Re: AIG notes

Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>
> On 3/16/04 12:54 PM, "Gary Collins" <gwcollins@algol.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
> When one community (the majority of scientists) is using a word honestly,
> why should it resort to playing a word game because another community
> (AIG-type Christianity) is using words dishonestly for EFFECT in place of
> ACCURACY?

        It's true that the majority of scientists use the word "evolution" honestly.
But for some, evolution as a description and theory of biological change over time is
tacitly assumed to be justification for what has been called "evolutionism" as a more
general philosophy of life &/or cosmic reality. I do _not_ think that the word
"evolution" should be avoided because of that, but appropriate distinctions are in
order. (I often amplify a bit and say "biological evolution" to make the limitation
clear.) & the claims of those who think that "evolution" in the narrow sense implies
"evolutionism" in the broader sense (as folks at both extremes of the spectrum do)
should not be allowed to go without challenge.
        
                                                Shalom,
                                                George
                                                                    
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Tue Mar 16 16:02:18 2004