>Do all of you Neo Darwinists on the list agree with that? Is it called Neo
>Darwinism because that was Darwin's contribution to evolution--that nature
>must be basically devoid of purpose?
It should be clear by now that the term 'Neo-Darwinism' is favored by
creationists simply because it has a more pejorative sound than the
alternatives, not because it has any particular meaning. If evolutionists
can't stand up and say 'I am a Neo-Darwinist', they should have sense
enough to repudiate the term.
One could ask the creationists to define the term, since they use it so
much, or at least point out those who claim the title, but I've tried that.
>I agree with Phillip Johnson that Neo Darwinism seems to be a shifting
>target, impossible to pin down. Should Neo Darwinism be taught in schools as
>"scientific fact", even if everyone has a different definition of the term?
>Respectfully awaiting your answers,
Should Bertvan be using the term, when he doesn't know what it means?
Or does he delight in the invulnerability he enjoys when using terms whose
meaning is "impossible to pin down?"
-- Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ email@example.com