From: Sarah Berel-Harrop (sec@hal-pc.org)
Date: Sun Oct 12 2003 - 14:24:59 EDT
Walt, have you considered picking up an evolutionary
biology textbook as a reference? You seem to be
using _Origin of Species_ as your reference point,
and that is quite inappropriate. I have Futuyama's
and Ridley's textbooks available at my local library,
and Ridley's very good anthology _Evolution_ as well.
I suspect any of these references would help you
immensely.
Terry, didn't we ask the Bio PhD's to send in definitions
of evolution as part of the poll? Are you able to post
final results and the definitions?
----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Hicks
To: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Phillip Johnson (and Methodological Naturalism)
Now we need a scientific theory (like a gravitational theory). Darwin's was too simple and is not completely supported by the fossil record. People now talk about neo-Darwin. One should be able to list the theory in a few simple steps and then say what one might look for that could potentially invalidate it. Can _you_ do this for me, Wayne?
Walt
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 10/06/2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 12 2003 - 14:19:00 EDT