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 ...
If the quotes are wrong I will have my post removed..
Which quote is false?
Which quote is false?
Is that how you debate -- toss out several dozen quotes out of context and demand a defense of them?
With that logic, Patrick Henry said something like "Give me death."
Who knew the patriot was in such a funk? I guess he figured we lost the Revolution.
As one example from your link...
"The purpose of regeneration is that man reconstruct all things in conformity to God's order, not in terms of man's desire for peace. This purpose and mission involves law and coercion." -- R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 777.
Now someone who reads that might think Rushdoony is speaking of "coercion" by the state.
Instead he writes, both before and after this quote in context, that God works His "coercive" sovereign grace to bring a man to faith in Jesus Christ.
Offer all the left-wing socialist Canadian drivel you want. It only weakens your position.
The answer would seem to be "none of them".
God makes the pearls. The clams go along for the ride. 8~)
To take posts out of context to such an alarming degree is ludicrous.
The only thing dumber is to be drawn into a defense of same.
In the meantime, I'm hoping you get around to answering my simple, specific question in post #1119.
Unless, of course, you are a unitarian. Then I understand your position.
I've long felt the Bible alludes to the existence of other dieties -- it's just that we are prohibited from worshipping them.
Please tell us the context in which the statement cited in post 1125 could be acceptable.
LOL. A snippet does not a defense make.
I doubt Mark R. advocates death for straying spouses.
But it would do you good, I have no doubt, to read the entire work from which this one sentence apparently was plucked.
Patrick Henry: "Give me death."
Interesting...
This is getting farcical. Find the work from which it came and read it for yourself, Professor.
I have a simple question. How do you know the Bible is the word of God? I asked bluepistolero and didn't really get an answer.
I don't think you understand. It won't be any god leading us. It will be men who claim to speak for that diety. You cannot escape that fact, unless said diety drops by one day and says he's taking over.
Not everyone would be better off being persecuted by a government of righteous nutcases.
I've always found this type of answer a cop-out. If a person is truly touched by God, he should be able to explain his position with clarity and logic easily (did not the Apostles speak in tongues that everyone around them understood?). Lack of this ability (or desire) bespeaks of unsurity, which, in itself should call into question one's heavenly credentials.
Give me one other possible interpretation.
But it would do you good, I have no doubt, to read the entire work from which this one sentence apparently was plucked.
I intend to, although I understand Chalcedon no longer likes to make many of their meatier early works available. For example, they were quoted recently as saying they prefer to downplay the stoning to death of children, although they still advocate it (with the parents' permission, of course).
Still, we have a good librarian, and I'm sure I can get a copy.
It's the other gods. When the proto-Hebrews created the Genesis story, they were surrounded by people with lots of gods. Like most folks back then, they accepted the validity of the existence of those gods, but assumed their God was the big kid on the block. Indeed, through much of the OT, the assumption is that other gods do exist (Baal, the gods of the Egyptians) but that the Israelite God is more powerful than any of them. I'm not sure that the concept of God as a singular entity in that domain really took hold until a couple of centuries after Christ.
God gives faith. When you are in receipt of the knowledge that God created heaven and earth, that men are fallen creatures lost in the ether, that God gave Himself as a redemption for our sins, that Christ's resurrection was real and appointed from before the foundation of the world, that He will be with us always, then you become aware that you are a changed person. You look outward and upward, rather than inward.
The proof is in the doing.
And all this knowledge is to be found in the Bible, a complete and sufficient guidebook for every man on earth. Obey God, help your fellow man, love your children, make the world into a garden as a reflection of His glory, and be grateful for your life which leads unerringly back to Him.
It is exquisitely simple.
And I much prefer it to the alternative. Therefore, it is true.
Elvis?
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.