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 ...
That's great except it was overturned shortly after by higher-ups.
My brother does some killer work with his flyrod on the smallmouth bass in the creek.
See, that's where we really disagree.
He has already "shown up for work" and completed His assignment. He's never been not "in charge," regardless of who and what rails against that fact.
Thank you, God.
Again, what's so bad about a nation led by God?
Listening to Michael Medved? He just said that a few minutes before you posted.
The Ayatollah's think it's a good idea.
I think they are a prime example.
You evolutionists would probably like the people at DU more than the conservatives here, and I sort of think you are DU'ers.
bluepistolero
The entire forum?
No one's "hijacking" anything. Be assured the shouts of "fool" when one presents an orthodox, Christ-centered worldview drown out anything a few Christian posters might say.
But also true--on the same principle of the 'brevity' of princples you applauded about your own creed?
If not true -- then perhaps you will kindly explain the distinctions? These are all states run theocratically--with similar consequences.
You appear (though I will happily hear your correction, if there is one) to advocate the same political principle for the United States--where is the difference?
If your answer is that your God is, unlike the others, the correct and only true God--well, you are still saying exactly the same as the others.
I like Medved, particularly his and brother Harry's "Golden Turkey Awards."
Unless you're following a different constitution than the one governing the United States, the Executive Branch is not "in charge" of the country. Neither is the Legislative Branch nor the Judicial. Each keeps the other in check. There are 545 people "in charge:" 435 Congresscritters, 100 Senators, 9 Justices and 1 President.
So, do you see the Hand of God in Ted Kennedy?
I have trouble imagining the intellectual poverty of someone who thinks an entity could create a universe and not be in charge.
Religion is the history of aggressive people claiming to speak for God, in order to justify their own power grab.
Such people, at various times, have claimed that God ordered them to kill all the inhabitants of cities, stone women, kill old women accused of withcraft, and torture heretics.
I think Mary Jo saw the hand of the Grim Reaper.
bluepistolero
No, my misspeaking/mistyping. I meant, this 'thread.'
I stand corrected, and thank you for pointing it out
So what's wrong with that?
</maniac mode>
Funny, that's the first time I've seen evolution mentioned in about 70 posts...
I know -- don't you hate those frat parties sometimes?!
The Ayatollah's think it's a good idea.
What would be the term for the equivalent in the USA if it became a bible-thumper theocracy?
bluepistolero
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.