----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <topper@robertschirk.u-net.com>
To: "Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM" <Norm.Woodward@robins.af.mil>
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Response to: What does the Creation lack?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM" <Norm.Woodward@robins.af.mil>
> To: <asA@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 9:58 PM
> Subject: RE: Response to: What does the Creation lack?
>
>
> Thank you for this most enlightening article, but I wasn’t talking about
> THAT (non-)conflict. I was talking about the bigger one, as in the “’Gott
> ist tot…’- Nietzsche; ‘Nietzsche is dead…’-God” variety.
>
> MBR My article was about a serious conflict which may be considered as a
> non-conflict because it did not happen, but it is a conflict as most think
> that it DID happen and the ficticious aspects are still repeated ad
nauseam
> despite the work of Livingston, Noll, Numbers, Ruse etc. Take the recent
> book on the early geologist William smith by Simon Winchester The Map that
> changed the world. About 20 times he repeats this old myth and on page 29
he
> said that scientists who dared challenge Ussher's 4004 BC risked the
> "clerics and the courts". No examples of court cases were given because
> there werent any and of course too many Anglican vicars (a funny lot) were
> spending too much time doing geolgy from an old earth perspective.
>
> As for Nietzsche's Gott ist tot that gains credence from the alleged
> conflict of science and faith, which was developed at about the same time
> Nietzsche was writing. (along with radical biblical criticism and the
> rejection of miracles) If you want to see these linked read the Sea of
Faith
> by the "rev" Don Cupitt , a fellow anglican clergyman who tries to argue
God
> is a human projection which gives meaning and his book passes from
Gallileo
> to a garbled account of the rise of geology and evolution, then on to
> biblical criticism and why we can no longer beleive the bible and then on
> to Nietzsche and Wittgenstein and then to his non-realist view of God.
That
> is believe in god but he doesnt exist! A similar non-theistic approach to
> Christinaity is being put forward by Bishop John spong.
>
> In other words all questions against the Christian faith are linked and
few
> of us can grasp all aspects. Francis Schaeffer tried to look at the wider
> picture but suffered by being too negative to Darwin and Evolutiuon.
>
>
> Did Darwin’s daughter die before or after he snatched Creation from the
> Creator? MBR The correct answer is neither as this misunderstands
Darwin.
> His daughter Annie died in April 1851 - I have been to her grave under a
> yew tree. Darwin had given up belief in Christian redemption in autumn
1838
> but retained a general beleif in a divine creator and refers to this in
the
> Origin of Species, At times he leant towards agnosticism but was never
never
> an atheist. See my article in PSCF in June 2000. Jim Moore questions
aspects
> of this article as I do his writings, especially his treatment of the loss
> of Annie in the Moore and Desmond biography of Darwin. (Actually we had a
> good chat over coffee today but did not discuss our disagreements as he
was
> more interested in my teaching geology for Wheaton this summer.) Yeah,
> THOSE major players.
>
> Will be gone for a long weekend. I will look forward to your response
when
> I get back. MBR Well you got my response now for Steve's Michael Roberts
>
> PS If you want a more favourable view of the anti-geologiosts of the 1820s
> look up Terry Mortenson on the Answers in Genesis website.
>
> Norm Woodward
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen J. Krogh [mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:02 PM
> To: asA@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: Response to: What does the Creation lack?
>
> I believe this was posted by Michael Roberts several months ago, but
> it may
> help you out in figuring the time-line.
>
> <quote>
>
> Geology and Genesis, 1790 to 1860:
> To put it simplistically Geology took off as a science in the 1790s
> under
> Hutton in Scotland, Smith in England and Cuvier and Brogniart in
> France when
> conclusive evidence was found for ordering strata and showing a vast
> age of
> the earth. Hutton's chief spokesman was the Rev John Playfair and
> Smith's
> the Revs B.Richardson and J.Townshend. Most educated people accepted
> the new
> findings and even the church press showed little opposition. From
> 1810 there
> was much geological fieldwork and in 1815 Smith produced the first
> geological map of England and Wales. Geologists came from various
> backgrounds with a considerable number of clergy, often Evangelical.
