Re: [asa] Darwinism (was: BioLogos - Bad Theology?)

From: Cameron Wybrow <>
Date: Thu May 21 2009 - 18:21:57 EDT

Yikes, Bernie!

So if a follower of Ronald Reagan agrees with Reagan about "trickle-down"
economics and about how to deal with the Soviet Union, but disagrees with
him over changing the two-term Presidency, the follower shouldn't be called
a Reaganite?

Or if Luther disagrees with his leading disciple Melanchthon over 5% of his
theology, it's wrong to call them both "Lutherans"?

Or if Karl Marx wouldn't agree with some of the details of how Lenin ran the
Soviet Union, Lenin shouldn't be called a Marxist?

Or if Milton Friedman qualifies Adam Smith's laissez-faire view in one or
two particular areas, he shouldn't be called a free-market economist?

Bernie, you're being pedantic.

Yes Dawkins is an atheist and Darwin was agnostic, but Dawkins's general
view of evolution is Darwinian, through and through. You would know that if
you'd read both Darwin and Dawkins, which makes me wonder if you have.

Darwin was not out to recruit followers? Then why, tell me, did he publish
thousands of pages arguing for his view of evolution?

Bernie, I'm willing to listen to arguments of all kinds, even when they come
to conclusions quite different from my own; but I'm very impatient with the
sort of text-free, history-free conjecture and assertion that you're
offering here. I think a bit more "homework" is in order.


From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Thu May 21 2009 - 14:15:53 EDT

Actually- further considering what I wrote below, I think it would be more
accurate to say Dawkins is NOT a "Darwinist" because a Darwinist should be
agnostic like Darwin! So what we apparently need is a redefinition of
"Darwinist." It is the anti-evolutionists who seem to have come up with this
ploy of a "Darwinist" label- which seems to me a way to discredit evolution
by trying to make Darwin appear as someone like Dawkins. Maybe instead of
"Darwinist" a better label really is a "Dawkinist."

This is esp. true as Dawkins is out to recruit followers, compared to Darwin
who never did.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:53 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Darwinism (was: BioLogos - Bad Theology?)

> Cameron- nice post.
> You said:
> "Darwinism is compatible with Deism as well as
> with atheism. What is essential to Darwin's system is not that there is
> no
> God, but that God, if he exists, does not intervene in the natural laws
> that
> he has established. He leaves the evolution of life to chance and natural
> selection. Evolution is not only not miraculously guided; it is not
> intelligently guided, either (though its results simulate the effects of
> intelligence)."
> That was very good.
> You also said:
> " Dawkins, on the other hand, is indeed an atheist. He takes the evidence
> for Darwinian evolution as a proof of atheism. Darwin was never that
> foolish,..."
> And also:
> "Nonetheless, both Darwin and Dawkins are Darwinists."
> First- is it fair to call Dawkins a Darwinist when you even say that
> Darwin would have rebuked Dawkins? Also, it is funny that you would call
> Darwin a Darwinist, because obviously the "Darwinist" tag is named after
> "Darwin."
> If you would call Dawkins a Darwinist, but Darwin would have rebuked
> Dawkins, then it seems inconsistent to attach Darwin to Dawkins, by the
> "Darwinist" label. It's not fair, if it would have made Darwin mad to
> witness such a thing, which we both seem to agree would displease Darwin.
> So instead of calling Dawkins a Darwinist, it seems to me a better label
> is needed, since Darwin himself would have rebuked Dawkins. As it is,
> Darwin's name is being tarnished, unnecessarily and unfairly, when
> referring to Dawkins as a Darwinist.
> ...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 21 18:22:37 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 21 2009 - 18:22:37 EDT