From: Jan de Koning (jan@dekoning.ca)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 15:54:05 EST
THE school-system? I know at least three school-systems here (Public,
Roman-Catholic, Christian) and I know about several more. I see that you
live in Toronto just like I do, so I cannot understand your talking about
the schools like there was only one. >My children did not go to public
schools here, and we have here a graduate school, Institute for Christian
Studies (ICS), several Roman Catholic colleges, Wycliffe College, Community
Colleges, Bible Colleges, 2 Universities, etc.etc. When accusing you
should be more specific.
To my knowledge several school-systems may teach evolution, but very few
will teach unadulterated "Darwinism". On the contrary, even
school-systems that teach so-called "evolution" may do it on a truly
Christian basis. Even that may be done in different ways. Defining
"evolution" as Denyse does is dangerous, and may be even called
un-Christian as it does not specify enough what is wrong.
"Reductionist"? How? At the university level it gives more
particulars than any anti-evolution theory can bring forward.
"Atheistic"? Depends on who is teaching. Any Christian teaching in any
place will often not hesitate to see some other person, who is not a
Christian, to give him the label "atheist," without even trying to find the
background of his thinking. As Christians we are really not good at
distinguishing people we are disagreeing with. I can assure you, though,
that I am a Christian, and I do think that God created using evolution.
"Darwinism"? Is that what Darwin thought, or, do you mean what is taught
now, pointing out Darwin's errors as well?
"reductionist"? How? "chance-oriented"? According to the Bible, chance
is in God's hands. Is that the "chance" you mean?
Jan de Koning
At 09:22 AM 06/11/2003 -0500, Denyse O'Leary wrote:
>Michael Roberts wrote:
>>WHAT IS DARWINISM?
>>The whole problem with Denyse's interviews and the ISCID article is that
>>it puts up Darwinism as a strawman. I dont know what Darwinism is as it
>>has as many definitions as there are people. Of course, this approach is
>>to retain the big tent of ID.
>>It also prevents us from considering non-reductionist and non-atheistic
>>and non-chance views of evolution .
>
>The Darwinism taught in the school system and university is reductionist,
>atheistic, and chance-oriented. And it reflects not only Darwin's view but
>that of key evolutionists today.
>
>You are free to promote a different view, but you will need a very thick
>skin to promote it in the school system and university. I sincerely wish
>you luck.
>
>
>>Before we can consider all this;
>>What is the status of the age of the earth and the fossil succession over
>>time?
>
>
>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.
>
>Denyse
>
>
>
>>Any discussion which does not deal with that is like Hamlet without the
>>Prince of Denmark
>>What is chance and natural selection?
>>A lot of confusion is caused by the loose use of terms such as chance,
>>Darwinism and Naturalism.
>>Michael
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Collins To:
>> asa@lists.calvin.edu Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 9:45 AM
>> Subject: Re: asa-digest V1 #3761
>>
>> --Original Message Text---
>> From: asa-digest
>> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 05:20:01 -0500
>> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 07:51:08 -0500
>> From: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca>
>> Subject: Re: Intelligent design controversy in Canada
>> List members may be interested in an online interview with Kirk
>> Dunston of the New Scholars Society in Canada, where he talks about
>> intelligent design, Darwinian evolution, and genome mapping. The
>> controversy is only now spreading to Canada.
>> One of his comments:
>>
>>http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/031023evolution
>> Natural processes, over the history of the universe, have the
>> potential to produce up to 70 bits of information. Unfortunately, just
>> one, average 300-residue protein requires about 500 bits to encode.
>> The simplest theoretical life form would need somewhere in the
>> neighbourhood of 250 protein-coding genes.
>> There is also an interview with me at
>>
>>http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/031030evolution
>>
>> One of my comments: I only discovered how much trouble Darwinism was
>> in when I took a year out of my life -- late 2002 to late 2003 -- to
>> study the situation. I was appalled. Darwinism has nothing like the
>> support that we are accustomed to for theories in physics or chemistry.
>> Denyse
>> I read these articles - thanks. One thing I was hoping to find, but
>> didn't,
>> is some justification for the mysterious figure of 70 bits of
>> information, which appears as though it is a "given" for some reason.
>> I also recently came across an interesting essay by William Hasker,
>> entitled "How not to be a Reductivist." He quotes Thomas Nagel, who
>> 'admits quite candidly,
>> I hope there is no God! I dont want there to be a God; I dont want
>> the universe to be like that'
>> as saying,
>> "My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare
>> condition and that it is
>> responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.
>> One of the
>> tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary
>> biology to explain
>> everything about life, including everything about the human mind.
>> Darwin enabled
>> modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by
>> apparently providing
>> a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental
>> features of the world.
>> Instead they become epiphenomena, generated incidentally by a process
>> that can be
>> entirely explained by the operation of the nonteleological laws of
>> physics on the material
>> of which we and our environments are all composed."
>> and adds, "Nagel himself, even though he shares in the cosmic
>> authority problem, strenuously resists this
>> facile appeal to Darwinism."
>> The whole essay can be found at
>> http://www.iscid.org/papers/Hasker_NonReductivism_103103.pdf
>> /Gary
>
>
>--
>To see what's new in faith and science issues, go to www.designorchance.com
>My next book, By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy Over the
>Origin of Life in the Universe (Castle Quay Books, Oakville) will be
>published Spring 2004.
>
>To order, call Castle Quay, 1-800-265-6397,
>fax 519-748-9835, or visit www.afcanada.com (CDN $19.95 or
>US$14.95).
>
>Denyse O'Leary
>14 Latimer Avenue
>Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5N 2L8
>Tel: 416 485-2392/Fax: 416 485-9665
>oleary@sympatico.ca
>www.denyseoleary.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 06 2003 - 15:48:11 EST