Re: [asa] BioLogos - Bad Theology?

From: <steamdoc@aol.com>
Date: Fri May 29 2009 - 17:15:58 EDT

I will grant Gregory one point in his post that is mostly too snarky to bother responding to.

When I said:
---------
Terry is using "Darwinian" as it is used within science, to simply?mean something like "genetic variation without apparent direction, acted upon by natural selection"
---------
it would have been more clear and accurate to say "the biological sciences" instead of "science".? So thank you, Gregory, for helping me?clarify my words.

But after that, the fact that Cameron may not himself?be officially "within the ID movement" is in no way at odds with my statement:
--------
Cameron is using "Darwinian" as it is used within the ID movement
--------
Just like many people (but usually not me)?could use the term in the same way Terry does without being a biologist or biochemist.

Then the rest is the same old schoolyard taunts which are not worth my time.

Allan (ASA member)

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
To: asa@calvin.edu; steamdoc@aol.com
Sent: Fri, 29 May 2009 1:51 pm
Subject: Re: [asa] BioLogos - Bad Theology?

Allen,

?

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

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 29 17:16:42 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 29 2009 - 17:16:43 EDT