Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu Nov 03 2005 - 13:45:47 EST

It was the geologist Adam Sedgwick in 1831 when he gave his reasons fro
rejecting diluvialism ;
A Sedgwick, Anniversary Address to the Geological Society, 18 Feb 1831,
Proc. Geol. Soc I(1834), 281-316; 302

I cite it at the end of my chapter in Debating Design ed Ruse and Dembski
CUP 2004

Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>; "Keith
Miller" <kbmill@ksu.edu>; <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question

>>>> "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> 11/02/05 2:04 PM
>>>>writes:
>
> Here's an interesting quotation from my favourite evangelical scientist.
>
> To the supreme Intelligence, indeed, all the complex and mutable
> combinations we behold, may be the necessary results of some simple law,
> regulating every material change, and involving within itself the very
> complications, which we, in our ignorance, regard as interruptions in the
> continuity of Nature's work.
>
> Any suggestions who it is?
>
> ***
>
> Ted will hazard a few guesses, in the spirit of this game. It sounds like
> Kingsley, but he wasn't a scientist. It also sounds a bit Victorian, but
> I'd like so see more before committing myself to that; if so, it's more
> likely late Victorian, after Babbage if not Babbage himself (who wasn't
> late
> Victorian). Also sounds a bit like Robert Chambers, but he wasn't a
> scientist nor an evangelical.
>
> (1) Charles Babbage?
>
> (2) William Dallinger (more likely, I think)
>
> Ted
>
>
Received on Thu Nov 3 13:51:59 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 03 2005 - 13:52:09 EST