Re: New Pope on Darwinism - NO!

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 17:08:44 EDT

George
I completely agree with what you say (as I always do!!!) This duplicitous
and ambiguous use of Naturalism and ?Darwinism of so-many anti-evolutionists
just muddies the water and prevents a good understanding of the issues as
well as polarising Christians on the subject.

Be careful George or else a latter day John Knox will be out to get you.

BTW what did B16 actually say about Darwinism?

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: New Pope on Darwinism - NO!

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca>
> To: "'George Murphy'" <gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:30 AM
> Subject: RE: New Pope on Darwinism - NO!
>
>
>> Come ON, George!
>>
>> B 16 is clearly signalling that he will make it more difficult to promote
>> naturalism by claiming that "the Pope supports evolution."
>>
>> Groups like NCSE have been doing that for quite a while now. They seem to
>> have more dog collars than the Humane Society.
>>
>> Here in Canada, I am seeing encouraging signs that Catholics are waking
>> up
>> to what is being done in their name.
>>
>> Recently, Fr. Martin Hilbert of the Toronto Oratory gave a talk at
>> Ryerson
>> University in which he made perfectly clear that the Catholic Church does
>> NOT support Darwinism, and anyone who so represents it is, at best,
>> confused.
>>
>> Years ago, I did not run into many Catholics who had that many smarts
>> about
>> the key issues, but I am seeing more of them all the time.
>>
>> Prediction: The number of Catholics interested in ID will spike.
>
> When I point out your ambiguous use of "Darwinism" you respond with
> another classical ambiguity, "naturalism." Do you ever try for clarity?
> Are you able to distinguish, at least in principle, the 2 senses of
> "Darwinism" that I spoke about earlier? & similarly with metaphysical &
> methodological naturalism? If you can't then everything you say on this
> topic will continue to be muddled.
>
> Maybe you ought to consider the possibility that some of the people with
> "dog collars" who support good science education & oppose things like ID
> actually know something about theology. The fact that IDers avoid serious
> discussion of theology when at all possible (as you also do in your recent
> book - & when you do talk about it you generally get it wrong) is
> significant.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
Received on Tue Apr 26 17:14:24 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 26 2005 - 17:14:40 EDT