>One could ask the creationists to define the term, since they use it so
>much, or at least point out those who claim the title, but I've tried that.
Bertvan added:
>>I agree with Phillip Johnson that Neo Darwinism seems to be a shifting
>>target, impossible to pin down. Should Neo Darwinism be taught in schools
as
>>"scientific fact", even if everyone has a different definition of the term?
Cliff answered:
>Should Bertvan be using the term, when he doesn't know what it means?
>Or does he delight in the invulnerability he enjoys when using terms whose
>meaning is "impossible to pin down?"
Hi Cliff,
Has Neo Darwinism acquired pejoritive connotations? I'm delighted, since I
think it is something with which I disagree. I've tried using the following:
"random mutation ( mutations without purpose, plan or design) and natural
selection (survival of the fittest) as an explanation for the diversity of
nature (i.e. macro evolution)."
It is difficult to argue against something which refuses to define itself.
Although I suppose that might be one way to avoid criticism. I would be
willing to accept any defintiion those who call themselves neo Darwinists
choose. I have no objection to "evolution", if the meaning is merely the
obvious fact that life forms seemed to have changed over time. I doubt many
creationists object to that statement. Certainly, I have been told many
times that I am a "creationist" for being skeptical of:
"random mutation ( mutations without purpose, plan or design) and natural
selection (survival of the fittest) as an explanation for the diversity of
nature (i.e. macro evolution)."
Bertvan