Re: Question

From: Jonathan Clarke (
Date: Wed Mar 28 2001 - 17:50:22 EST

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Question"

    "God creating things to create themselves"

    Kingsley also used this description in his picture of Mother Carey inl "The
    water babies". A 19th century depiction of God as mother? What next?!


    "M.B.Roberts" wrote:

    > > Certainly, but my point wasn't that statements such as those of
    > Simpson
    > > should be ignored.
    > > It is relevant to cite such statements as evidence of the way some
    > scientists &
    > > philosophers have tried to use evolution to further their own
    > anti-religious
    > > 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.
    > Rusch
    > > Sr.'s _Origins: What Is At Stake?_ (Creation Research Society, 1991),
    > there is
    > > 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,
    > which
    > > views _any_ coexistence of Christianity and evolution as completely
    > impossible,
    > > is still current today."
    > > As far as the logic of the argument is concerned, a sufficient
    > answer to
    > > 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
    > Michael Roberts

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 28 2001 - 17:45:58 EST