tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35632541.post9000620855760798167..comments2023-07-31T06:38:04.357-07:00Comments on Kumtuks Tahlkie: Happy Darwin's Bulldog Day!John D. Orcutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04689244995305510218noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35632541.post-18972006230621249462007-05-07T12:03:00.000-07:002007-05-07T12:03:00.000-07:00No problem, anything to defend a figure I've alway...No problem, anything to defend a figure I've always admired. Just glad to see you're using your work day productively...John D. Orcutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04689244995305510218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35632541.post-77596560953203286432007-05-07T12:01:00.000-07:002007-05-07T12:01:00.000-07:00I knew you could set me straight! I feel better a...I knew you could set me straight! I feel better about Huxley already.ThePlanetMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08435485717514756344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35632541.post-13761950047180501432007-05-06T13:35:00.000-07:002007-05-06T13:35:00.000-07:00Actually, I would argue that far from blurring the...Actually, I would argue that far from blurring the line between science and religion, Huxley wanted to draw a strong distinction between the two, a distinction that had not previously existed. Before the Victorian era, science - particularly British science - was not just an aristocratic pursuit, but one that was closely associated with the clergy (for example, William Buckland, the man who named the first dinosaur, was an Anglican reverend). The primacy of the Anglican church was being threatened on many fronts during the Industrial Revolution, and secularization of science was viewed as one of these. Churchmen saw "amoral" evolution as indicative of this trend, and they were only too eager to rail against it in a last-ditch effort at maintaining their scientific authority. Huxley always maintained that religion and science were fundamentally unrelated, perhaps best demonstrated by his coining of the word 'agnostic' to describe his world view. Effectively, he was saying that he was a scientist, a person who relied on evidence before drawing conclusions, and as such could not assess the existence of God, a being that by its nature is fundamentally unknowable and that must be accepted or rejected on blind faith. I'm no philosopher, but as I understand his biography, it doesn't seem as though Huxley harbored any delusions about science and religion having anything in common.John D. Orcutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04689244995305510218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35632541.post-48789571943907467732007-05-05T23:30:00.000-07:002007-05-05T23:30:00.000-07:00The unfortunate part, as I understand it, is that ...The unfortunate part, as I understand it, is that he was the first to pit science and the church against each other publicly on the topic of evolution. Good for a highly entertaining way to publicize this topic in a live debate, bad for the next hundred years of science and sacred being misrepresented as having anything in common.ThePlanetMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08435485717514756344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35632541.post-53119928865092509372007-05-05T00:12:00.000-07:002007-05-05T00:12:00.000-07:00nice post!!!nice post!!!932https://www.blogger.com/profile/03185028352706845323noreply@blogger.com