Re: [asa] Rejoinder 9C from Timaeus - to George Murphy

Well, Michael, if you would be a bit more charitable and merciful, you would simply read Timaeus as saying:
 
"Obviously I am not going to hold any defender of Darwinism today to Darwin’s gross errors about the mechanisms of inheritance [as are evident according to current scientific standards]."

 
Perhaps you skipped over the word 'today' in the quote or perhaps you are overly forgiving of the other gross indecenies attributable to Darwinism, which includes Social Darwinism. In either case, it's another example of you pointing your finger needlessly and meaninglessly.
 
As Robert Young says,
“Except for scientific positivists and religious fundamentalists, then, the connection between Darwinism and society is acknowledged...extrapolations from Darwinism to either humanity or society are not separable from Darwin’s own views, nor are they chronologically subsequent. They are integral.” ("Darwinism IS Social" in The Darwinian Heritage. Ed. David Kohn, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1985)
 
And as Soren Lovtrup writes:
“biologists themselves are aware of the fact that the significance of Darwinism is a myth, but…for reasons of piety they do not divulge the truth.” (Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth. London: Croom Helm, 1987)
 
Michael, you give tours following Darwin's footsteps in the hills and valleys of the U.K. You appear to me to be one of the most purposefully blind to any possible errors that Darwin made, even in light of current knowledge. And thus you give fuel to your enemies (which is often anti-Christian)! It would be helpful if you would be a bit more critical of your academic hero and to list what you believe to be Darwin's errors and how these contribute to anti-religious propoganda.
 
Here is an example that you could perhaps follow, while trying to maintain your intellectual integrity as a geologist and theologian of the suspicous and often cynical variety:
 
"Celebrating Darwin's Errors" Douglas Allchin for American Biology Teacher.
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~allch001/papers/darwin-errors.pdf
 
And since you've called out his theological position, Michael, there is no doubt in my mind from reading his graceful and merciful communications that Timaeus is Orthodox in his relations with others.
 
Gregory
 
p.s. what a word from Michael: 'squeal'!

--- On Fri, 11/14/08, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [asa] Rejoinder 9C from Timaeus - to George Murphy
To: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>, asa@lists.calvin.edu
Cc: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Received: Friday, November 14, 2008, 11:25 PM

I am observing Timaeus's comments but I find this comment very disturbing;

. "Obviously I am not going to hold any defender of Darwinism today to
Darwin’s gross errors about the mechanisms of inheritance. "

This type of comment makes me hostile to everything else Timaeus says as it is
simply an unreasonable criticism of Darwin.

Darwin had no clear idea of inheritance and tried to put forward "blending
inheritance " etc. To call these "gross errors" is rather like
criticisng Copernicus for his terrible gross error of circular orbits or Dana
for not accepting plate tectonics.

This is simply very bad judgement by Timaeus and designed to lose the sympathy
of others who might listen.

On his theology Timaeus seems to have diverged from orthodox theology, and
perhaps we should see how often this happens today by those who might want to
squeal liberal at George and myself. I dont have time to deal with it at length
but am concerned.

Michael __________________________________________________________________ Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 17 15:45:55 2008