Loren:==
>Nope, my point is that they are all the *same* case. They are different
>in degree, not in kind. The terms mechanics, law, chance, behavior,
>conditioning, logic, evidence, and evolution all have useful technical
>meanings in several branches of science. (In the case of evolution, in
>astronomy and engineering as well as biology.) Also, each of these
>terms has been loaded with metaphysical baggage by some people to
>justify anti-theistic positions. The term "evolution" may have the
>lion's share of such nonsense right now, but that just means we have to
>work harder. If I read my history right, some of those other terms were
>giving "evolution" a real run for the money in previous decades.
>
I would tend to agree that for the average person "evolution" carries
more metaphysical baggage than the other words mentioned. However,
I think I can also make a strong case that "mechanistic" plays a
more important role in the popular writings of the most prominant
anti-theists. For example, in reading Dawkins, Dennett or PW Atkins
one can see straight away that it is not evolution itself but
mechanistic evolution that is keyed in on. Awhile back I showed
how Dawkins gave a horribly out of context quote of Polkinghorne.
Looking at the context one sees that Polkinghorne is an evolutionist
but that he is supporting a non-mechanistic view of evolution. If
I am allowed to read between the lines it seems to me that Dawkins
attempts to discredit Polkinghorne because he rejects the mechanistic
view of evolution.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University
"Aw, Wilbur" -- Mr. Ed