In a message dated 10/30/2000 5:29:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<< Reflectorites
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:22:11 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
[...]
WE>The ambitious plan which began to take shape in 1976 can be stated
>today with precision and conviction; "To defend and articulate
>Unification theology especially in relation to Darwinian evolution,"
>he said. It was a plan which took its first steps in his UTS
>thesis. "This was before there was any talk of going on for
>doctorates" said Dr. Wells. "My thesis was on evolution and I would
>spend two or three days a week at Columbia University using their
>biology library to do research on Darwinian evolution. I learned that
>the evidence supports Darwin's theory for micro-evolution, or slight
>changes which occur within a species or genus, but not for
>macro-evolution, or the major changes which mark the history of life
>on earth."
[...]
Two things: 1) this helps confirm Johnson's point that Darwinian evolution
is seen by *all* forms of theistic religion as antithetical, not just
Christian
young-Earth creationism; and 2) ultimately it is not the motivation that is
important, but the *evidence*, which is:
"the evidence supports Darwin's theory for micro-evolution...but
not for macro-evolution, or the major changes which mark the
history of life on earth."
>>
==========================================
And yet why should we accept Wells' spectacularly biased view of the
evidence?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 30 2000 - 18:07:15 EST