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 God chose to make Himself perfectly clear to everyone, then it would make sense if we all believed the same thing and we would know what was expected at all times. That clearly has not happened yet in history. I don't really expect it. Mostly, I don't see how anyone thinks they know things that involve "spiritual matters." (That is, matters which cannot be determined from investigation of the material world.)
Baathatollahs
I don't believe in God (I know He exists). However, we're not talking about whether it's a good thing for others to believe in Him. The problem lies in that every believer in God has his or her own interpretation of what God wants. I do not trust others' interpretations of God's desires any more than I suspect they trust mine. We're still dealing with people, not God.
Tutankhamen did attempt to push montheism onto Egypt.
And look where it got him. He was knocked off in his teens and his religious beliefs were suppressed.
Here's the editor of Chalcedon Reports in his own words., on a sympathetic web site.
For nearly a century and a half the National Reform Association has pressed for the crown rights of Jesus Christ in the political life of the nation. This implies a nation covenanted with God. One of the (though by no means the only) means of doing this is formal recognition of the authority of our Triune God and of Christianity in the prime political instrument(s) of the nation. Another means is requiring Christian test oaths for the civil magistrate and for all voters in a democracy.
Note the obvious and direct conflict with Article VI of the Constitution.
Akhenaton was the main author of that push. Tut, who apparently came to the throne as Tutankhaten, probably reigned during the restoration of Amon-Ra worship and died as Tutankhamen.
I will consider the possibility that some are out of contest, if someone will provide a link to the original context.
I would seem to be well protected by your post. ;)
Do you think it would be "dreadful" if everyone believed in your God (assuming you believe in God)?
Yes, because any concept I might have of God would be imperfect and flawed.
The great God Ra whose shrine once covered acres is filler now for
crossword puzzles. -- Kieth Preston
Get me a link to the context.
Peel me a grape.
"I would seem to be well protected by your post. ;)"
As are many. Some creationists included.
smart aleck
:>)
The inference from your remark here is that you believe your God to be imperfect and flawed.
So to restate the question, if you believe your God to be perfect, would it be a "good thing" for everyone to believe in that perfect God?
And if you believe your God to be "imperfect and flawed," what have you been drinking?
One of the Roman emperors commanded the tides to stand still, but you have asserted that all existence bows to your personal wishes.
The inference from your remark here is that you believe your God to be imperfect and flawed.
It infers no such thing. Nice try.
...any concept I might have of God would be imperfect and flawed.
To clarify, my concept would be imperfect and flawed.
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.