> When I think about our propensity for judging people of the past by our own
> current and differing set of values (and hopefully improved values!), I
> shudder to think of what those in the future, 150 years from now, will say
> in judgement of us. And that brings me back to the AiG story. I suspect
> that the first 3 paragraphs are reasonably accurate as far as they go.
> However, I question the implications, interpretations, and judgements given
> in the last two. Was Darwinism and 'evolutionary thinking' the reason for
> Kingsley's racism? Does Kingsley actually reject and distort God's word as
> a result of Darwin? Or do Kingsley's words reflect the common opinions of
> his time where similar statements could be pulled from numerous writers?
> ... and has AiG removed Kingsley's words from their cultural context and,
> not so subtly, used them to slant the story and push their own agenda that
> Darwin's ideas are a cancer that destroys a man's religion?
In particular, equally racist statements made by antievolutionists of the day (or later) repudiates the claim that such statements reflect evolution.
Dr. David Campbell
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
Received on Thu Apr 28 19:47:02 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 28 2005 - 19:47:07 EDT