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 ...
bluepistolero
But I would be interested to know, what exactly it is you believe what it is she is being 'smeared' with?
The topic of the thread is (well, was, at any event) the consideration of 'Intelligent Design' as a challenge to current scientific theory of evolution. Dr. E. introduced a quote from Calvin (some hundreds of posts back), which introduced, by degrees, a consideration of theocratic government, such as Calvin helped introduce to Geneva.
Many (myself included) are of the opinion that theocracy is one of the dangerous forms of government from which the Founding Fathers took pains to protect the new republic, while others (such as Dr. E, and I presume yourself) take an opposing view. All of which is interesting--but where is the 'smear' to which you refer?
Convicted?
Really? Like, "Book him, Dano, word-hearing one"?
Fascinating. Perhaps you believe it's good there are pockets of anti-Semitism and communism and barbarism, too, throughout the world because it would be a "dreadful thing" for all the nations to become democratized.
Ole Mr. Spock couldn't have said it better it would be a "dreadful thing" for all the nations to become democratized
Big time category error there, Doc--you will have to do much, much better than that!
That wouldn't cut it in Rhetoric 101, frankly I'm disappointed by you here
Really? Like, "Book him, Dano, word-hearing one"?
I don't want to hear the Word if I'm going to get convicted.
LOL. What appears to be advocated here is a political system whereby you would be convicted for rejecting some theocrat's notion of ultimate truth
Pretty scary, if you ask me
Then He's gone and not available to run the government.
He's never been not "in charge," regardless of who and what rails against that fact.
Then He's in charge NOW and there's no need to mess with the government.
You're quoting Spock and sending me back to school. LOL!
I guess you can't answer the question.
Oh, and don't call me that! My real name isn't even Godfrey.
Well, it is the first time I've heard soi disant Christians advocating what, in the absence of answers to questions posed, still appears to me indistinguishable from the political program of the Taliban.
So...time to say good night
Yep. True, hackle-raising creepy.
Ahh, you've popped in as I was signing out.
No, my dear, as my previous posting made clear, the difficulty is that you have not posed a question, but posted a rhetorical category error. You have substituted variable 'God' with incorrect category values 'anti-Semitism' etc.
Naughty you.
Must try harder
What appears to be advocated here is a political system whereby you would be convicted for rejecting some theocrat's notion of ultimate truth
Pretty scary, if you ask me.
At first I though it was a typo. But since there was no correction you may be right.
All I asked was how bluepistolero knew the Bible was the word of God. Maybe just asking the question is grounds for conviction. That is scary.
con·vict Audio pronunciation of convicted ( P )
Pronunciation Key (kn-vkt) v. con·vict·ed, con·vict·ing, con·victs v. tr.
1. Law. To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime, especially by the verdict of a court: The jury convicted the defendant of manslaughter.
2. To show or declare to be blameworthy; condemn: His remarks convicted him of a lack of sensitivity.
3. To make aware of one's sinfulness or guilt.
I don't agree with bluepistolero's position, but it looks like he was speaking of definition #3 when he said "convicted", not #1.
I don't agree with bluepistolero's position, but it looks like he was speaking of definition #3 when he said "convicted", not #1.
Or he meant both. He hasn't bothered to clarify.
This is a simple question and you're making it far too difficult.
You say you believe in a God, but you do not believe everyone would be better off by believing in and acting in accordance with that same God.
I assume you believe in the republican form of government we presently enjoy. Would the rest of the world be better off believing in and acting in accordance with your concept of liberty and democracy, or not?
You seem to be denying any absolute in life, albeit religious or political. The fact you stumble over this simple hypothetical tells me you just don't like where the question leads you.
Me, either.
I cannot imagine belieiving in a God whom I would not wish for everyone to enjoy, nor a government I would not offer as a goal for all to reach.
Your insipid link is from an ultra-liberal, socialist website from Canada no less -- ComeOfAge.net, "Humankind Come of Age."
"Humankind," instead of that mean old sexist patrilineal "mankind."
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.