Bryan R. Cross wrote:
<<
> So according to Wayne it *does not* matter
> that there is a virtual consensus
> among evolutionary biologists regarding
> the undirectedness (by an intelligent
> agent) of evolution. But according to George
> (whom Wayne commends) the virtual consensus
> among evolutionary biologists against ID
> *does* matter. Why isn't that special
pleading?? >>
I never said that there is a "virtual concensus", all I said was
--------------------------------
> The point is that although the
> assertions of individual scientists
> may claim that "evolution is a
> purposeless process" & co.(TM,R,C),
> few of them really have the basis to
> make that claim. They are scholars
> of a narrow scientific discipline,
> but that does not automatically
> grant them scholarship of other disciplines
> they have earned no credentials in.
--------------------------
Note the works "individual scientists". Maybe I
should put that in caps?
This does not say that *all* evolutionary biologist (EB)
think this. I don't ask each EB I meet what
what they believe, unless they open the forum for
such discussion. It is written that "Every matter
has a time and a way" Ecclesiastes 8.6
In addition, my point about George Murphy was that
he is a Lutheran minister, so it wouldn't surprise
me if he has read _at least_ parts of Josephus, and
possible Philo, so if George asserts something about
the New Testament exegesis (or Old Testament for that
matter), I would think there is at
least good reason to listen. Whether I would agree
or disagree in the end is another matter. The same
goes for few other people on the list who have deeply
studied the original works, history, etc.
in Grace we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 19:41:05 EDT