From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Sep 28 2007 - 23:06:43 CDT
William J Poser
> Envoyé : samedi 29 septembre 2007 03:02
> À : firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc : email@example.com
> Objet : RE: Fish (was Re: Marks)
> >And I wonder why you would need to hide it. Because of some US =
> >"churches" that spread antidarwinism, reject evolution (against
> >all scientists) and even militate against teaching it in US schools?
> >Do you fear antievolutionists in US so much that you'd need to
> >use mystic symbols to defend science?
> I'm not sure how "hiding" came up. The Darwin fish is used, primarily
> on bumper stickers, by people of scientific orientation who are
> opposed to Christian antievolutionism.
This reply is a bit out-of-topic...
I would not associate "Christian" and "antievolutionism" (something that I
have only heard being defended in US where many churches are proliferating)
in the same simple way.
Not all churches are opposed to Darwinism, in fact most of them have adapted
their vision so that it won't contradict the material interpretations made
by scientists. Most churches are not placing their debate in this material
arena, but in the arena of faith, goodwill/badwill, respect, spirit, and
even militate for a better understanding of the world in which we live, be
better admire the result of the creation and why people should not judge
only by what they see, but how they feel or how others are feeling about
what they do.
I am Christian (I'm not sure this interests everyone in this list), but
nothing in the Darwinism (or any other refined theory that could come later)
does not conflict with my religion. These are not the same place of
thinking, not the same domain of application. The fact that scientists
discover things will not change the way the world is working: the only thing
that changes the world is what we do with those discoveries, and does not
explain why we exist and what we are supposed to do or not do.
Faifth is not a materialist question that scientists can solve within
equations or with proofs and experiences. The two approches are not opposed,
they complement themselves, and for the rest, this is a question of dogme:
you can believe without having to respect all the dogme yourself, even if
you respect the religious practices of others or members of your own
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 28 2007 - 23:08:58 CDT