At 12:31 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
He did. And I couldn't supply one.
It's kind of like saying that the answer to life, the universe
and
everything is 42.
You mean it's NOT!
(as she pulls out her son's copy of Hitchhikers Guide for ref.)
val
I thought the church should strongly against the issue on an evolutionary
process.
Stacy.
At 06:36 AM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
Marc,
Who in your opinion presents the best, book length, argument in favor of
evolution? And who in your opinion best presents the best argument
against
Strictly speaking, I honestly don't know, because I don't consider evolution to
be a moral issue which one is converted to -- it's just a toolset for
approaching one question on how the physical world works, like any other theory.
You probably suspected I'd respond that way, but it's true. Also,
Here's the latest statement, which is positive neutrality, which is to say, that
it's not a matter for the Church to have an opinion on one way or the other
(despite what some brethren have written; see my response to John for more
information). This is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on
I wouldn't suggest this for a beginner, but the best and most up-to-date general
actual textbook, meant for university courses, is probably the relatively new,
but very long book that Stephen Jay Gould published just before he died, The
Structure of Evolutionary Theory.
John, you should
I'm compiling a long list of books to buy so that when I walk into an LDS
bookstore I'm not just going um, um, um.
Stacy.
At 10:43 AM 11/08/2002 -0700, you wrote:
Strictly speaking, I honestly don't know, because I don't consider
evolution to
be a moral issue which one is converted to -- it's
Mark Gregson wrote:
I wouldn't suggest this for a beginner, but the best and most up-to-date general
actual textbook, meant for university courses, is probably the relatively new,
but very long book that Stephen Jay Gould published just before he died, The
Structure of Evolutionary
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
But I hope that you are serious about the challenge of studying the issue
of evolution if you honestly expect to come to some kind of real
understanding. There is so much material to wade through with so many
questions about each fact
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
And finally, if you can hang tight, I might have another resource. I've
had the
idea for an article accepted by a well-known LDS publication (not Dialogue or
Sunstone), and a draft has been submitted. I can't reveal which
publication yet
After much pondering, Mark Gregson favored us with:
But I hope that you are serious about the challenge of studying the issue
of evolution if you honestly expect to come to some kind of real
understanding. There is so much material to wade through with so many
questions about each fact that
It is! How did you find out?
--
Steven Montgomery
At 12:31 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
He did. And I couldn't supply one.
It's kind of like saying that the answer to life, the universe and
everything is 42.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
I thought John asked for a single best source on the subject,
It is difficult to find books on evolution that avoid dogmatic
approaches. I suspect that most who disagree with the rank and file do
so privately. In my experience any lack of enthusiasm for the currently
favored doctrine of evolution is met with waves of contempt and
derision. If you
Actually, contrary to popular misconception he didn't originate the idea, he merely
popularized it. It's now considered fairly mainstream, and part of the New
Synthesis.
I knew he didn't come up with the initial idea when I wrote my previous post but I got
lazy.
However, I am correct in
By reading one book.
No. Waidaminute. It was a trilogy. 4 books. Yeah, that's it
Incidentally, I'm introducing a whole new generation to the wonders of Douglas Adams
-- I've got a big, storybook edition
of the trilogy to give my son for Christmas.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
It is! How did
John, I don't mean to over-complicate your task, but just by coincidence, someone
posted the following statement by the AAAS (who put out Science, the US competitor of
Nature), on Eyring-L just
within the past hour. It's a statement against intelligent design:
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
I'm cc'ing Justin Hart on this, so if you want to get in touch with him
for more resources on ID, I'm sure he'd be glad to help.
I'm going to do a little survey reading first, then maybe I'll have you put
me in touch with him. I'm so
You're straining at a camel here. And quoting out of context. I would encourage people
to read the first link, which is a detailed obituary of Gould. It shows the opposite
of what you contend: he challenged the mainstream, but his ideas are now part of the
New Synthesis. Here's another quote
Fair enough. I know what you mean about projects -- I'm rather like that myself,
as it happens. But you'll find Justin a real gentleman and quite helpful. He and
I have politely agreed to disagree, but we work together at FAIR in apologetics
work (in fact, I got him involved after reading one of
18 matches
Mail list logo
