tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5811915658381747007..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Christian vs ChristianLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76691758920050947352011-09-17T11:21:40.376-04:002011-09-17T11:21:40.376-04:00@SLC
Perhaps Ken Miller is just being dishonest b...@SLC<br /><br />Perhaps Ken Miller is just being dishonest by trying to make a distinction between the methodological and the philosophical.<br /><br />Which comes with the territory for a Catholic scientist who allows church dogma to inform his science.<br /><br />You can see similar early child conditioning at work in the interview between Richard Dawkins and Father George Coyne (astronomer and former head of the Vatican Observatory) for his program "The Genius of Charles Darwin." (which didn't make it into the program but is available in the usual places).<br /><br />I saw Coyne speak in person at the U of T Newman Centre a few years ago as part of their "Naming the Holy" series. He comes across as a competent scientist and a brilliant teacher but is absolutely convinced that human evolution is teleological (this brain damage apparently caused by exposure to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in the seminary). He showed us a slide with the tree of life on it and claimed that because it looked like an arrow there must be a direction and destination, and guess what folks, that's us. In his defence he was speaking to the usual credulous group of catholic robots that infest this sort of religious circle jerk so he may have dumbed things down a bit.steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81605463905565396922011-09-16T18:13:32.807-04:002011-09-16T18:13:32.807-04:00Re Larry Moran
The problem is that, specifically ...Re Larry Moran<br /><br />The problem is that, specifically referring to Ken Miller, he rejected the term theistic evolutionist as applied to himself in a comment on this very blog several years ago. He describes himself as a methodological naturalist and philosophical theist. <br /><br />It would seem that Prof. Moran is rejecting the notion, espoused by Prof. Barbara Forrest, that there is a distinction between the methodological and the philosophical.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38484348643265063942011-09-16T08:07:56.470-04:002011-09-16T08:07:56.470-04:00BioLogos themselves use the term "evolutionar...BioLogos themselves use the term "evolutionary creationist" to describe their own belief system.<br />http://biologos.org/blog/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-a-qa-with-dennis-venemaSigmundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00262375488263086844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50608326629194785122011-09-16T07:47:04.644-04:002011-09-16T07:47:04.644-04:00Mike D says,
I say, let's reserve the term fo...Mike D says,<br /><br /><i>I say, let's reserve the term for those who misrepresent well-established scientific facts out of a religious agenda.</i><br /><br />That doesn't seem to be a very good definition because it places the emphasis on establishing that well-established scientific facts are being misrepresented. <br /><br />In other words, the burden of proof is on me and you to establish that a potential creationist is misrepresenting science. It's a contentious issue. You'd have a hard time showing that Ken Miller, Francis Collins—or even Michael Behe—actually misrepresent science but there's no debating that they all believe in a creator.<br /><br />Why not just stick with a definition based on what they DO believe rather on what they DO NOT believe? A creationist is anyone who believes in the existence of a creator who played an active role in guiding the history of life on Earth.<br /><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39486465081206581572011-09-16T07:19:59.023-04:002011-09-16T07:19:59.023-04:00I agree with Mike D in this: let's reserve the...I agree with Mike D in this: let's reserve the term 'creationist' for those who misrepresent well-established scientific facts out of a religious agenda. That keeps the discussion more clear.heleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358426050959144140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78692012427717224482011-09-16T05:14:27.494-04:002011-09-16T05:14:27.494-04:00Funny, I always interpreted the term "creatio...Funny, I always interpreted the term "creationism" to mean just that: The irrational belief that god(s) created the universe. <br /><br />The difference between theistic evolution and YEC is a quantitative one: TE is better at doublethink.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58040061005304480032011-09-16T03:17:01.215-04:002011-09-16T03:17:01.215-04:00I don't like to call theistic evolutionists &q...I don't like to call theistic evolutionists "creationists". I think it waters down the term. By that logic, we might as well call all theists "creationists" simply because they believe in a god who created the universe. <br /><br />I say, let's reserve the term for those who misrepresent well-established scientific facts out of a religious agenda.Mike Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097261108461657167noreply@blogger.com