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 ...
In the unlikely event these loons ever get within a light year of political ascendancy, I fully intend to fulfill the solemn promise I made some years ago to 'protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic'.
BTW, are you a Christian Reconstructionist?
Naw--Junior got it -- with 'cockroach brains'
...Ooops, I don't mean that Junior has a cockroach brain, far from it...!
Scientologists feel the same way.
I have 'em - and its actually gum (each wrapper has a different passage from scripture).
bluepistolero
The thread had been stopped at 999 for a while as I was reading. I thought I'd give it a shot. I did hit a prime though and the probability of that is only log(N)/N or so.
If either of you are Christian Reconstructionists, you are the descendents of the KKK. If CR confines its activities to shouting in the parks and writing screeds, that's perfectly within the law, but if it attempts to implement its ideas, it will be treason.
I'm a Presbyterian.
But it's fascinating to see how much vitriol is engendered by the term.
Imagine the audacity of God to think He should be in charge and that it just might be a good thing for the world to become Christianized -- not by the swords of men, but by "the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."
It's not the term, but the people behid it.
Patrilineal inheritance implies groups based around males, where the male offspring remain within the group and "inherit" the property/position/whatnot of the male parent. I chose "hunter gatherer" societies because that is what human beings were during their formative years before everyone settled down to a nice, agrarian state.
Again, when HE shows up for work, He can be in charge.
"Imagine the audacity of God to think He should be in charge..."
God isn't the one itching to be in charge, it's people who claim to be his followers. In order for them to succeed, they will have to try to overthrow the Constitution.
America is led by men. Certainly you don't see the hand of God in Ted Kennedy, do you?
No
Imagine the audacity of people who claim to be in charge of God's will on earth.
Except, we don't have to imagine it. We have seen that all too often, we can even name some of the captial cities -- mediaeval Rome, Calvin's Geneva, the Taliban's Kabul--the list is depressingly long.
It will not include Washington DC. I hope and (surprised you!) pray
That's very indiscriminate of you.
Easy, but weak.
"God's followers" wrote the Constitution.
The folks running the show in this proposed theonomy will have their own particular pet laws, and their own particular interpretations of those laws.
In other words, the show will still be run by men, not God.
Did I miss a post? Although Dr. Eckleburg and bluepistolero reject the characterisation of 'cult', have they responded to the alarming interview with North and De Mar, whose on-line tracts they provided links to? I mean, are they defending the passage as representative of their 'Presbyterian' beliefs?
And have either of them made a single point about science, with reference to either Darwin or ID, or are they simply hijacking this forum to promote their views on theocracy?
I never knew that. I'm impressed - I tested it on a few primes - works pretty darn well! I guess I learn something new every day around here.
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.