Wasn't Moore's point in "The post-Darwinian contraversies" that the more
orthodox a theologian's theology the more likely they were to accept Dawinian
evolution? Livingstone's "Darwin's forgotten defenders" also pointed out the
considerable numbers of evangelical theologians and scientists who were
prepared to accept part or all of Darwinian evolution.
> Actually most who accepted evolution were Trinitarian a good number
> evagelcial or high church. Russell was misleading on this
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "george murphy" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Jonathan Clarke" <email@example.com>
> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 1:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Question
> > Jonathan Clarke wrote:
> > > "God creating things to create themselves"
> > >
> > > Kingsley also used this description in his picture of Mother Carey inl
> > > water babies". A 19th century depiction of God as mother? What next?!
> > Moreover, "unlike some synthesizers of religion and evolution he
> > was an ardent Trinitarian." (Colin A. Russell, _Cross-Currents_
> [Eerdmans, 1985],
> > p.166.)
> > Shalom,
> > George
> > George L. Murphy
> > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > "The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 29 2001 - 05:39:53 EST