I was taking notes, writing down what he got wrong and detailing why. That isn't complicated. (But it's time-consuming.)
Again, the effort that I put into something you asked for doesn't undermine my credibility.
First, you say people can't tell the difference—but who exactly? Which arguments are being confused, exactly, and by whom?
Second, my view is not a patchwork of two opposing cosmologies. It is a distinct, independent third alternative that rejects both young-earth creationism and metaphysical naturalism. (Young-earth creationism is not the only view that treats the days of Genesis 1 as normal length, and atheistic naturalism is not the only view that accepts evolutionary science.)
Third, if someone fails to distinguish young-earth creationism from metaphysical naturalism after hearing me, then they weren't listening—because I am not defending either one, nor some hybrid of the two.
Fourth, if someone doesn’t grasp my view as a distinct position, I am glad to clarify it in good faith discussion. But I won't accept caricatures of it.
Appendix: On Good Faith vs. Bad Faith Argument
A person is arguing in good faith when he maintains honesty and sincerity in his arguments, free from hidden agendas or ulterior motives. He engages in constructive discourse, avoiding distortions or personal attacks (i.e., fallacies). He represents his own viewpoint openly and candidly, and represents his opponent's viewpoint accurately and with respect. He acknowledges valid points, evidence, and counter-arguments when they are presented, and stays on topic when faced with challenges and adapts his argument to valid criticisms. Arguing in good faith is about seeking truth and fostering mutual understanding, rather than merely winning the debate or promoting personal interests.
A person is arguing in bad faith when he lacks honesty and sincerity in his arguments, concealing hidden agendas or ulterior motives. He engages in destructive discourse, relying on distortions or personal attacks to undermine his opponent. He misrepresents his own position to appear more reasonable than it is, and misrepresents his opponent’s viewpoint to make it easier to dismiss or ridicule. He ignores or dismisses valid points, evidence, and counter-arguments, frequently straying off topic when challenged, and resists adapting his claims in the face of legitimate criticism. Arguing in bad faith is about winning at all costs, manipulating perception, or advancing personal interests, rather than seeking truth or fostering mutual understanding.
There is a solution to not knowing: Ask follow-up questions.
No, sir, that is a caricature that grossly misrepresents my position.
Once again, there are several errors here.
Let's start by identifying for the readers who these people are.
- Charles Darwin, author of the Origin of Species (1859).
- Thomas H. Huxley, known as "Darwin's Bulldog."
- George Holford, an early 19th-century Christian apologist.
- George Eliot, the pen name of Mary Ann Evans, a Victorian-era writer.
- David F. Strauss, a German liberal Protestant theologian.
- Herbert Spencer, an English polymath active in many fields, including sociology.
1. Huxley did not aggressively pressure Darwin to publish the Origin of Species. In reality, Huxley was not made aware of Darwin's ideas until the Darwin-Wallace joint presentation in 1858 at the Linnaean Society. Huxley was not in Darwin's inner circle of confidants prior to publication; this was probably due to Huxley being vocally skeptical of the idea of "progressive development" at first. (See his Royal Institution lectures in 1854-1856). It was not until 1857 that he started to become more open to "species transmutation." Once Darwin published the
Origin of Species in 1859, Huxley quickly became one of its strongest public defenders. He appreciated Darwin's mechanism (natural selection) because it offered the kind of causal explanation that he thought earlier "developmental" schemes had lacked.
2. Victorian elites were not "defeated so badly" by Holford. In reality, Holford was not a notable figure. While his work was widely read in evangelical circles (e.g.,
The Destruction of Jerusalem [1805]), he wasn't a central figure in academic theology or philosophy, nor did he engage German higher criticism or the growing secular scientific establishment. The major influencers were people like John Henry Newman and later B. F. Westcott. Strauss's book (translated even later by Evans) shows that the attacks were still alive and escalating after Holford. He mattered for devotional apologetics, not for the trajectory of European theological debate.
3. Herbert Spencer (who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest") was not the lover of Mary Evans. Her conjugal partner was actually Spencer's friend, George Henry Lewes (who was married to Agnes Jervis, a notoriously unfaithful wife). John Chapman introduced her to Lewes at Jeff's bookshop in the Burlington Arcade on October 6, 1851. Although she knew Spencer, having met him around the age of 32 while living with the Chapmans (1851-1853), and had great affection for him, Spencer totally friend-zoned her, as we say today:
Rumors about Herbert and Marian abounded in 1852 London. The couple seemed inseparable as they took long walks and attended concerts and plays together, so many onlookers believed that marriage was in the offing. Herbert did his best to quash this rumor; and though he described his friendship with Marian as "intimate," he denied that they were romantically involved.
-- George H. Smith, "A Gossipy Interlude: George Eliot, Herbert Spencer, and John Chapman, Part 1," Libertarianism.org, September 3, 2013 (HTML).
It was through Chapman that Marian Evans met Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) and his friend, the critic George Henry Lewes (1817–1878), with both of whom she was to fall in love. ... By June 1852, Marian was reporting to the Brays that she and Spencer were seen so often in one another's company that "all the world is setting us down as engaged" (Letters, 2.35). Marian would have liked nothing better, but Spencer was less keen.
-- Rosemary Ashton, "Evans, Mary Ann [George Eliot] (1819–1880)," Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, last modified September 23, 2004 (HTML).
Evans was rather plain-looking, almost masculine, and Spencer wrote in his
Autobiography (1904), as a veiled reference to Evans, "Physical beauty is a
sine qua non with me, as was once unhappily proved where the intellectual traits and the emotional traits were of the highest."
See also Joseph Wiesenfarth, "George Eliot (22 November 1819–22 December 1880)," in
Victorian Novelists before 1885, ed. Ira Bruce Nadel and William E. Fredeman, vol. 21 of
Dictionary of Literary Biography (Detroit: Gale Research, 1983), 145–170.
Having said all that: You were right about one thing, though. As the 19th century wore on, a specific line of critique did emerge regarding origins and cosmology. The
Origin of Species provided a naturalistic explanation for life's diversity, undermining the traditional understanding of creation at the time. Figures like Huxley, "Darwin’s Bulldog," did vigorously promote this new framework. And philosophers such as Spencer extended evolutionary concepts into sociology and ethics, including controversial critiques of Victorian marriage and family structures.
It is a bit premature and presumptuous (and rude) to claim that your particular view is the "real" explanation, as if all others are not real explanations.
