Well, first of all, the point of this particular thread was not to contradict Roger. It was to show Roger how one Christian chooses the exact opposite of Roger’s definition: One person says “Environment shapes Evolution” - - while another says “If Environment is shaping the change, then it isn’t Evolution”.
This is a pretty stark difference.
As to an academic writing articles where, by means of some inexplicable definition, he dismisses away a vast chunk of Evolutionary study and science … I think it would have been better to have understood how different his working definition of Evolution was earlier in the discussion than at the very end of the Discussion with no explanations provided.
How many challenges have participants on this board faced about how the word Evolution is meant? Lots!
And yet the definition of Evolution is at the very heart of all of our discussions, and at the heart of a great many profound misunderstandings with other thinkers.
Nothing provoked a pause in me greater than the following exchange in yet another thread:
What I think is a little surprising is that you object to my drawing attention to the completely incompatible definition of Evolution he was using.
If we are to clarify the understanding of Evolution in the hearts and minds of the American public, it may well be necessary to begin with challenging the misconstrued conceptual models lurking (intentionally or unintentionally) in the hearts and minds of those who would delude the American public.
Sincerely and with Respect,
George Brooks