From: Mccarrick Alan D CRPH (MccarrickAD@nswccd.navy.mil)
Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 09:25:29 EDT
Kieth,
My desired point in using the term "atheistic evolution" was
precisely what you observed - it is a philosophical position
presented as science. I believe that it is true that there are
scince class rooms where the philosophical position of the instructor
is being presented more than just the science. Remember the initial
wording of the "official" definition of evolution by NBTA (?) that
included the terms "unsupervised", "undirected"... Those words were
taken out appearantly to remove those philosophical assuptions from
the fact based science. It is too easy for a reductionist view to
take hold and "prove" that God has no part in anything.
Al McCarrick
-----Original Message-----
From: kbmill@ksu.edu [mailto:kbmill@ksu.edu]
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 10:22 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: More on the Georgia Decision, from Cal Thomas
>The question is rather "Is the evidence against atheistic evolution
>worthy of presentation and discussion." The answer is probably
>"yes", but the details must be fleshed out carefully.
What on Earth is "atheistic evolution"? It is not any scientific position
- It is a philosophical position. From a science perspective, there is
no such thing as "atheistic evolution" anymore than there is "atheistic
chemistry." Much would be resolved if people would just recognize this,
and deal with it as a philosophical and theological issue and let the best
science be taught in science class.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 04 2002 - 12:18:30 EDT