FANDOM


JohnBurroughs

archive.org Edit

Frederick Maurice download and type page 609 for the letter unscanned

http://ia600406.us.archive.org/17/items/worksofcharleski07king/worksofcharleski07king.pdf

f. maurice TO REV. F. D. MAURICE p.176

convert to darwin's views


http://archive.org/stream/worksofcharleski07king/worksofcharleski07king_djvu.txt

TO REV. F. D. MAURICE letter 1863, as quoted by Osborn Nytimes 1915 around: " I am very busy working out points of Natural The- ology, by the strange light of Huxley, Darwin, and Lyell. I think I shall come to something worth having before I have done. But I am not going to rush into print this seven years, for this reason : The state of the scientific mind is most curious ; Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and fact. The one or two who hold out are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges as to fact, or else by evoking the odium theologicum. . . . But they find that now they have got rid of an interfering God — a master- magician, as I call it — they have to choose between the absolute empire of accident, and a living, immanent, ever-working God. Grove's truly great mind has seized the latter alternative already, on the side of chemistry. Ansted is "eeling for it in geology ; and so is Lyell ; and I, in my small way of zoology, am urging it on Huxley, Rolleston, and Bates, who has just discovered facts about certain butterflies in the valley of the Amazon, which have filled me, and, I trust, others, with utter astonishment and awe. Verily, God is great, or else there is no God at all.



Nytimes Edit

Henry fairfield osborne - 98995000.pdf from the New York Times 1922, March 5

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C05E7DA1F30EE3ABC4D53DFB5668389639EDE&scp=1&sq=henry+fairfield+osborn&st=p

In 1863 Charles Kingsley wrote to Frederick Maurice: "....Now that they have got rid of an interfering God -- a master magician as I call it -- they have to choose between the absolute empire of accident and a living, immanent, ever-working God" (quoted in Raven, 177)..."

If Kingsley interpreted Darwin in the "accident" sense with the word evolution what sense do have with it?


they have to choose between the absolute empire or accident, and a living, immanent , everlasting working God

And elsewhere Kingsley wrote about Darwin’s contribution thus: "Now that they have got rid of an interfering God -- a master magician as I call it -- they have to choose between the absolute empire of accident and a living, immanent, ever-working God" (quoted in Raven, 177)

Kingsley 1863 Edit

sborne quoting Kingsley: ".. Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and fact. The one or two who hold out against Darwin are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges as to fact or else by invoking the tedium theologium.... The state of the scientific mind; they find that now they have got rid of an interfering God - a master magician as I call it -- they have to choose between the absolute empire of accident and a living, immanent, ever-working God..."

Human nature author Edit

http://human-nature.com/dm/chap4.html

p.106

Kingsley wrote to Darwin in 1859, this must have been 1861

'....I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that he created primal forms capable of self-development into all forms needful pro tempore and pro loco, as to believe that he required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which He himself had made. I question whether the former be not the loftier thought....'

published Edit

Henry Fairfield Osbourne wrote an article for the New York times 5 March 1922.

..Thirteen years earlier in 1863, Charles Kingsley, who's religion no one has ever challenged struck the note of truth

rpely mikel Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb# {{{ On Mar 21, 1:17 am, Mike L <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Your snippet is too short to read for real meaning, but I'd initially > say Kingsley was saying that Darwin's system was the _opposite_ of an > "absolute empire of accident", and wholly consistent with an immanent > God: that biological evolution was God's ever-working made visible and > tangible. Kingsley doesn't believe in the childish superstition of a > "master magician" God replacing the laws of science. If you're > planning to discuss his views, you presumably feel you understand > competing nineteenth-century attitudes to miracles and Kingsley's > reactions to the Oxford Movement, among other things. There are > probably people in this group who know more about it than I do.

I got it from the New York Times, an article by Henry Fairfield Osborne, 5 March 1922 - 98995000.pdf is the file name.

It is surprising how Harshman and Myers are engaging in history revisionism as one reads these articles to see how "evolution" whatever it  is supposed to mean was popularized back then.  Osborne used the word "Darwinism" a label Myers objects to saying it is a creationists caricaturing of materialists. What Myers is really objecting to is people finding out just how stupid Uncle Charlie was and now the materialist movement is looking for someway of getting rid of Uncle Charlie. 

Osborne states that Waagen showed in 1869 that evolution wasn't by chance and that Darwin was mistaken.

This brings us back to a point I made elsewhere: There are hundreds of theories of evolution, but the materialists wants to credit Darwin with everything because if you have to many authors then it won't be so easy to brainwash the public. They need to keep things simple for simple minds you see .... and not get bogged down in technical details such as who said what when and where with what pragmatics constrained by their then background information.

Osborne: "...Waagen's observation that species do not originate by chance or accident as Darwin had at one time supposed...." But if you actually read Origin of Species, Darwin said that his usage of the word "chance" was an "...incorrect expression..." which makes one wonder why he wrote the book then in the first place and why he didn't tell us his pragmatics with chance from the beginning instead of sneaking in a single sentence somewhere in the middle of the book. The mistake everybody is making is confusing their on pet pragmatics with the word "chance" with the pragmatics Darwin or others had with it.

