The Victoria Institute is treated as a hotbed of anti-evolutionists which is
incorect. The VI was founded in c1863 as part of the response to Darwinism.
Since then there has been a journal and various meetings during the year.
I have read/skimmed a good number of journals from 1863 to 1989 when it was
subsumed into Science and Christian Beleif. It's stance is a conservative
and largely evangelical discussion of science and related issues.
to give an example in 1865 George Warrington gave a paper , then published
in the journal, arguing for evolution but was challenged by some in the
meeting. Tghe general tenor over the 125 years was old earth and sympathetic
to evolution. In 1920s G McCready Price gave a paper which was shredded.
In 1940s (1946?) Oliver Barclay wrote a superb paper contrasting evolution
as science and evolution as religion.
So the VI was a group of learned and intellignet people of varying quality
deal with the usual run of Science and Faith issues. Most were "worthy" ,
some excellent along with some trash.
On the whole it was a good thing but attracts stupid comments from bigots
who dont sit down and read the journal.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
> BTW, I've never seen the Victoria Institute treated as anything but a
hotbed
> of anti-evolutionists (even by evangelical authors). Was it anything
more?
>
> Karl
> *************************
> Karl V. Evans
> cmekve@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 1/12/02 4:42:21 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
> topper@robertschirk.u-net.com writes:
>
> << From 1900 to 1950 Conservative Evangelicals were thin on the ground.
Within
> the Church of England their strength may be indicated by out of 30m
> seminaries, 3 were conservative evangelical , 5 or 6 were liberalish
> evangelical and the rest high church (dominant) or central to modernist
( a
>
> close second). In fact in these decades a lot of donkey work was done
> especially on the mission field and IVF which gave a foundation for the
> future.
>
> Did Bowler deal with the Victoria Institute an evangelical science and
> religion group?
>
> I think Bowler is echoing the dominant view of church historians who
often
> simply ignore evangelicals as of no consequence. Or at least they could
> until 1990 when it was clear that evangelicals form the dominant group
> within the Cof E, but have a range of opinion from mildly liberal to
fairly
> conservative. My observation is that what would be seen as a conservative
> evangelical in England would be somewhat iffy and liberal across the
pond.
> For example most Anglcian evangelicals would not subscribe to inerrancy
and
> of the clergy probably 5% are creationist
>
> Michael
> >>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 04:52:28 EST