Evolution is
a) kefira
b) not exactly kefira, but not true
c) possibly true. Who knows?
d) definitely true, and compatible with Orthodoxy
e) definitely true, even if it isn't compatible with Orthodoxy
f) Leave this question out of my results
I'm very comfortable with (c) here. I'm satisfied that many versions of the evolutionary theory contain no kefirah. Given that, why would I be sure it's not true, as per (b)? I like neither (d) nor (e) because I don't think that macroevolution - which is what I assume this question is about, otherwise I choose (e) - has been so conclusively proven to have taken place that all other possibilities regarding the origins of species can be discarded as definitely false.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This thesis explores the circumstances by which Edmund Burke came to be regarded as the father of Anglo-conservatism. Conventional wisdom assumes Burke was hailed as a Conservative oracle from the moment Reflections on the Revolution in France appeared. In fact, nineteenth century Conservatives considered Burke a “Whig” who had erred on most critical issues: slavery, Crown prerogative, Ireland, empire.
In the twentieth century, however, the advent of universal suffrage and the demise of the Liberal party forced Conservatives to develop an identity which might compete with Labour’s mass appeal. It also shifted the locus of Conservative ire from liberalism to socialism. Conservatives came to see themselves as protectors of the individual and their opponents as latter-day Jacobins obsessed with a reified State. A key figure is Hugh Cecil, whose Conservatism (1912) was among the first monographs to define Conservative identity in this way and to trace Conservatism’s origins to Burke.
Post a Comment