From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 15:58:15 EST
Michael Roberts wrote:
> Are you actually talking about Charles Darwin 1809-1882 or are you talking
> about another person of the same name?
> I suggest you make a good study of Darwin and not simply state what you
> think he said and meant, because you have got it wrong. It takes a long time
> to get into his mindset and that of his contemporaries and we need to be
> careful that we have both our facts right and our interpretation reasonable.
> You have done neither.
>
> Slick writings by hacks will not further understanding of these important
> issues
I suggest a book called "What Darwin Really Said". It shows some of the changes
that took place before and after the "origin". It is a nice separation between
the individual and his science/philosophy as they evolved (no pun).
Walt
>
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca>
> To: <ASA@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Intelligent design controversy in Canada
>
> > Howard J. Van Till wrote:
> >
> > >> From: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >> The Darwinism taught in the school system and university is
> > >> reductionist, atheistic, and chance-oriented. And it reflects not
> > >> only Darwin's view but that of key evolutionists today.
> >
> > > In Darwin's own words:
> > >
> > > "There is grandeur in this view of life; with its several powers
> > having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into
> > one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the
> > fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most
> > wonderful and most beautiful have been, and are being, evolved."
> > >
> > > Is this the sentiment you want to stamp out? Or, do you wish to
> > contest maximal naturalism?
> >
> >
> > Darwin didn't believe anything more or less than Lucretius did. He did
> > not find a way to eliminate a First Cause. And he was a great prose
> > stylist, as witness the passage above.
> >
> > So? We lesser hacks know how that is done. And I am not the least fooled
> > about what it means.
> >
> > It's all okay with me, understand, but it is a doctrine, and should not
> > be taught exclusively in the school system, as if by right. I believe
> > that the American courts were wrong in their judgement in this matter.
> >
> >
> > > And if it's the latter, why demonize the name of Darwin to make your
> > > point? How would you like your name demonized to make a point foreign
> > > to your own agenda?
> >
> >
> > Demonize? I should think Darwin would be proud to have gotten his theory
> > taught for so long, so exclusively, in so many venues, far beyond its
> > actual evidence base.
> >
> > Stephen Hawking has yet to do anything like as well with his no
> > boundaries hypothesis. Tegmark's four levels of multiverses are still
> > viewed as speculation. Only Darwin has the courts behind him. Now if
> > only he had the evidence.
> >
> > Denyse
> >
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 06 2003 - 15:59:44 EST