> Certainly, but my point wasn't that statements such as those of
> should be ignored.
> It is relevant to cite such statements as evidence of the way some
> philosophers have tried to use evolution to further their own
> agenda. But it's quite another matter to cite Simpson, Huxley, Dawkins,
&c as if
> their statements carried some theological weight. E.g., in Wilbert H.
> Sr.'s _Origins: What Is At Stake?_ (Creation Research Society, 1991),
> the following criticism of theistic evolution.
> "Interestingly enough, I have found that in my experience theistic
> evolution is unacceptable to many scientists. The thinking of Huxley,
> views _any_ coexistence of Christianity and evolution as completely
> is still current today."
> As far as the logic of the argument is concerned, a sufficient
> this is, "So?"
Yes, but Rusch should check out what Thomas Huxley really thought, because
he has grossly misquoted him. He discussed matters with his friend Teh Rev
Charles Kingsley and thought Kingsley had got such a good "reconciliation"
that he sent it to Darwin. Kingsley told a story humourously developing his
idea of God creating things to create themselves .
Read it in Correspondence of charles Darwin Vol10 1862 p636.
A typical example of misrepresentation by Rusch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 28 2001 - 17:24:43 EST