Re: An interesting atheist book

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Thu May 29 2003 - 17:57:27 EDT

  • Next message: Terry M. Gray: "Re: help with quote"

    The 1880s and 1890s were the period when the conflict thesis of science and
    religion was put forward by the likes of Huxley.
    Huxley made up accounts of the so-called Huxley Wilberforce confrontation of
    1860 which has been demythologised by scholars like John Brooke, Frank
    Field JR Lucas etc.
    Leslie Stephen made up stroires how he lost his faith in the 1860s cos of
    the Flood . Sir Owen Chadwick scotched that from a detailed study

    I could go on.

    The quote from Hardwicke proves nothing except what atheists percieved.

    Here we go again


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Glenn Morton" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 9:33 PM
    Subject: An interesting atheist book

    > During our last week here in Aberdeen, my wife went (once again)
    > She found a book by Arthur B. Moss with a preface by Herbert Junius
    > Hardwicke, entitled, The Bible and Evolution. The preface is dated March
    > 10th, 1890. In the preface Hardwicke writes:
    > "It has often struck me with surprise that so many intelligent and
    > people still cling to the old myths and superstitions of the past, when
    > reason and common sense so clearly proclaim them to be utterly unworthy of
    > acceptance. It seems almost incredible that, in the latter part of the
    > nineteenth century, a large proportion of the people of Europe still
    > to believe the fables of the Creation, FAll, and Redemptions,
    > notwithstanding the fact that science and reason both declare them to have
    > been impossible as historic occurrences." Herbert Junius Hardwicke,
    > "Preface" in Arthur B. Moss, The Bible and Evolution, (London: Watts and
    > Company, c. 1890), p. 3
    > This was not the type of book my wife expected to have purchased.
    > it does show that my claim that Biblical literalism was not dead in the
    > 19th century is basically correct. It also is supportive of the view that
    > Biblical literalism was not revived in 1961 as some claim. Claims that
    > wasn't a battle over Genesis, Geology and Biblical literalism and
    > are clearly falsified by literature of the day. Here we have atheists
    > claiming that there are many biblical literalists in the 19th century, but
    > modern historians seem to think this wasn't the case. I simply don't know
    > why. Do they not read the actual 19th century literature?
    > This will be added to my web page
    > http:\\\nineteenth.htm

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 29 2003 - 18:07:53 EDT