Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:32 am
No, nitpicking is fine with me. You are right, it is not the number of articles but the quality. That is difficult to assess and certainly here I did not waste a lot of time. But the TO article for example has quotes and references; if these are all made up of whole cloth, I would have thought there be easily found comments on that. [Although what the evidence for the "cheerfully" is in "Wallace cheerfully gave" I have no clue.]AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:To be nitpicky, I don't see how you quickly finding several articles against the view talked about on uncommon descent proves anything. ...
And evolution is too broad of term to use-I mean, for example, Michael Behe believes in evolution. So does Dembski. But they do not believe in Darwinism-that evolution is caused by natural selection and random (if such a thing exists) mutations.
Yes, if you want to differentiate between Behe and others, more specific terminology is important. But if you are contrasting between creationists who believe species where each created independently and evolutionists who don't, the distinction between "neo-Darwinism" and "Darwinism" is unimportant.