From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 14:16:24 EST
I am afraid to say that Darwin's views were not "> reductionist, atheistic,
and chance-oriented. " as you claim. He was never an atheist and hovered
between some kind of theism and agnosticism. It helps to read his books,
notebooks and correspondence.
You say "It also prevents us from considering non-reductionist and
non-atheistic and non-chance views of evolution ". At least in Cambridge in
England this is taught by Simon Conway Morris, and is taught in
non-reductionist and non-atheistic and non-chance just down the road from me
at Lancaster from by Christian professors. Even in Kansas some geology
professors are also Christians!!!!
As you say "Well, as far as I can tell, the earth's pretty old, and a lot of
fossils
have gone missing. Or never existed. Hard to tell which." Is this a studied
understatement worthy of a full-blooded understating englishman/woman, or
are you not absolutely sure that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, period,
no argument? There are more than enough fossils to demonstrate change over
time and lots and lots of sequences which demonstrate this , Horses,
elephants triceratops family, molluscs etc etc etc. I think you are
obfuscating the issue and either are totally unconvinced of the age of the
earth or you are expressing yourself in a very confused way.
I am sorry to say but your report and answer to my questions are very
misleading and you have set up a straw man.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 06 2003 - 14:17:25 EST