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]

[b_sharp]

The occasional bad joke really helps the threads along.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

My God is perfect and true.

Great. Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing for me and the grocery man and Finland to follow your God?

[VadeRetro]

Now show there's something in there that makes those crazy-looking quotes harmless and cuddly.

[PatrickHenry]

1200?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

He who provides the quote, provides the link and thus the context.

Them's the rules.

[VadeRetro]

Not even a prime! Tsk! Tsk! Don't you know the log(N)/N trick?

[js1138]

A follow-up to this is why would anyone believe in an imperfect and untrue God?

Or one that orders the killing of every living person in an entire city.

[VadeRetro]

He who provides the quote, provides the link and thus the context. Them's the rules.

Your incredible claim remains incredible.

[PatrickHenry]

Sorry. I was dazzled by the recent content of this thread.

[Junior]

One of the Roman emperors commanded the tides to stand still, but you have asserted that all existence bows to your personal wishes.

You might be referring to King Canute.

[b_sharp]

I'm not losing my hair, it just migrates south.

[VadeRetro]

Too much fun. Out for the night.

[general_re]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that material. Are you not familiar with the material being referred to you?

[Junior]

To follow my God is one thing. To follow my concept of my God is another thing entirely. Remember, this will all be filtered through the human brain. Do you trust my interpretation of the Almighty's will? If I were you, I'd definitely think that one over before you answer.

[b_sharp]

"But if WE point out that all of the 'little changes' neccessary for Evolution to have actually occured in the amount of time postulated is likewise unimagineable, we get dismissed.

"Strange....

Not really. The creationist attempts are intended to show the impossibility of evolution and their calculations have quite a few incorrect initial conditions. The calculations I tried to do were simply to show how fortunate we are to have found as many fossils as we have. I also tried to include as many factors as possible. The problem I had was in trying to determine the correct factors. That difficulty led me to abandon the calculation.

Besides, most of do not say the creationist calculations are wrong as much as we contend that any calculation is impossible.

[js1138]

I hate being wrong.

[balrog666]

Sorry. I was dazzled by the recent content of this thread.

That's not dazzle!

[RightWingNilla]

Again, what's so bad about a nation led by God?

Its not the Big Man so much as the A-holish minions claiming to carry out his will.

[RightWingNilla]

If it were possible that all the world became Christian, would that be a bad thing in your mind?

I guess that would mean no more of those little Jack-Chick style flyers would be thrust in my face when I am on the subway. Maybe youre on to something.

[RightWingNilla]

Speaking as an agnostic, it would depend on what exactly happened to all the agnostics.

You would be sent away for "re-education" of course.