[RobbyS]

God , at least the God of strict monotheism, is not a "supernatural" cause. This may be the point of disagreement between us. I should also clerify what I mean by "attitude" toward religion. Neither rejected, as Thomas Huxley did, the notion of revelation as knowledge. With Huxley, and probably is with Dawkins, is a matter of anticlericalism as much as irreligion. Until Darwin came along, the scoentific societies in England were dominated by amateurs. most of whom were clergymen. By espousing Darwin, "professionals" like Huxley came to dominate those same circles. Dawkins, like Lord Russell before , is antiChristian and has the further agenda of removing all Christian influence from society,

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"God , at least the God of strict monotheism, is not a "supernatural" cause."

How are God's actions not supernatural?


"Neither rejected, as Thomas Huxley did, the notion of revelation as knowledge."

They did in when it came to formulating their scientific theories, which is what is relevant.

"Until Darwin came along, the scoentific societies in England were dominated by amateurs. most of whom were clergymen. By espousing Darwin, "professionals" like Huxley came to dominate those same circles."

Which is a good thing; biology needed to catch up with the other fields of science in eliminating supernatural causes in it's explanations, as the physical sciences had done since Galileo and Newton.