Re: AIG notes

You cant deal with AIG because they have funny definitions of words anyway
and use them to mean something different, just consider their wrong use of
uniformitarian and evolutionary geology. They misuse words for polemical
purposes to deceive others .

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Collins" <gwcollins@algol.co.uk>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: AIG notes

> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:20:09 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
>
> >> Maybe if 'evolution' were to be replaced, for example with the phrase
> >> 'descent with modification' (as used by Darwin himself) most or all of
> >> this surplus baggage could be shed.
> >
> > There is something to be said for this. In the _Origin_, the 1st use of
an
> >evolve-related word is the _last_ word in the book: "... from so simple
a beginning
> >endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being,
evolved."
> >(This is from the 5th ed. Someone more expert on Darwin may know if
there are
> >differences in earlier editions.)
> >
> > But eventually the E word will have to be faced, & probably sooner
rather than
> >later. As soon as the meaning of "descent with modification" has been
made clear, some
> >bright student is likely to ask the teacher, "Are you talking about
evolution?" & at
> >that point any attempt to avoid the word would be dishonest.
> >
>
> Yes. I don't think students are thick, they will realize that this is
evolution. But I was
> not thinking so much of evasion tactics but rather to focus the attention
on the biological
> process and draw it away from the philosophical overtones. If the question
came up - and
> I'm sure it would - then the teacher could draw attention to this
distinction. Perhaps it
> would be a good thing if not just the textbooks but the biological
community itself were to
> change the word (though I can't see this happening).
>
> /Gary
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 16 09:16:18 2004