United States or Faroe Islands ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
3 This observation of Reid's shows that the origin of language is very different from what the evolutionists since Darwin have imagined it to be. 5 As we have seen, the word had better luck with Goethe. 6 Wordsworth, with all his limitations, had a real affinity with Goethe in his view of nature. Mr. Norman Lacey gives some indication of this in his recent book, Wordsworth's View of Nature.
And thus, for the second time, he really surrenders, while seeming to defend, his position. The Quarterly Reviewer, as we have seen, lectures the evolutionists upon their want of knowledge of philosophy altogether. Mr. Mivart is not less pained at Mr. Darwin's ignorance of moral science. It is grievous to him that Mr. Now this may be Mr.
But why should we be anxious to reconcile it with Christianity, when there is so little truth to support it? Many evolutionists are atheists. Some believe in the eternity of matter. This can not be. Both mind and matter can not be eternal. Mind controls matter; and not matter, mind. Hence the mind of God created matter.
And how utterly absurd for the friends of the Bible to spend their time bandying arguments with the evolutionist over such minor details as the question of just what geological "age" should be assigned for the first appearance of man on the earth, when the evolutionist's major premise is itself directly antagonistic to the most fundamental facts regarding the first chapters of the Bible, and above all, when this major premise is really the weakest spot in the whole theory, the one sore spot that evolutionists never want to have touched at all.
Let them try to make a brain think by itself alone; see what becomes of the nobleness of the brain when the stomach is ailing! No, no, it's idiotic; there is no philosophy nor science in it! We are positivists, evolutionists, and yet we are to stick to the literary lay-figures of classic times, and continue disentangling the tangled locks of pure reason!
These views, together or separately, which are characterised chiefly by the catch-words “polyphyletic descent,” “labile and stable equilibrium,” and so on, crop up together or separately in the writings of various evolutionists belonging to the opposition wing.
Evolutionists, ashamed of a doctrine so repugnant to all reason and so revolting to mankind, vainly imagine they can escape the odium of such a view, by declaring that man is not descended from an ape or monkey, but that all the primates including all monkeys, apes, and man, sprang from a common ancestor. Of this alleged ancestor not a single fossil remains. Dr.
I agree with Virchow that the proofs of it are still wanting, that the failures have been lamentable, that the doctrine is utterly discredited." One of the ablest evolutionists today is Professor Henslow, formerly President of the British Association.
His quarrel with the Evolutionists was not a quarrel with the evidence for Evolution: he had accepted enough of it to prove Evolution ten times over before he ever heard of it.
Both of them were engaged for the evening, and suddenly he was bored by having to take so much trouble to be riotous. He was silent at dinner, unusually kindly to Ted and Verona, hesitating but not disapproving when Verona stated her opinion of Kenneth Escott's opinion of Dr. John Jennison Drew's opinion of the opinions of the evolutionists.
Word Of The Day