Re: [asa] BioLogos - Bad Theology?

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Fri May 29 2009 - 15:51:24 EDT

If you,ll forgive me for pointing this out and ruining your argument, Dr. Harvey, you,re assuming what you,re trying to prove.
<Terry is using <Darwinian> as it is used within science> ... <Cameron is using <Darwinian> as it is used within the ID movement> - steamdoc
The first questions are obvious ones that naturalists often don,t like to confront openly: Which science? Whose science?
The second point is to notice that Cameron is not <within> the IDM.
So, you,ll need to correct your false perceptions in order to make such claims in public, Dr. Harvey.
I,ll defeat <Darwinism> any day of the week in the academic spheres in which I participate because Darwin was a mere amateur and rather unsensitive here. Do you disagree?
You also wrote: <Darwinian> and <Darwinism> should simply be avoided in these sorts of discussions.  Everybody needs to be careful about being clear about whether they are talking about science, metaphysics, or some mix of the two.>
While I agree with this, wholeheartedly, I wonder if I might ask: what are you personally doing to help achieve this goal? How are you trying to rid biology or other natural sciences from speaking of <Darwinism>? Are you having much success at it? Or do you just mean that philosophy should have no beef with <Darwinism>?

The rest of your post I see as a typical defense of <science> behind the pseudo-philosophical distinction of MN (methodological naturalism) from MN (metaphysical naturalism), which I am currently working to <overcome> in a thread with Keith Miller.
Gregory __________________________________________________________________ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 29 15:51:41 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 29 2009 - 15:51:41 EDT