Precisely
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Clarke" <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Question
> Wasn't Moore's point in "The post-Darwinian contraversies" that the more
> orthodox a theologian's theology the more likely they were to accept
Dawinian
> evolution? Livingstone's "Darwin's forgotten defenders" also pointed out
the
> considerable numbers of evangelical theologians and scientists who were
> prepared to accept part or all of Darwinian evolution.
>
> Jon
>
> "M.B.Roberts" wrote:
>
> > Actually most who accepted evolution were Trinitarian a good number
> > evagelcial or high church. Russell was misleading on this
> >
> > Michael
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "george murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
> > To: "Jonathan Clarke" <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
> > Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 1:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: Question
> >
> > > Jonathan Clarke wrote:
> > >
> > > > "God creating things to create themselves"
> > > >
> > > > Kingsley also used this description in his picture of Mother Carey
inl
> > "The
> > > > water babies". A 19th century depiction of God as mother? What
next?!
> > >
> > > Moreover, "unlike some synthesizers of religion and evolution he
> > [Kingsley]
> > > was an ardent Trinitarian." (Colin A. Russell, _Cross-Currents_
> > [Eerdmans, 1985],
> > > p.166.)
> > >
> > > Shalom,
> > >
> > > George
> > >
> > > George L. Murphy
> > > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > > "The Science-Theology Interface"
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 29 2001 - 07:06:10 EST