Intelligent design [was] old news to Darwin

Chicago Tribune ^ | 13 September 2005 | Tom Hundley

[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]

[Paloma_55]

Very well stated.

I think your argument that supporting one another can be construed as a survival mechanism, but then it contradicts that other survival mechanism, clubbing the hell out of each other.

Contradictions exist and I guess they are supposed to work themselves out over time, eh?

As for why disease exists... there is a contradiction in the Bible on this. God created the perfect world..but then introduced fallibility because a perfect world would simply be like a painting, never changing. He wanted to be loved, but love demanded, will not exist. So He created the choice to love Him or deny Him. Perfection is no longer complete without imperfection.

It is this absense of perfection, the bad things, that make the good things good.

[wallcrawlr]

I understand...you had to comment because most evo's are scared ...they feel like they are being cornered.

As was snipped,

The argument does continue unabated,

But this view should be included from the article as well:

and these days the intelligent designers and anti-evolutionists seem to be gaining ground, especially in the United States. A recent poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life indicates that 42 percent of Americans accept the biblical account of creation, while 64 percent said they support the idea of schools teaching creationism and evolution.

Americans are discovering for themselves the Truth. They have not been convinced of the fraud perpetrated on them for 150 years now.

I'll pray for you.

[Paloma_55]

With respect, much of our human history is the history of wars about who possesses the authority of God.

the other part of our human history is the history of wars about who possesses the authority of man.

[Paloma_55]

---- If true, why don't we stone adulterers and disobedient children anymore? Why don't we condone or permit slavery anymore? Etc., etc. ----

The rules you cite... they were crushed. The temple collapsed and was resurrected in three days.

[SeaLion]

the other part of our human history is the history of wars about who possesses the authority of man

I agree with you on this. And it's why we're conservatives

[dmz]

No moral implications there, just common sense. Don't approach a heat source with wax holding your wings on.

[newsgatherer]

Evolution says we are all decedents of a rock
Show proof that evolution says that or be called a liar.

No, no, no, you show me where I am wrong or if you call me a liar I will, get that word will, report you to the moderator for name calling.

[newsgatherer]

call a rock great, great grandpaw
It appears he passed a little of the rocks down in your head.

No, I call God my great, great grandpaw 50 generations back, so a rock can not pass anything down to me, but, what about you?

[bobdsmith]

Evolution doesn't say we came from rocks.

[dmz]

Why does society offer better chances of survival?

The pooling of resources. The division of labor. Does that help. By banding together, instead of fighting amongst ourselves, we are able to fend off the cougar attacks, while others in the society can plant food, harvest food, go on a hunt, women can raise their children in relative safety, etc., etc.

Why don't cougars form such societies?

Simple. They haven't evolved far enough to understand those implications. Many other breeds of animals have, however, figured that out.

[Right Wing Professor]

Certainly, N.O. is a good example of how Godless people act.

Louisiana has a much higher percentage of self-declared Christians (58.2%) than Mississippi (39.9%). Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2004-5.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Right Wing Professor]

No, no, no, you show me where I am wrong or if you call me a liar I will, get that word will, report you to the moderator for name calling

Wow. That's mature.

Evolution nowhere says we are descended from rocks. Having made a positive statement to that effect, it is incumbent upon you to prove it. But my feeling is it's more an example of stupidity than a deliberate lie.

[newsgatherer]

Even an evolutionist like myself can still believe in Matthew 5:9

Sorry, D' but not so. For how can anyone who believes in evolution, believe in God the Creator? And Matthew 5:9 implies the Living God, the God of Creation.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

To calim to believe the words of Christ, would impy a believe in Christ, and how can one justify that when one believes in evolution, for did not John in John chapter one say:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. The word "Word" is Jesus.

So, when you consider what evolution really teaches, even though most to those who claim to believe in it can not define it, and what God claims in Genesis chapter one, their is no common ground .

Either the evolutionist are not telling the truth or Jesus is not telling the truth, and that my dear is war.

[VadeRetro]

Actually, I believe you think you're descended from dirt. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Grig]

Evolution -> miracle of chance
ID -> miracle of creation

either way you have a miracle.

[atlaw]

I see. So much for Leviticus (which, of course, makes you wonder why it even remains a part of the Catholic and Protestant Bible). But that hand waving dismissal of an entire book still leaves the question of why Paul so carefully described the rules of civil slavery. What entitles us to so audaciously edit and re-interpret God's rules?

[newsgatherer]

Thank you, didn't know jack had done that, but, regardless of where it came from, can you disprove it? Is it not correct?

[MeanWestTexan]

"Evolution says we are all decedents of a rock that was created from some dust that formed from an explosion of nothing."

That is not remotely the Darwinian theory.

Darwin's book was called "On the Origin of Species," not "On the origin of Life." It starts with life, original origin unexplained, leaving fully open Divine spark.

If you are going to attack something, at least know what it is.

[newsgatherer]

Since we're talking Darwinian evolution here

I did not know we were only discussing the racist hate filled stuff of darwin, but if that is what you would like, that is fine, especially since just about everything darwin ever said is now denied by the modern evolutionist.

Where do you want to start? How about with his statement about undesirable races? NO, maybe his rants about women?

Hey, what say we jsut go and look at what Marx and Lenin had to say about darwin?