- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,266
- 10,000
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
You do realize that whatever tangent you think I've introduced into this thread was actually introduced by another person who I was attempting to assuage of his heightened concern about the "Satanic Influence" of Darwin's ToE?I don't know if you did or not.
It doesn't matter. Whatever points your were discussing, right or wrong, justified or not, it does not belong in this thread. Because it has nothing to do with the validity of the scientific theory of biological evolution.
...well, that sounds promising.It might very well be that I agree with your points.
Well, that probably depends on whether one subscribes to Methodological Materialism or Philosophical Materialism.That's a given, as that is the way every idea in science is treated.
I only do it for emphasis to try to get those TO WHOM I'm addressing to take notice and hopefully think a little more on the subject. And no, I didn't emphasize the term "theory" to imply a colloquial denotation, but in the context of the dialogue I had with those I was speaking to (i.e. a fellow Christian, initially), I was attempting to emphasize the difference between the biological fact of evolution apart from the scientific theory of evolution. Do you think I am wrong in doing so?Because there is no reason to.
It only confuses people about what the word means in a scientic context.
Is that what you were shooting for, by the way, by putting so much explicit emphasis on that word? To imply that, because it is called a "theory", that it doesn't need to be taken terribly seriously or something of the sorts?
Upvote
0