Re: [asa] On the semantics of "evolution" (long)

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
wrote:

>
>
> I also understand, I think, why it is that Greg objects to the claims of
> "total evolution" (and to "theistic evolution" if it does, indeed, entail
> "total evolution") for, it now seems to me, that Greg's objection is that
> such a term comes dangerously close to being a claim about everything that
> exists due to the fact that its implicit restrictions - understood only to
> those familiar with its claims - are all to often overlooked. The fault with
> such a term is that - despite its IMPLIED exclusion of certain phenomena
> from the category of evolving things (i.e. things that change ACCORDING TO
> NATURAL "LAWS") - it does not CLEARLY DELINEATE those disciplines (theology,
> philosophy, car repair, tiddly-winks) where "evolution" is simply not a
> helpful descriptive label.
>
> Such is the matter as I now see it.
>
> Sorry for the length of the above, but I hope it proves helpful. I would,
> of course, welcome any feedback folk may care to offer.

And many, many times we have carefully explained that we deny total
evolution. E-6 has much in common with so-called total evolution. Gregory
complains that E-6 is rejected because it is not science -- which is true.
However, we reject E-6 because it is not Christian and clearly not so.
Evolution is a much abused term and concept. That being said it is always
good to remember:

*Abusus non tollit usum

*Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 19 20:38:22 2008