From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 19:30:56 EST
Oh, Dear! I believe Johnson actually said "balony detector." But he was
being euphemistic, and I prefer the "four-letter" word.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Denyse O'Leary"
<oleary@sympatico.ca>; <ASA@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Intelligent design controversy in Canada
> I agree with Michael. The statement that "Darwin didn't believe anything
> more or less than Lucretius did. He did not find a way to eliminate a
First
> Cause" is a false characterization of Darwin to anyone who has taken the
> time to study his writings. All of those Anglican naturalist-parsons who
> corresponded with Darwin over the latter half of the 19th century
certainly
> knew better. Yes, Darwin was a great stylist--"The Voyage of the Beagle"
is
> one of the great works of Victorian literature. Are we to take it,
Denyse,
> that you think he used his powers of prose to conceal his true views?
>
> Phillip Johnson urges students to turn on their crap detectors when
studying
> evolution. I offer the same advice to those who examine ID arguments,
both
> those in favor of this so-called theory, and those the ID people proffer
> against evolution.
>
> Bob Schneider
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> To: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca>; <ASA@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 2:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Intelligent design controversy in Canada
>
>
> > 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
> >
> > 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 06 2003 - 19:35:38 EST