In a message dated 4/15/2006 9:44:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
d.nield@auckland.ac.nz writes:
Rich:
I would say "theologically accurate" rather than "scientifically accurate
Don
> The fall of Adam and Eve is a timeless and scientifically accurate
> description of human nature and its predicament.
>
> rich faussette
>
We can agree to disagree, but I am also right now posting my paper True
Religion on an IASCR list. These are scientists who study the congnitive science of
religion. The evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald has just posted my
recollection of HBES2000 on his website. If you see something scientifically
inaccurate in my paper True Religion, please point it out to me. I respect your
opinion, but would ask that you be a little more generous in your criticism by
specifying what is "scientifically inaccurate."
rich faussette
Received on Sun Apr 16 09:09:02 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 16 2006 - 09:09:02 EDT