Er fühlte sich gedrängt, als Ursache einen intelligenten Geist, in gewissem Maße ähnlich dem Geist des Menschen, anzunehmen und meinte daher, man könne ihn durchaus einen "Theisten" nennen.
Herr Dawkins behauptete, das sei nicht wahr.
Kardinal Pell forderte ihn auf nachzulesen, denn es steht in der englischsprachigen Autobiographie Darwins auf S. 92-93. (s.u.)
Ja, wie sollte Herr Dawkins nach diesem Sachverhalt nun seinen eigenen Buchtitel verstehen?
Quelle:
In a televised debate on Australian TV Cardinal Pell showed the depth of Richard Dawkins ignorance about the Father of Evolution,Charles Darwin. This is becoming a regular occurrence in debates between clergyman and Prof. Dawkins:
In a televised debate on Australian TV Cardinal Pell showed the depth of Richard Dawkins ignorance about the Father of Evolution,Charles Darwin. This is becoming a regular occurrence in debates between clergyman and Prof. Dawkins:
‘Charles Darwin was claimed as a theist by the cardinal,because Darwin ”couldn’t believe that the immense cosmos and all the beautiful things in the world came about either by chance or out of necessity”–a claim disputed by Professor Dawkins as ”just not true”.
Cardinal Pell won applause when he shot back:”It’s on page 92 of his autobiography. Go and have a look.”’
Here’s the excerpt from p.92-93 of Charles Darwin’s autobiography
‘Another source of conviction in the existence of God,connected with the reason and not with the feelings,impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe,including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity,as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man;and I deserve to be called a Theist.’
