Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Evolution

Expand Messages
  • Maurice McCarthy
    Thanks for the tip. I ve just bought Connor Cunningham s Darwin s Pious Idea, haven t read it yet, and I wrote to him. He wants to discuss after I ve read his
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 2 5:33 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the tip.

      I've just bought Connor Cunningham's Darwin's Pious Idea, haven't read
      it yet, and I wrote to him. He wants to discuss after I've read his
      book. As a Catholic Priest the summary of his book claims to show that
      evolution is compatible with orthodox faith so it might be
      interesting.

      Maurice


      On 01/09/2011, ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
      > You might want to consider his long account of Darwin and Darwinism in
      > Riddles of Philosophy:
      >
      > http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA018/English/AP1973/GA018_p02c02.html
      >
      > T.
      >
      > Ted Wrinch
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...>
      > wrote:
      >>
      >> The only example I recall of Steiner talking about any specific details in
      >> Darwin's theory, is when he mentions Goethe's discovery of the
      >> intermaxillary bone already in 1784, which Darwin had apparently been
      >> unaware of.
      >>
      >> http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA001/English/MP1988/GA001_c02.html
      >>
      >> Tarjei
      >>
      >> --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
      >> <fts.trasla@> wrote:
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy
      >> > <manselton@> wrote:
      >> > >
      >> > > Hello Frank,
      >> > >
      >> > > I've been lurking in the list for a couple of weeks. We met before
      >> > > briefly at the Steiner Study.
      >> > >
      >> > > In POF Steiner describes how the perception of evolutionary forms is
      >> > > excellent analysis by Darwin but it cannot be reversed into a logical
      >> > > synthesis of one living thing from another. You cannot predict a bird
      >> > > from a reptile something invisible to the senses has to be added to
      >> > > make it so.
      >> > >
      >> > > I'd like to ask if there is anywhere in Steiner's writings that this
      >> > > is expounded in more detail as it is something I'd like to understand
      >> > > better.
      >> > >
      >> > > Many Thanks
      >> > > Maurice
      >> >
      >> > Hi Maurice,
      >> > Sorry, I don't know of anywhere where Steiner goes more deeply into that
      >> > idea. In any case though, I think that his emphasis in POF (Chapter 12)
      >> > is on ethics rather than Darwinist evolution as such. He uses evolution
      >> > as a comparison for ethical individualism. That a real moral idea must
      >> > be individually original and not merely derived or deduced from previous
      >> > ideas - just as the idea of a bird cannot be deduced from that of a
      >> > snake (if one has never seen a bird). Something like that, as I
      >> > understand it.
      >> > Btw. what's the "Steiner study"?
      >> > Frank
      >> > >
      >> > > On 29/08/2011, Frank Thomas Smith <fts.trasla@> wrote:
      >> > > > A member of the WC list wrote this as part of a long post:
      >> > > >
      >> > > > "I have to balk at Steiner followers' philosophical war with Darwin
      >> > > > and the
      >> > > > general theory of evolution and natural selection; I do not and can
      >> > > > not
      >> > > > believe that, as a visiting European teacher lectured in my senior
      >> > > > zoology
      >> > > > class, that "The good God created this terrible
      >> > > > kingdom of the animals so that Man could become Man" and that "Man
      >> > > > has never
      >> > > > been an animal." sorry, but the evidence refutes that. seriously."
      >> > > >
      >> > > > I don't know if the visiting teacher was mistaken or is quoted
      >> > > > incorrectly
      >> > > > or misunderstood. But the phrase 'Man has never been an animal' is
      >> > > > at least
      >> > > > partly correct. Anthroposophy does not reject evolution; quite the
      >> > > > contrary:
      >> > > > it is all about evolution. Man's *physical body* followed the course
      >> > > > of
      >> > > > evolution; but it was only when this body reached its human
      >> > > > characteristics
      >> > > > that man's spirit incarnated in it.
      >> > > >
      >> > > > Frank
      >> > > >
      >> > >
      >> >
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.