> > Please separate Dembski from Johnson. Now give me, with chapter and
> you will, where Bill has made the statements you charge him with.
> As for Phil and the implication that evolution implies atheism: I think
> has history largely on his side when he says so He also has the
> Charles Hodge in his corner.
Take care!!!!!! History is not on Johnson's side. Just read J Moore's Teh
Post-Darwinian Controversies, D Livingstone Darwin's Forgotten Defenders and
Ron numbers Darwinism comes to America. Some of the 1859-60 supporters of
evolution include HB Tristram, who accepted, rejected and accepted again,
C.C. Babington the Botanist who commisoned the Cambridge Seven, both strong
Further C Hodge is not in his corner. From "Waht is Darwinism" Hodge makes
it clear that Darwinism, that is evolution by chance is atheism (p156) but
did allow evolution, "If God made them it makes no difference so far as the
question of design is concerned how he made them; whether at once or by a
process of evolution." (p95)(Noll and Livinstone ed - baker press). And
remember AA HODGE and BB WArfield both accepted evolution.
By 1900 most conservative theologians had accepted evolution and the
Fundamentals (c1910) has a strong evolutionary element in them.
Just because Dennett and Dawkins et al say evolution implies atheism does
not mean that it does or ought to be perceived as doing so.
A little bit of history helps us. It always helps to ask what and why
previous generations of Chrsitians beleived and not just assume that they
fitted into our perception of the past.
I love to say that I accept evolution just as many Fundamentalists did in
1900 and thsu I am a Fundamentalist!! (A darwinian one!)
Is not the criticism deserved by the
> evolutionist Richard Dawkins, and the philosopher, Daniel Dennett, than
> more outspoken atheistic defenders of evolution and bashers of
> and religion in general would be hard to find.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 17:31:12 EST