| creationary Jun 1st 2012, 00:33 | ← Older revision | Revision as of 00:33, 1 June 2012 | | Line 6: | Line 6: | | | # Of or relating to [[creation]]. | | # Of or relating to [[creation]]. | | | #: ''Is the [[human]] [[eye]] an example of [[good]] or [[bad]] '''creationary''' [[design]]?'' | | #: ''Is the [[human]] [[eye]] an example of [[good]] or [[bad]] '''creationary''' [[design]]?'' | | | + | #* '''1894''', James Hutchison Stirling, ''Darwinianism: workmen and work'' | | | + | #*: Nay, let us but consider this, that, under a general '''''creationary''''' theory,—before any one evolutionary doctrine, Lamarckian, Vestigian, Erasmo-Darwinian, Carlo-Darwinian, or other, came up,—never, whether in affinities, or embryology, or geology, or geography, or even rudimentary organs, was there a single difficulty felt,—let us but consider this I say, and it will be plain to be seen that all that concerns affinities and the rest constitutes no fee-simple that shall be proper and peculiar to natural selection alone. (p. 151) | | | + | #*: But these homologies and the rest we hold ourselves dispensed from the consideration of, simply in view of the fact that they were a material common to all the evolutionary theories, and never on the whole denied even by the '''creationary''' ones. (p. 341) | | | #* '''1951''', Charles Francis Potter, ''The preacher and I: an autobiography'' | | #* '''1951''', Charles Francis Potter, ''The preacher and I: an autobiography'' | | | #*: The evolutionary hypothesis or theory is a much better theory than the '''creationary''' theory, but it is still only a theory, and Dr. Straton had only to point out that fact. | | #*: The evolutionary hypothesis or theory is a much better theory than the '''creationary''' theory, but it is still only a theory, and Dr. Straton had only to point out that fact. | | |
沒有留言:
張貼留言