Re: Is evolution really the central theory for all of biology?

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Fri Sep 16 2005 - 14:01:18 EDT

IMO you view matters though a strong filter which distorts what is
viewed. One result is denying the devout Orthodox faith of Dobshansky.
However, recognizing one's own fundamental commitments is one of the most
difficult tasks for any human being. Our Lord's mote and beam speaks to
the situation.
Dave

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:17:36 -0700 "Cornelius Hunter"
<ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net> writes:
Dave:

I apologize for the confusion. I don't, however, quite know what you mean
when you say I'm using Humpty Dumpty semantics. I thought my point was
clear, but I'll try to clarify if you would please explain exactly what
you mean. I especially don't follow this:

"Therefore whatever Dobshansky intended, his definite Christian faith,
don't matter. Hunter reads it as a denial of the very possibility of
faith."

What did I write that led you conclude this? Thanks,

--George

----- Original Message -----
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
To: rjschn39@bellsouth.net
Cc: ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net ; asa@calvin.edu ; d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Is evolution really the central theory for all of biology?

Bob,
You apparently haven't realized that Hunter is using strong Humpty Dumpty
semantics. HD's own view was that, when he used a word, it meant exactly
what he intended it to mean. But here the stronger version requires that
the encounter of a word means what the reader/hearer wants it to mean.
Therefore whatever Dobshansky intended, his definite Christian faith,
don't matter. Hunter reads it as a denial of the very possibility of
faith. You are attempting to rationally analyze the situation. I do not
know how you can.
Dave

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:24:28 -0400 "Robert Schneider"
<rjschn39@bellsouth.net> writes:
And just exactly what is your point? You haven't made it clear what you
mean when you say that Dobzhansky's statement "entails theological
claims." Surely, you're not saying that if one accepts evolution one
must also hold a theology of creation, are you? Dobzhansky says that the
two "are not mutually exclusive," and that he can be "both a creationist
and and evolutionist." What do you think he means?

Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Cornelius Hunter
To: Robert Schneider ; Terry M. Gray ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Is evolution really the central theory for all of biology?

Exactly my point guys. --Cornelius

Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
Dobzhansky writes " It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as
mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist *and* an
evolutionist." Later he writes "I submit that all these remarkable
findings make sense in the light of evolution: they are nonsense
otherwise." He also writes "Seen in the light of evolution, biology is,
perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science.
Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them
interesting or curious but making no meaninglful picture as a whole". He
also writes "Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith ?
It does not", and he goes on to explain that statement.
Dobzhansky presents evidence that falsifies YEC but it does not falsify
creation.
Don

Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
 They reflect Dobzhansky's own Christian theology of creation, shared by
many ...

Bob Schneider
Received on Fri Sep 16 15:04:51 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 16 2005 - 15:04:55 EDT