See below
> I have no difficulty assuming that there are so
> many varieties of theistic evolutionism that I
> lose the thread after a while. However, there IS
> a thread. TE usually seems to mean that there is
> no evidence for God's intelligence or agency in
> the world we see. Faith is then an exercise in
> irrational choice.
This is rubbish
>
> In other words, theistic evolutionism is a
> classic "modernist" point of view. Science is
> rational but faith is not.
This is a totally false statement. Soem TEs like Peacocke and others are
modernists but a fgood number are not. TEs who are not modernist include G
Murphy, T Davis, many in ASA and similar groups in UK and Australia as well
as many evangelical theologians all over the world.
>
> The ID people may be right or wrong in their
> assertions, but that must be determined from
> evidence. As such, I think they are much closer
> to the heart of science.
>
> Having monitored this list for what must be a
> year now (can't swear to the exact amount of
> time), I doubt that very many people on it would
> accept any type of actual critical thinking on
> Darwinism.
What you term critical thinking is simply uncritical rejection of any kind
of evolution.
I am afraid that what you do is neither critical nor thinking
> If any of you would really permit critical
> thinking about Darwinism, you are free to write
> critical thinking exercises and submit them to
> textbook publishers.
How patronising can you get?
>
> Who knows, despite your best efforts, there may
> well be a market for your work in future years,
> and my blessings would go with you.
>
> Why not help open the windows instead of jamming
> them shut?
I always shut my windows when the farmers are putting manure on the fields
opposite
Michael
Received on Fri Mar 12 12:38:33 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 12 2004 - 12:38:33 EST