Posted on 09/13/2005 4:15:07 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
So what would Charles Darwin have to say about the dust-up between today's evolutionists and intelligent designers?
Probably nothing.
[snip]
Even after he became one of the most famous and controversial men of his time, he was always content to let surrogates argue his case.
[snip]
From his university days Darwin would have been familiar with the case for intelligent design. In 1802, nearly 30 years before the Beagle set sail, William Paley, the reigning theologian of his time, published "Natural Theology" in which he laid out his "Argument from Design."
Paley contended that if a person discovered a pocket watch while taking a ramble across the heath, he would know instantly that this was a designed object, not something that had evolved by chance. Therefore, there must be a designer. Similarly, man -- a marvelously intricate piece of biological machinery -- also must have been designed by "Someone."
If this has a familiar ring to it, it's because this is pretty much the same argument that intelligent design advocates use today.
[snip]
The first great public debate took place on June 30, 1860, in a packed hall at Oxford University's new Zoological Museum.
Samuel Wilberforce, the learned bishop of Oxford, was champing at the bit to demolish Darwin's notion that man descended from apes. As always, Darwin stayed home. His case was argued by one of his admirers, biologist Thomas Huxley.
Wilberforce drew whoops of glee from the gallery when he sarcastically asked Huxley if he claimed descent from the apes on his grandmother's side or his grandfather's. Huxley retorted that he would rather be related to an ape than to a man of the church who used half-truths and nonsense to attack science.
The argument continues unabated ...
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Thanks for taking the time to read the links. The internet is amazing.
By golly, I think we have outselves here a bona fide, true-blue Christian Reconstructionist here.
So stone me.
Actually, I don't want to stone you. I want to ask you questions. I've never run into a CR before. Are you one of the CRs who wants to reinstitute slavery? Do you believe, as North does, that the US Constitution is an illegitimate document? Do you really want to reinstitute capital punishment for large numbers of offenses? Will you be deporting heathens like me, or will I be burned at the stake?
Good eyes, though, huh?
If you'd like some excellent reading go to
Over 90 books online, free and available to all.
Check out "Christian Reconstruction" by North and DeMar.
I you won't stone me I won't roast you.
IF...IF you don't stone me I won't roast you.
Another joke murdered by hungry family members.
It is also not true.
ReligiousTolerance.org is a cult unto itself.
Indeed! Good call!
Tu quoque, eh? Evolution is supposedly a religious cult, too, looking at the evidence through religious blinders. Everybody else is just doing what you're accused of doing.
The Framers of the Constitution seemed to go out of their way to assure that result:
Article I, Section. 3The First Amendment is icing on the cake:
Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.Article II, Section. 1
Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."Article VI
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...For those who may not understand the expression "oath or affirmation" it's explained here: Affirmation (from Wikipedia):
In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath, but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath. The Constitution of the United States makes four references to an "oath or affirmation": In Article I, Senators must take a special oath or affirmation for the purpose of sitting as the tribunal for impeachment; in Article II, the president is required to take a specified oath or affirmation before entering office (see oath of office); in Article VI, all state and federal officials must take an oath or affirmation to support the U.S. Constitution; and in Amendment IV, all search warrants must be supported by evidence given under oath or affirmation.
Is this part of what is not true?
A church or congregation which does not accept the Mosaic Law has another god before them, and is thus guilty of idolatry. That would be punishable by death. That would include all non-Christian religious organizations. At the present time, non-Christians total two-thirds of the human race.I hope it is. But what part isn't true? Is the first sentence false? Is the second sentence false? If one of those two sentences isn't false, I don't see how the rest of it is escapable.
To split it equally and pray.
You might as well ask, "If we came from fish, why have fish stopped evolving?"
Nothing still alive has stopped evolving.
Where are the bones of australo-pithecus versions of monkeys?
Do we have a trail of monkeys that goes all the way back to a fish?
I bet you can find chimp bones from a million years ago.
It doesn't help that my voices tell me to do nice things to people or to care for homeless animals. I can't even be nuts normally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.