"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?!
> > 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
> scientists &
> > 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),
> 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,
> > 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
> 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