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 ...
What I suspect is new, to most of the people on this thread, is how old ID really is.
Nice ammunition for any of us to use when the Creationists start talking about their "fresh new idea" that science is somehow conspiring to suppress.
ID is not a new idea. It's an old, tired one that has long outlived its usefulness.
Neither Darwin nor evolution theory make any such claim. Please see my post #48, above; much more could be said, if you are interested
Cordially
Fortunately, we've had a great deal of practice at this civilization thing. Consequently, the less desirable whims usually result in jail time.
I just love Jack Chick. That's some of the funniest stuff I've ever read.
"NO, NOT BLACK LEAF!"
Brings a smile to my face every time.
If not, then please describe the moral implications of gravity.
But Icarus grew exhilarated by the thrill of flying and began getting careless. Flying too close to the sun, the wax holding together his wings melted from the heat and he fell to his death, drowning in the sea.
If you include Universal Common Ancestry as a part of evolution, then it does.
---Faulty premises can lead to faulty conclusions.
Society offers greater protection (hence increased opportunities for survival) than living outside of a civilized society with its human construct morality. Loving one's neighbor as oneself is fundamental to that increased protection. Your premise that "survival of the fittest" is the opposite of "love your neighbor as yourself is not justified.---
Why does society offer better chances of survival?
Why don't cougars form such societies?
Behe's statement of ID is entirely inference, and he quite openly admits it in his book. Yes, he goes into the science of blood clotting and the development of the eye, and shows how incredibly complex they are, irreducibly complex by his estimation. But his argument really does come down to "some things are irreducibly complex (cannot have evolved) and are therefore (by inference) designed".
Defenders of ID want no discussion of the designer, as if it doesn't really matter who or what the designer is or was. I have yet to hear any defender of ID suggest that the designer is of the material world, or even not of the material world. Seems it should be one or the other.
If not of the material world, doesn't ID end up in the same pickle as evolution - more properly abiogenesis - (how does something come from nothing), and if of the material world, why are we not able to study the designer, but only the design?
Just for the heck of it, why don't you go ahead and tell us all what the "six types of evolution" are. : )
Either morality comes from God, or it is a human construct.
If it is God-given, we have no authority to change it.
If it is human-given, it is subject to change without notice.
Ask Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot.
Bingo! ID doesn't go anywhere as 'science.' It is just trying to sneak religion past the Constitution and into the classroom
Did you get your understanding of evolution from a comic book?
If true, why don't we stone adulterers and disobedient children anymore? Why don't we condone or permit slavery anymore? Etc., etc.
Sorry, common ancestry means just what it says. That all lifeforms on earth had a common ancestor. How this ancestor came into existance in the first place does not matter a lick to the theory of evolution.
Question: what is the purpose of life under the theory of universal gravitation. Answer: to fall
Dumb argument, ain't it?
I love that list, BTW. The "evolutionist" professor writes a list that distinguishes evolution "between kinds" from evolution "within kind."
"Kind?" Creationists can't talk the talk, much less walk the walk.
Or--as my post #48 outlined--it could have evolved, just as life evolved, is indeed inherent in life.
If it [morality] is God-given, we have no authority to change it.
With respect, much of our human history is the history of wars about who possesses the authority of God. Or who has the 'correct' understanding of God's will. No matter what you believe, you are a heretic to someone else's religion. Every religious follower believes his God, his morality, is the right one--but they are mutually exclusive and incompatible, and that has given humanity no end of suffering
bump
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.