Re: [asa] Artificial molecule evolves (now 'evolving' labels)

David Clounch wrote:
>
> And I find theology to be less than worthless. Theology has
> absolutely nothing to do with whether to get a certain chemical
> reaction one needs all the reactants to be present.
>
> You may be correct that Behe has certain ideas about sequences of
> precursor configurations. But those, to me, are strictly a matter of
> scientific analysis, and have nothing to do with theology.
> Labeling Behe a creationist seems dirty pool to me. He may be an
> unconventional thinker. That doesn't make him a creationist.
>
> Before labeling someone, how about if some criteria are laid down
> first? For example, if person A believes in idea B then they are
> adherents of "ism" C? Given a standard of those types of
> definitions then it may make sense to try to put someone in a box.
> Without such a standard what these labels really mean is a political
> bashing is being engaged in. Guilt by association is one of the
> techniques used in political bashing.
>

Theology less than worthless!? Were your speaking of 'process theology'
specifically? How does chemistry relate to the usefulness of any theology?

Also -- even though I am not a YEC, I still insist that I am a
creationist, and that this need not preclude a full acceptance of common
descent. So the 'dirty pool' and guilty associations involved here may,
for some of us, be that the label 'creationism' got popularly hijacked
into meaning YEC creationism: a coup de grace of the YEC community
along with the more militant new atheists. If I understand your last
paragraph correctly, we may all have to be always unpacking our labels
in the foreseeable future because the single word (e.g. Creationism) has
been so broadened.

To Mr. Schwarzwald and Jim: Museum of Modern Art! But of course! I
failed to use the context; silly me.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jan 11 17:47:20 2009