Fabulous News!

[_CaliforniaKid]

Careful, CK. Joey may well show up here soon and deliver a stern lecture to you on your use of your time.

Just might do me some good!

[_Danna]

You've done it now, I was wallowing in self pity and misery, and you have just cheered me up.

ETA: Angelicals, Cumarah? are you using undergrads as conscripted labor or what.

[_Daniel Peterson]

ETA: Angelicals, Cumarah? are you using undergrads as conscripted labor or what.

I would imagine that, yes, an undergraduate's fingerprints are all over this. Those errors don't exist in the printed edition, so far as I'm aware. And they won't exist in the on-line version after today. Perhaps they're already gone.

"Conscripted"? You're joking, I'm sure.

[_christopher]

The title is actually "Debating Evangelicals." The word Angelicals is an amusing typo created by whoever it was that put the thing up on line. I've alerted the Powers that Be to correct the error.

What a BUTTHEAD that person is.

Chris <><

[_silentkid]

I just skimmed through Duane Boyce's review of Evolution and Mormonism. Wow. Seriously? It's kind of funny to read the perspective of a marriage and family therapist on a book about evolution. Couldn't you have gotten Crandall, Whiting, or even McClellan to do the review? Wow. Boyce's scholarly conclusion makes me smile.

At the same time there are those who see evolutionary mechanisms as God's method not only for creating and developing the various forms of life on earth but also for creating man. This is the view of Stephens and Meldrum, and no doubt of many other Latter-day Saint scholars. I have not argued for it here, but I want at least to state my personal conclusion on this matter: I anticipate being surprised about many things once I reach the other side, but nothing would surprise me more than to discover that such scholars are right about this. I think time will eventually show that the current state of thinking about the evolution of man is thoroughly false and that we might have recognized this earlier if not for some of the complexities (of all kinds) that inhere in scientific investigation itself. So while I am completely willing to be surprised should the theistic evolutionists turn out to be right, my best thinking leads me to expect otherwise.

I believe they're the ones who are in for a surprise.

[_Daniel Peterson]

In your "skimming," did you notice that the essay wasn't actually about evolution at all?

Did you notice that Dr. Boyce studied the history and philosophy of science at Harvard and MIT?

Do you have any sense whatever of the substance of the essay?

[_silentkid]

In your "skimming," did you notice that the essay wasn't actually about evolution at all?

Did you notice that Dr. Boyce studied the history and philosophy of science at Harvard and MIT?

Do you have any sense whatever of the substance of the essay?

Did you read his review or just "edit" it? It's a joke and I can't believe that you'd stand by it. Just read the conclusion that I posted above. Do you agree with it? If you do, it says a lot about the scholarly nature of your review. Why didn't you have Duane Jeffery write the review? After all, he's the history and philosophy professor of science at BYU (unless he's since retired...I haven't kept up). And as to your last question, your attack on my ability to read and comprehend, Screw you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Persuasive as your eloquent last line was, it's still clear that you know nothing about the substance of the essay.

Pronouncing it a "joke" may be your best effort at intelligent analysis, but is insufficient. And expressing your perverse sexual desire for me is just plain irrelevant.

[_silentkid]

Persuasive as your eloquent last line was, it's still clear that you know nothing about the substance of the essay.

Pronouncing it a "joke" may be your best effort at intelligent analysis, but is insufficient. And expressing your perverse sexual desire for me is just plain irrelevant.

Do you care to address any of my questions, or will you continue to side-step as is your wont? You claim that FARMS Review is scholarly, yet you allow garbage like the piece I referenced to be published. Do you agree with Boyce's conclusion about the theory of human evolution? Why evade the question? You claim to have all these scientists back you up when you need it (i.e. lamanite genetics), yet you can't get one of them to write a review for a book in their field? What is your agenda, man?

As to my perverse sexual desire for you: your attack on my intelligence is worse, in my opinion, than a common swear word.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I invite anybody interested to read Dr. Boyce's essay, which I enjoyed very much:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=725

It will quickly be seen that it has, on the whole, very little to do with the question of evolution, but is focused almost entirely on reflections about scientific methodology and the sociology of knowledge.

Good stuff.