home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!das.wang.com!ulowell!m2c!nic.umass.edu!noc.near.net!news.Brown.EDU!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!ofa123!David.Rice
- From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
- Newsgroups: talk.origins
- Subject: "Darwinism" and Mr. Johnson
- Message-ID: <402610d4c@ofa123.fidonet.org>
- Date: 26 Jan 93 17:33:56 GMT
- Lines: 31
- X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan 3 1993
-
-
-
- Who: philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson)
- ID: <1jq79a$88c@agate.berkeley.edu>
-
- PJ> "From 'Darwin on Trial,' p. 4: By 'Darwinism' I mean fully
- PJ> naturalistic evolution, involving chance mechanisms guided
- PJ> by natural selection. The theory is not controversial at
- PJ> the peppered moth level, but it is very controversial indeed
- PJ> when offered as a general explanation for the existence of
- PJ> complex living organisms."
-
- Er, why not use the word "Evolution?" Did you know that Darwin
- is dead? And that he died a long time ago? And that his theories
- have been radically altered and enhanced in the past 110+ years?
- Why in the world would you refer to evolution as "Darwinism?" I
- don't get it.
-
- On a lighter side, there is no controversy concerning explaining
- the existance of complex living organisms (ps: define "complex").
- The mechanisms are quite well known, are measured and observed.
- There are occultists, mostly Christian fundamentalists, who wish
- to present the illusion of controversy so they may introduce
- their occultism into public schools, to indoctrinate innocent
- children into their cult, often against the parent's wishes.
- Creationists have utterly failed to find valid flaws in evolutionary
- theory; one would think that after a hundred years of effort they
- would have. LET THEM SHOW THE FLAWS, instead of falling back on lies
- and deciet.
-
- --- Squish v1.01
-