Darwinism?" distinguished between
> > Darwinism and belief in evolution. The distinction was that Darwinism
> > denies design in nature, which of course was anathema to Hodge, as well
> > as to many (most?, all?) Christians, myself included.
>
> In contemporary ID-speak, 'Darwinism' is the label given to the conflation
> of biological evolution and maximal naturalism (sometimes called
> 'materialism').
>
> Also in contemporary ID-speak, to say that some biotic structure X is
> designed is to say that the actualizing (assembling, forming,
constructing,
> fabricating) of X requires, in addition to whatever natural processes may
be
> involved, one or more episodes of non-natural, form-conferring
intervention
> by an unidentified, unembodied, choice-making agent who is not necessarily
> God.
>
> Is that what you (or Hodge) mean by 'design'?
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 3 19:20:36 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 03 2004 - 19:20:36 EST