Re: [asa] "I have yet to hear a coherent argument from a "theistic evolutionist" as to why."

Thanks for the input. Here below at # 26, 28,
29, are my three posts to him but neither he, nor
anyone else has responded to them yet. ~ Janice

Darwinian [___] - An Evolutionary Dead End (Book Review)
On
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus//focus/f-news/browse>News/Activism
10/17/2006 12:47:15 PM EDT · 29 replies · 446+ views as of 3:15 PM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1720950/posts

To: wideawake

"I have yet to hear a coherent argument from a
"theistic evolutionist" as to why Dawkins' and
Dennett's triumphant claims that Darwinism is a
"universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and
creates a truly fulfilled atheism are wrong." ~ wideawake

Would you recognize coherency when you hear it? :)

Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life by Alister McGrath
<http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-God-Genes-Memes-Meaning/dp/1405125381>http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-God-Genes-Memes-Meaning/dp/1405125381

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1720950/posts?page=26#26>26
posted on 10/17/2006 3:00:31 PM EDT by Matchett-PI

To: wideawake

"I have yet to hear a coherent argument from a
"theistic evolutionist" as to why Dawkins' and
Dennett's triumphant claims that Darwinism is a
"universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and
creates a truly fulfilled atheism are wrong." ~ wideawake

Here's a response you may find helpful:

It's not too tough: There is a significant number
of people who understand & accept a Darwinian
version of evolution whose faith is, nevertheless, undissolved.

Qualifications:

1) Do you need a list of names & publications? It
shouldn't be hard for anyone who's at all
familiar with work in the science-religion area to compile one.

2) By "Darwinian version of evolution" I mean a
scientific theory of evolution in which natural
selection plays a major role. If "Darwinism"
means a totalizing philosophy of everything then
the "triumphant claims" are tautologically true but also uninteresting.

3) I think that Dawkins' statement - or at least
the one I recall - was that Darwinism "made it
possible for a person to be an intellectually
fulfilled atheist." That is considerably weaker
than the claim that it "creates a truly fulfilled atheism."

Shalom
George Murphy
<http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1720950/posts?page=28#28>28
posted on 10/17/2006 3:06:35 PM EDT by Matchett-PI

To: wideawake

"I have yet to hear a coherent argument from a
"theistic evolutionist" as to why Dawkins' and
Dennett's triumphant claims that Darwinism is a
"universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and
creates a truly fulfilled atheism are wrong." ~ wideawake

Here's another response:

Let's put this in logical form. Darwinism is a
"universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and
creates fulfilled atheism is equivalent to:

All Darwinists become fulfilled atheists.

To disprove this one only needs to find is a
single counter-example. I exist. The statement is false. Q.E.D.

Thus, all TEs need to do to have a coherant
argument against this is to breath. ~ Rich Blinne
- <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>asa@calvin.edu

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1720950/posts?page=29#29>29
posted on 10/17/2006 3:11:54 PM EDT by Matchett-PI

At 02:52 PM 10/17/2006, George Murphy wrote:
>It's not too tough: There is a significant
>number of people who understand & accept a
>Darwinian version of evolution whose faith is, nevertheless, undissolved.
>
>Qualifications:
>
>1) Do you need a list of names &
>publications? It shouldn't be hard for anyone
>who's at all familiar with work in the science-religion area to compile one.
>
>2) By "Darwinian version of evolution" I mean a
>scientific theory of evolution in which natural
>selection plays a major role. If "Darwinism"
>means a totalizing philosophy of everything then
>the "triumphant claims" are tautologically true but also uninteresting.
>
>3) I think that Dawkins' statement - or at
>least the one I recall - was that Darwinism
>"made it possible for a person to be an
>intellectually fulfilled atheist." That is
>considerably weaker than the claim that it "creates a truly fulfilled atheism."
>
>Shalom
>George
><http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>Janice Matchett
>To: <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>asa@calvin.edu
>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:16 PM
>Subject: [asa] "I have yet to hear a coherent
>argument from a "theistic evolutionist" as to why."
>
>
>Anybody here want to provide him with the
>coherent argument he's looking for? If so, I'll
>be glad to post it to him in the thread below. ~ Janice
>
>To wit:
>
>I have yet to hear a coherent argument from a
>"theistic evolutionist" as to why Dawkins' and
>Dennett's triumphant claims that Darwinism is a
>"universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and
>creates a truly fulfilled atheism are wrong.
>
>2 posted on 10/17/2006 12:57:01 PM EDT by wideawake
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1720950/posts?page=2#2
>
>
>Darwinian [ fill in the blank ] An Evolutionary Dead End (Book Review)
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1720950/posts
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 17 15:26:10 2006