In a message dated 5/27/01 9:53:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
bpayne15@juno.com writes:
> > If evolution is being used in that manner (which I would agree that it
> is,
> > though probably not to the extent Bill Payne would say it is), should
> not our
> > primary call be to oppose this *misuse* of the science? The only
> motivation
> > for opposing the science itself should be if the science is not true,
> which
> > is not the motivation Bill states.
>
> Sorry, guess I lost something here. What is the motivation I stated?
>
You stated (or appeared to me like you were stating) your opposition to
evolution (actually, your endorsement of the ID movement) because "evolution
is being used by many to undercut our faith by making God irrelavant." That
was the source of my comment about how that use/misuse of the science (an
unjustified philosophical extrapolation that only holds up if one makes the
"God of the gaps" error) was what should be opposed in response to the
undercutting of faith, but that such misuse is not a legitimate reason for
opposing the science itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 28 2001 - 00:22:04 EDT