Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 18:02:32 EDT
It is a bit amazing that when I provide actual quotations from the
period, they are ignored or disbelieved. Is historical research
about disbelieving statements from those who lived in the period
under question? I would assume it is from your responses.
> from: Michael Roberts <email@example.com>
> date: Thu, 29 May 2003 22:57:27
> to: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> subject: Re: An interesting atheist book
> 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" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> 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:\\www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk\nineteenth.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 30 2003 - 18:05:12 EDT