> The
> 1820s was the heyday of clerical catastrophic geology of Buckland
> and
> Sedgwick, who held that strata were deposited over a long period of
> time
> (millions of years) in a succession of catastrophes or deluges, the
> Noachian
> being the last. In his Principles of Geology (1830) Lyell took over
> their
> methods and timescale and replaced catastrophism with
> uniformitarianism.
> Lyell has become a mythic figure with claims that he introduced
> notions of
> an ancient earth. That is bunk and has been discredited by such
> historians
> as Rudwick and Gould. As the vast of age of the earth was widely
> known in
> 1790 it cannot be the case as Lyell was born in 1797, unless
> miracles can
> happen!
>
> Not all was smooth sailing and from the mid-twenties a vocal group,
> the
> Anti- or Scriptural Geologists, tried to show that geologists were
> mistaken
> and that Creation took place in 6 days. This disparate group
> included clergy
> and laity with a Dean of York, an Oxford Professor and Brande,
> Faraday's
> colleague at the Royal Institution. Scientifically their writings
> were
> worthless by the standards of the day and were attacked by such
> orthodox
> Christians as Conybeare, Buckland, Sedgwick, Sumner and Pye Smith.
> Lyell
> mocked from the sidelines. To give an idea of numbers, during this
> period I
> can name at least six Deans of Cathedrals, a dozen Bishops and half
> a dozen
> clerical Oxbridge professors, who actively supported geology. In the
> period
> 1825-1850 the vast majority of Christians accepted geology, but a
> small and
> noisy minority did not. It is vital to get it in proportion. Andrew
> White in
> History of the Warfare of Science and Theology claimed that the
> Anti-geologists were the Orthodox Party thus distorting our
> understanding.
> By the 1850s the Anti-geologists were a spent force and even such an
> extreme
> Evangelical as J.Cumming accepted geology. Almost the only exception
> was
> Phillip Gosse in Omphalos (1857) as mentioned above. The suggestion
> that God
> had written on the earth’s rock a superfluous lie hit a sour note
> with most
> of Gosse’s fellow Christians. Though his book stirred some interest
> at
> first, it soon fell into disfavor.
>
> The Dawn of Evolution 1859
> The Origin of Species was the seminal work of the decade and
> attracted great
> interest. The popular perception is that it was violently objected
> to by the
> Christian Church as it "questioned both the literal accuracy of the
> first
> chapters of Genesis and the argument from design for the existence
> of God.”
> The first part of this quote from Altholz is simply untrue as no
> educated
> Christians believed in 4004 BC in 1860, except a few ex-Plymouth
> Brethren.
> Design in the strict Paleyan sense may have been killed by Darwin,
> but many
> kept to some kind of Design; Kingsley, Gray, Temple, Birks, and
> Hensleigh
> and Julia Wedgwood (Darwin's Cousins). The main religious concern
> was
> whether our alleged ape-dom would destroy our morality as
> Wilberforce made
> clear. The responses to Darwin are fascinating and varied and no
> simple
> answer can be given. Initially some scientists were in favor -
> Huxley and
> Hooker, some not sure - Lyell, and many against, notably the leading
> physicists and geologists. Of Anglican and Scottish Presbyterian
> clergy
> (some of considerable scientific ability) none were literalists, and
> of 30
> or so responses I have studied they are equally divided between
> being for,
> against or undecided. All 30 accepted geological findings and a
> scientific
> outlook.
>
> Wilberforce's objections were largely geological, but felt our
> ape-dom would
> destroy Christianity. The evangelical Canon H.B. Tristram of Durham
> was a
> migratory bird ornithologist. He accepted and applied natural
> selection to
> birds in 1858, after reading Darwin's Linnean Society paper. He went
> to
> Oxford in 1860 an evolutionist but after hearing Wilberforce and
> Hooker
> (Huxley spoke too quietly to be heard) he changed his mind. A year
> or so
> later he became an evolutionist again and used creation and
> evolution
> synonymously.
