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 ...
It is ignorant tripe. To be fair to Jack Chick, he seems to have based much of his "science" on the works of huckster and tax evader Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind whose Ph.D came in the mail from a diploma mill.
Nobody is looking for a target to attack. On the other hand, the sciences have become a target rich environment for every whacknut theorist who wants a government grant in order to proffer something nonsensical because proofs don't matter.
When I stated on another thread that accountability for results would be forthcoming, a party there responded that it would be a "cold day in hell" before he'd be held responsible for results. Says quite a bit, doesn't it.
We could start with what you don't know: the theory of evolution.
Now that is cute, why don't I do your homework for you?
No, if you really believe in something, you should know what it is you believ. You might note, no one has said there are not six, only asked for them or tried to slander them by bringing into it a controversial, in the posters mind, one who also printed the six. (see post #68)
Don't forget, lenin, marx, clinton, carter, and Eisenhower.
You will know a tree by the fruit that it bears.
I know many people who claim to be Christians that don't act like it. For example, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are Catholic. Need I say more?
I'll tell you what, I'll give you some time to retract that assine question before having some real fun with you.
But, let me suggest to you that you think about what you said, are you denying that there are six?
--- Simple. They haven't evolved far enough to understand those implications. Many other breeds of animals have, however, figured that out. ---
Like HoneyBees, eh?
I never realized that a honeybee was smarter than a cougar.
This is what we call circular logic. You claim people in New Orleans acted worse than people in Biloxi because they're not Christian, and then when it turns out there are a much higher percentage of Christians in Louisiana than Mississippi, you claim you can tell they're not Christian because of the way they behaved!
And you want to tell me how to teach science!
You really should know what yu are doing before you open a door.
Homework? Oh good grief. If reading comic books is now considered homework, we have truly fallen into the abyss.
You might note, no one has said there are not six, only asked for them or tried to slander them by bringing into it a controversial, in the posters mind, one who also printed the six. (see post #68)
Ok. I'll oblige. There are not "six types of evolution." Now you oblige me. Cite a source for your "six types of evolution" other than Jack Chick.
Not 'new', maybe. However, our understanding of the microscopic world has improved greatly since the years of Darwin. As ImaGraftedBranch pointed out, people back then knew NOTHING about the inner workings of a cell (the energy efficiency of the cell, for instance, is much greater than that of a car, a product of human design).
Darwin openly admitted that his theory of evolution seemed 'foolhardy' when he used the human eye as an example: an extremely complex optical device. He would probably call his own theory (which many people seem to have forgotten: evolution is a THEORY) utter foolishness if he saw how infinitely more complex DNA was.
Bingo! ID doesn't go anywhere as 'science.' It is just trying to sneak religion past the Constitution and into the classroom Technically, seeing as how evolution (and I'm talking about macro-evolution; not micro-evolution, which has and IS proven to occur, such as the breeding of a pitbull and a Doberman Pinscher to form a Rottweiler) is a theory (not fact), one could say it has the same amount of validity as ID. Especially considering that, as evolution purportedly takes place over many, many, many years, it can't be analyzed (and thus it can't be proven). The theory of evolution has had so many different parts thrown into it that it's split off into several different demoninations of the theory (such as neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium) in order to try and explain how such an incredibly complex human body could have happened by 'chance'. However, in doing so, the evolutionists have only sowed discord among themselves.
The Theory (can't say that enough) of Evolution would have to show something extraordinary if a species (like a fish) 'evolves' into a dinosaur, then into a bird. Organisms have set limit in their genetic code as to how far they can change. For macro-evolution to exist, new genes and alleles would have to be added to the creature's genetic code. Of course, that is clearly impossible (very little data supporting this hypothesis, and a lot of data contradicting it).
Let me put a simpler way; saying that the human body got to where it was today by chance is akin to breaking an airplane apart, putting the parts into a box, shaking the box, and hoping the airplane will come back together.
Another argument for evolution would be the fossil record (ie the evolution of the horse, from Eohippus to Equus). Problem is, bones for these 'devolved' horses are scattered across several different continents, not all together in one specific region of the world. Also, fossils of Eohippus have been found as close to the earth's surface as Equus fossils. This goes against the idea of the geological column, where the lower you go, the simpler the organisms' fossils are.
One last thing; did you know that the cyctochrome C sequences (cytochrome C is a protein involved in cellular metabolism, FYI, and is present in most organisms) in bacterium are more closely related to us than those of a Rhesus monkey (bacterium: 65%; Rhesus monkey: 1%)?
Ta ta.
Do you just have a new bible delivered to your doorstep every morning to help you catch up on the day's news? Not everything has a chapter and verse.
Anyhow, science does not attempt to explain the meaning of life. That type of question is happily left in the realm of philosophy and religion.
"dinoflagellum"
Would you explain this "word" to me please?
It would predict absolutely nothing. It does not predict the situational behavior of individual members of a species.
Image of god? A god with an appendix? Not much of a god in my book.
Go for it, enlighten me, assume I know nothing about evolution, now enlighten me.
Or morality is a product of an objective universe. It’s derived from observation and reason of our environment, guiding us as to how to best promote our lives according to our nature/abilities. We can’t successfully will morality to "change without notice" if the principles are incompatible with the world.
Like you say, just “Ask Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot.” In general, they tried to impose moral systems that prohibited our freedom to pursue our rational self interest and succeed. That’s without precedent in nature, can’t work. So they failed.
Let me pause here to quake in my boots. Drat! I'm not even IN my boots! Anyway, I've already mentioned on this thread that your material either comes from Jack Chick or Chick's "authority," the risible Kent Hovind.
But, let me suggest to you that you think about what you said, are you denying that there are six?
Anyone can make up a number. The theory of evolution is only about one kind of evolution. That you assume science knows something about "the six types of evolution" only shows you got all you know from spewers of nonsense. You seem to deny Chick, but you also seem to be brazening everything.
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.