Re: [asa] Former YEC's on ASA and Henry Morris - WAS DenverRATE Conference

From: <>
Date: Mon Oct 01 2007 - 15:13:25 EDT

For those folks wishing to explore Haeckel's religion, the latest issue of Science in Context (2007, v. 20, no.3) just happens to have a nice article by Bernhard Kleeberg exploring this very topic.? Entitled "God-Nature: Natural Theology in German Monism", the abstract includes this:

"Even though Haeckel and his followers polemicized against dualistic and teleological interpretations of nature, and despite their fierce struggle against the Christian churches, Monism cannot conceal its roots.? All central arguments of natural theology reappear -- albeit sometimes in causal or reductionist phrasing.? Haeckel's aesthetics of nature in particular shows his indebtedness to the concept of divine economy of nature.? His Monism is an evolutionary and pantheistic natural theology."

My apologies for simply quoting this, but it should give some indication as to whether the article is worth your while tracking down.? FWIW I found it useful.? This entire issue of Science in Context deals with issues of natural theology.

Karl V. Evans

-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy <>
Sent: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 5:11 am
Subject: Re: [asa] Former YEC's on ASA and Henry Morris - WAS DenverRATE Conference

Ernst Haeckel, who referred more than once to "our new monistic religion" in The Riddle of the Universe, is another example.




----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <>

To: <>; <>

Cc: <>; <>

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:08 PM

Subject: Re: [asa] Former YEC's on ASA and Henry Morris - WAS DenverRATE Conference

>>>> PvM <> 09/30/07 9:34 PM >>>writes:
> Some creationists believe the lies that Darwinism is a religion and
> that evolutionary science is the underlying cause of immorality and
> other evils in the world.
> Ted comments:
> The latter, Pim, is very far from truth. We agree on that, although we could
> probably identify more than a few people who might be examples of using
> Darwin to *justify*immorality-- as vs having evolution genuinely be the
> *cause* of immorality, which is indeed what the creationists often believe.
> Rockefeller, e.g., used evolution to justify business practices that I would
> myself regard as immoral, despite the fact that he was probably a
> fundamentalist Christian.? And Lenin used aspects of Darwin's theory to
> justify his political views, at times.?
> As for the former--Darwinism as religion--this is where we may part company.
>?For quite a few modern thinkers, Darwin is a saint and evolution is at the
> core of their gospel of atheism.? I know we have not agreed about how to
> understand Dawkins, e.g., but Dawkins himself does use the term "religion of
> science," probably without much knowledge of others who have done likewise
> in the past, and Dawkins himself has said that Darwin made it possible to be
> an intellectually fulfilled atheist.? NASA scientist Eric Chaisson gave a
> paper 20 years ago, in which he said exactly that cosmic evolution was his
> God--I heard the paper at a conference near San Francisco.? I find now this
> statement from him:
> "Abstract. My conclusions are threefold: The subject of cosmic evolution is
> my religion. The process of change itself (especially developmental change)
> is my God. And global ethics and a planetary culture, which cosmic evolution
> mandates, are the key to the survival of technologically competent life
> forms, both here on Earth and perhaps elsewhere in the Universe."? Source:
> I think one could multiply these examples with much difficulty.
> There's fire underneath this smoke, Pim, IMO.?
> Ted
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 1 15:14:14 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 01 2007 - 15:14:14 EDT