>
> Well, was there conflict? There was not CONFLICT, but there was
> conflict.
> The reviews and the meeting at Oxford show that there was
> controversy both
> religious and scientific. The only example of ecclesiastical
> prejudice I can
> find is the sacking of Prof Buchman of Cirencester Agricultural
> College,
> whose evolutionary ideas offended the Anglican management. By 1866
> even the
> Victoria Institute were tolerating evolution, even if some members
> objected.
> Within two decades, most educated Christians accepted some kind of
> evolution, even if, like Wallace, limited evolution to non-humans.
>
> Whence Conflict between Science and Religion? The idea that there
> has been
> a serious conflict is widely held but recent studies have challenged
> this,
> whether they focus narrowly on Huxley and Wilberforce or look more
> widely.
> The conclusion by Lindberg and Numbers, Gould, Brooke and Russell is
> that
> the conflict thesis comes from a reading back into events by some of
> the
> protagonists of the 19th century. Huxley and Hooker embellished
> their
> controversies with the church, Edmund Gosse in Father and Son made
> his
> father to be typical of Christians, Andrew White's massive The
> Warfare of
> Science with Theology (1896) is so flawed as to be worthless,
> despite its
> massive documentation which often cannot be followed up, Darwin's
> claims
> that at Cambridge he did not "doubt the strict and literal truth of
> every
> word in the Bible" are not true, Leslie Stephen's concerns with the
> historicity of the Ark has been shown by Sir Owen Chadwick to be the
> product
> of a lively imagination and many evangelicals had come to Colenso's
> conclusions about Noah some 30 years before 1860. Most of these
> examples are
> referred to in serious works of history but a little historical
> research
> refutes them. This does raise a few questions on Altholz's assertion
> that
> for Huxley and others "Truthfulness had replaced belief as the
> ultimate
> standard." The conflict thesis in its classic form needs to be
> consigned to
> the bin, BUT there is an opposite danger - the total denial of any
> conflict
> whatever and the claim that there was harmony. That is as erroneous.
> The
> other danger is to ignore popular perception as this did and still
> does
> reckon there is a conflict. To conclude, there was some conflict,
> which has
> various causes; the wish of some scientists to break away from
> church
> involvement, the concerns of some that evolution may eliminate God.
> There
> was also conflict of re-adjustment. However, it is best seen as "a
> storm in
> a Victorian tea-cup" exaggerated for polemical purposes.
>
> There was no serious battle of Genesis and Geology, but a few
> Christians
> objected to geology. By 1860 biblical literalism was virtually
> extinct but
> was revived in the USA in 1961 in the form of Creationism. Neither
> was there
> a battle royal over evolution. In 1860, hardly any educated people
> were
> still literalists. Until this is firmly grasped, it is impossible to
> assess
> the relationship of Christianity and Science and to consider exactly
> what
> were - and are - the problems.
>
> <quote/>
>
> Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
> The PanTerra Group
> http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com/
> ================================
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:27 PM
> To: asA@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: Response to: What does the Creation lack?
>
>
> But the question I was addressing in the post to which you responded
> was,
> Is God the "agent responsible" for causing each one of these events
> to occur
> at some specific location and time? There is a theological tradition
> that
> appears set on ascribing to God both the power and desire to be in
> absolute
> CONTROL of each event, one by one. In the context of that view of
> God, it
> would appear that God was the "agent responsible" for choosing to
> cause the
> Lisbon earthquake and the death of Darwin's daughter. It's that
> picture of a
> micromanaging and controlling divine agency to which Darwin was, I
> believe,
> reacting with revulsion.
>
> ---I will confess that I have not studied about Darwin, not even to
> see the
> short bio on the recent PBS miniseries, but I find this rather
> interesting.
> Could someone direct me to a reference about this incident,
> preferably
> on-line?
>
> However, I would like a sneak peek at a clue…did these events occur
> before
> he began his work in Naturalistic Evolution, or after?
>
> I am just trying to figure out the possible motivations of the major
> players
> in this conflict.
>
>
>
> Norm
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 11 2001 - 18:06:40 EST