Osborne quoting Kingsley: ".. Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and fact. The one or two who hold out against Darwin are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges as to fact or else by invoking the tedium theologium.... The state of the scientific mind; they find that now they have got rid of an interfering God - a master magician as I call it -- they have to choose between the absolute empire of accident and a living, immanent, ever-working God..." }}}

Waagen Edit

Osborne:

"...The mode of origin of species was practically discovered by Waagen in 1869, but like the great discovery by Mendel of heredity, this truth has been long in making its way, even among biologists. Waagen's observation that species do not originate by chance or accident as Darwin had at one time supposed, but by a continues and well ordered process, has since been confirmed by an overwhelming body of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble and place in order animals in their true evolutionary succession , extending , in the case of what I have called the edition de luxe of the horses, over millions of years. Evolution has passed from the domain of theory into the domain of natural law. Evolution takes its place with the gravitation law of Newton..."


NS Edit

"...Mr. Bryan is extremely confused - as in fact many evolutionists are - by the radical differences of opinion as to the power of natural selection itself, expressed by recent writers such as John Borroughs and Professor Bateson. If it is difficult for biologists to think straight about this very intricate subject of evolution, how much more difficult must it be for the layman ? ......"

".... I have not yet had time to answer John Burroughs whole misleading article on Natural Selection in the Atlantic Monthly .... but in my opinion natural selection is the only cause of evolution which has thus far been discovered and demonstrated. I believe there are many other causes which remain to be discovered and demonstrated.

evolution post 489 Edit

{{{ On Mar 21, 7:00 pm, Mike L <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > I'm afraid your posting is not really coherent enough to stimulate a > productive reply. Partial quotations from imperfectly understood > writers lead nowhere, particularly when accompanied by eccentric > commentary.

Here is some more from Henry Fairfield Osborne - 1922:

Osborne on Waagen:

"...The mode of origin of species was practically discovered by Waagen in 1869, but like the great discovery by Mendel of heredity, this truth has been long in making its way, even among biologists. Waagen's observation that species do not originate by chance or accident as Darwin had at one time supposed, but by a continues and well ordered process, has since been confirmed by an overwhelming body of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble and place in order animals in their true evolutionary succession , extending , in the case of what I have called the edition de luxe of the horses, over millions of years. Evolution has passed from the domain of theory into the domain of natural law. Evolution takes its place with the gravitation law of Newton..."

Osborne on Natural selection, Professor Bateson and John Burroughs "...Mr. Bryan is extremely confused - as in fact many evolutionists are - by the radical differences of opinion as to the power of natural selection itself, expressed by recent writers such as John Borroughs and Professor Bateson. If it is difficult for biologists to think straight about this very intricate subject of evolution, how much more difficult must it be for the layman ? ......"

".... I have not yet had time to answer John Burroughs whole misleading article on Natural Selection in the Atlantic Monthly .... but in my opinion natural selection is the only cause of evolution which has thus far been discovered and demonstrated. I believe there are many other causes which remain to be discovered and demonstrated....."

Where can we get hold of the Atlantic Monthly 1922 somewhere around with the article on Natural selection by Burroughs ?

Notice the pragmatics with "natural selection" that Osborne had, he viewed it as a cause, which caused evolution and then hedged his bets like Darwin did by telling us there could be "other causes" - which proves that he and Darwin never had a theory. There might be Martians on the planet Zog, this is not a theory though. And the confusion he creates in the article; he tells us "..... Evolution takes its place with the gravitation law of Newton..." Which version of evolution the Waagen or Darwin version ? }}}

Kingsley letter to darwin Edit

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/2llcd10.txt {{{ . KINGSLEY TO CHARLES DARWIN. Eversley Rectory, Winchfield, November 18th, 1859.

Dear Sir,

I have to thank you for the unexpected honour of your book. That the Naturalist whom, of all naturalists living, I most wish to know and to learn from, should have sent a scientist like me his book, encourages me at least to observe more carefully, and perhaps more slowly.

I am so poorly (in brain), that I fear I cannot read your book just now as I ought. All I have seen of it AWES me; both with the heap of facts and the prestige of your name, and also with the clear intuition, that if you be right, I must give up much that I have believed and written.

In that I care little. Let God be true, and every man a liar! Let us know what IS, and, as old Socrates has it, epesthai to logo--follow up the villainous shifty fox of an argument, into whatsoever unexpected bogs and brakes he may lead us, if we do but run into him at last.

From two common superstitions, at least, I shall be free while judging of your books:--

1. I have long since, from watching the crossing of domesticated animals and plants, learnt to disbelieve the dogma of the permanence of species.

2. I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that he created primal forms capable of self development into all forms needful pro tempore and pro loco, as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which He Himself had made. I question whether the former be not the loftier thought.

Be it as it may, I shall prize your book, both for itself, and as a proof that you are aware of the existence of such a person as

Your faithful servant, C. KINGSLEY. }}}

Kingsley's 'Life',' ii, page 171 Edit

{{{ With regard to the spread of a belief in Evolution, it could not yet be said that the battle was won, but the growth of belief was undoubtedly rapid. So that, for instance, Charles Kingsley could write to F.D. Maurice (Kingsley's 'Life,' ii, page 171.):

"The state of the scientific mind is most curious; Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and fact." }}}


John Burroughs Edit

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/by/john_burroughs

asd Edit

Professor Bateson

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.