Re: The role of debates and wedges

Dave,

Nothing that I or Bowler said would disagree with you. He (and we) have the advantage of 14 more years of literature as well.

Blessings,

Jack

-------------- Original message --------------

>
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:55:36 -0400 Jack Haas
> writes:
> >
> > Yet Huxley and Tyndall would use the scientific work of theistic
> > evolutionist Rev. W. H. Dallinger for their own purposes and
> > reward him with membership in the Royal Society and the chance to
> > write
> > papers in the leading scientific Journals. A key factor that Ted
> > mentions is the 'professionalizing' and 'institutionalizing' of
> > science
> > - Amateurs such as Dallinger were soon shut out of the action.
> > Peter
> > Bowler, /Reconciling Science and Religion: the Debate in Early
> > Twentieth Century Britain, /2001, p. 11 notes :
> >
> > " / /There was tension in the Victorian era, of course. Religious
> > thinkers at first found the new scientific theories difficult to
> > assimilate, and to some scientists - of whom Huxley is the best
> > example
> > - went out of their way to present science as a source of knowledge
> > that
> > would supplant religious superstition. But the latter policy was at
> >
> > least as much a tactic employed by professional scientists seeking
> > recognition as it was the product of real antipathy, and many
> > commented
> > on the religious tone of Huxley's own pronouncements on the moral
> > character of agnosticism."
> >
> > Jack.
> >
> Bowler has his point of view, but the impression I got from David N.
> Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders (Eerdmans, 1987), is that
> evangelicals had less trouble than most others in accepting evolution.
> Livingstone seems to have read all the relevant publications that have
> survived.
> Dave
Received on Wed Jun 29 08:37:31 2005