Re: [asa] A Message from the RTB Scholar Team (fwd)

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Sat Apr 19 2008 - 18:26:39 EDT

A category statement is fine. But 'evolution' and 'biological evolution' are simply not the same thing! Continue to have the conversation about RTB and Hugh Ross on those terms, I will be no part of it. It is blindness not to involve 'other types' of evolution. They are so plainly in circulation, in many places dominantly and oppressively, which TE/EC's at ASA care to do or say nothing about. The 'just call it evolution' ruse is a method of convenient silencing.

  Bethany Sollereder <> wrote:

Perhaps we should just make a categorical statement that "unless otherwise stated, 'evolution' means 'biological evolution of humans/plants/animals/life in general". Would it be OK with you if we made that our default definition from now on, and if we are talking about other types of 'evolution' we can specify? Can the conversation go on?


  On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Gregory Arago <> wrote:
    You've got to be kidding me!! -) You seriously think it is 'unnecessary verbiage' to distinguish between 'human evolution' and 'biological evolution of humans'??? That's two words difference (or nearly twice the amount of letters, for you statisticians), but a major difference in 'category'. Cat-e-gory! It would take such little effort and go such a long way. It is a shock to me that no will is present to adjust what could be so easily done for the cause of communicative clarity.

Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 19 18:27:48 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 19 2008 - 18:27:48 EDT