John W Burgeson wrote:
> George wrote: "Many have only hazy ideas about what evolution is as a
> scientific theory, & others have already have the misconception that will
> be reinforced by this definition. & this ambiguity is extremely
> pertinent to the the success of what is essentially a bait and switch
> operation."
>
> I think where you and I disagree most strongly on all this is that you
> appear to see nefarious motivations (i.e. your "bait & switch" comment)
> on the part of the loyal opposition and I do not.
I think very few IDers, YECs &c have "nefarious motivations." I.e.,
they are not saying "Of course we know that Darwinian evolution as a
scientific theory doesn't imply rejection of divien action." But there is a
considerable amount of naivete & carelessness.
I agree with you that the web site could be improved in this area to
> differentiate between "Darwinism" as an invalid philosophy and other
> definitions.
>
> On another subject, I just checked out of the Iliff library a new book by
> Michael Corey called "Evolution and the Problem of Natural Evil." Have
> you (or anyone here) seen it and have comments. After reading just the
> first chapter last night, I think it is going to be a significant
> contribution to the dialog. I have noted that Van Till and Griffin are
> both commented upon -- however I have not read those sections carefully
> yet.
I haven't read this yet & have a good deal on my plate now. To the
general theodicy question I would just comment that
a) process theology is too easy a solution, and
b) (as I have said before) any theodicy in which the cross is not
central isn't ultimately worth much.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 05 2002 - 13:03:03 EST