From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 19:17:53 EST
I agree with Michael. The statement that "Darwin didn't believe anything
more or less than Lucretius did. He did not find a way to eliminate a First
Cause" is a false characterization of Darwin to anyone who has taken the
time to study his writings. All of those Anglican naturalist-parsons who
corresponded with Darwin over the latter half of the 19th century certainly
knew better. Yes, Darwin was a great stylist--"The Voyage of the Beagle" is
one of the great works of Victorian literature. Are we to take it, Denyse,
that you think he used his powers of prose to conceal his true views?
Phillip Johnson urges students to turn on their crap detectors when studying
evolution. I offer the same advice to those who examine ID arguments, both
those in favor of this so-called theory, and those the ID people proffer
against evolution.
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca>; <ASA@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: Intelligent design controversy in Canada
> Are you actually talking about Charles Darwin 1809-1882 or are you talking
> about another person of the same name?
> I suggest you make a good study of Darwin and not simply state what you
> think he said and meant, because you have got it wrong. It takes a long
time
> to get into his mindset and that of his contemporaries and we need to be
> careful that we have both our facts right and our interpretation
reasonable.
> You have done neither.
>
> Slick writings by hacks will not further understanding of these important
> issues
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca>
> To: <ASA@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Intelligent design controversy in Canada
>
>
> > Howard J. Van Till wrote:
> >
> > >> From: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >> 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.
> >
> > > In Darwin's own words:
> > >
> > > "There is grandeur in this view of life; with its several powers
> > having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into
> > one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the
> > fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most
> > wonderful and most beautiful have been, and are being, evolved."
> > >
> > > Is this the sentiment you want to stamp out? Or, do you wish to
> > contest maximal naturalism?
> >
> >
> > Darwin didn't believe anything more or less than Lucretius did. He did
> > not find a way to eliminate a First Cause. And he was a great prose
> > stylist, as witness the passage above.
> >
> > So? We lesser hacks know how that is done. And I am not the least fooled
> > about what it means.
> >
> > It's all okay with me, understand, but it is a doctrine, and should not
> > be taught exclusively in the school system, as if by right. I believe
> > that the American courts were wrong in their judgement in this matter.
> >
> >
> > > And if it's the latter, why demonize the name of Darwin to make your
> > > point? How would you like your name demonized to make a point foreign
> > > to your own agenda?
> >
> >
> > Demonize? I should think Darwin would be proud to have gotten his theory
> > taught for so long, so exclusively, in so many venues, far beyond its
> > actual evidence base.
> >
> > Stephen Hawking has yet to do anything like as well with his no
> > boundaries hypothesis. Tegmark's four levels of multiverses are still
> > viewed as speculation. Only Darwin has the courts behind him. Now if
> > only he had the evidence.
> >
> > Denyse
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 06 2003 - 19:22:39 EST