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 ...
Was he talking to himself?
It was probably the Coen Brothers' great "Oh, Brother, Where Are Thou?" I love their movies.
"You're a young man, you've got your health. What you want with a job?"
The Dude abides.
Well, it is hard to see through these slits in my pillow case.
Slits are hard to see through. You need to make holes.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
bluepistolero
The question I posed held the presupposition that there is one and true Triune God of the universe who gave Himself so that men might one day join Him in Paradise. If that be the case (that such a God exists), what is wrong with having that God lead our lives, our country and the world?
bluepistolero
Well, that one made me smile--I'm glad there is still a sense of humour.
But there is also a sense of evasion, unless I have missed a post. Bluepistolero assured us that if Dr. Eckleburg was a Christian Reconstructionist, then that was good enough for him, too. Dr Eckleburg assured us, I am pretty sure, she was not a Christian Reconstructionist, but a Presbyterian.
I'm not at all interested in playing 'What's My Denomination'; but I either didn't receive or else didn't spot an answer to my point about the relationship between someone who styles herself a Presbyterian and promotes literature by North & Co. -- the quotes RWP posted from these Christian Reconstructionists were pretty obnoxious.
So, do either of you Dr. E or bluepistolero, care to comment on the North quotes themselves?
I've always been curious about this obvious question but never asked it. How do you know the Bible is the 'Word of God'?
" "God's followers" wrote the Constitution."
They just weren't followers of YOUR God.
Nice pearls you're wearing. Toss them over so I can admire them.
I'm not sure it's worth tossing them before any others, though.
bluepistolero
No--it appears to me that you are assuming the right to tell me which God is valid, and which is invalid.
By all means, you can tell me your opinion on this. But you are also, it appears, advocating theocratic government, which would compel me to live by your opinion of which God was valid.
That is my issue with you here
That I can, and do, respect.
bluepistolero
Casting pearls to...smallmouth bass, was it? :-)
Forget my concept of God. Stick with your own. (I'm assuming from your earlier posts you have one.)
I'm asking if you believe in God, would it be a bad thing or a good thing for EVERYONE to believe in that God?
The bible is one Word, spoken by God, to bring the creation into being. That Word, became flesh, in the person of Jesus Christ. These two revelations are spiritually revealed to the elect.
You didn't answer my question. How do you know the Bible is the word of God? Saying it is 'one Word, spoken by God' doesn't answer the question.
Those smallmouth....mmmmmmmm.
Do freshwater clams produce pearls of any quality???
One thing that just occurred to me, re the Discovery Institute, is that not only was it funded by Howard Ahmanson, who is also the funder of the Chalcedon Institute, the big daddy of all Reconstructionist outfits, but that Dembski himself was active in the conservative Presbyterian renaissance at Princeton Theological Seminary. Cornelius Van Til, the conservative Presbyterian theologian at Princeton, is the intellectual father of Reconstructionism.
Dembski is way too slick to publicly associate himself with Reconstruction, but I wonder if he's a closet CR?
The reference is to post #1002, which includes some quotes by Demar, one of the authors of tracts for which Dr. E. provided links.
I find these quotes very disturbing--indeed, alarming, if I thought such a man were ever to wield political power
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.