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]

[Elsie]

That should allow us to go be friends and do some bass fishing.

AMEN!

Other than our diametrically opposed ideas on E vs C, we have very many things in common!

[Elsie]

Isn't it interesting that people are allowed to advocate sedition and treason on this conservative web site?

Well, I sure think so!

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. -- The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

[Elsie]

1000?

A good try, but folks were BUSY yesterday afternoon!

I've still got over 250 to read just to catch up!

[VadeRetro]

I'd be reassured, only yours is the first answer I got to that question and I wasn't worrying about YOU in this instance. Chances are the Book of Acts isn't Gospel for the CR crowd and doesn't trump "Mosaic Law."

(The story of Ananias and Saphirra in Acts bugs me, too, as it looks like an early textbook example of a collectivist shakedown. However, that's another topic done on other threads already.)

[VadeRetro]

Ever not know something? You can lie about it or tell the truth about it, but you don't know what you don't know.

[Elsie]

Very few Christians keep the Sabbath (Saturday) holy; most don't eat only the clean foods, or prepare them as prescribed. I'm sure nearly all own clothes made from more than one fabric.

That's because it CANNOT be show, from the Book, where we HAVE to!

[VadeRetro]

Not to be confused with Rumsfeld's "There are things we know we know and things we know we don't know, but there are also things we don't know we don't know..." or whatever.

[Elsie]

Oh Brother; Where Art Thou?

[Elsie]

WOW!

I just POSTED that!!

[Elsie]

There rose up a generation that knew not Joesph.

[js1138]

Nice try, but this is a privately owned forum. There is no First Ammendment here.

There is, for example, a rule against racist comments on FR, and some of the people I linked to have advocated a return to slavery.

[Elsie]

I find these quotes very disturbing--indeed, alarming, if I thought such a man were ever to wield political power

Indeed!

I perfer Christ's response about the Tares and the Wheat....

[Elsie]

Dr. Eckleburg is a fine Christian and has already stated several times that he is not what some here are trying to smear him as.

Knowing that, I would, yes, stand with him, to the end, pistoleros blazing.

Judging him from his words; I'd have to agree.

[Elsie]

I don't want to hear the Word if I'm going to get convicted.

I used to be of this mindset, also.

[Right Wing Professor]

I think its time for these guys to move to Guyana and start quaffing down spiked kool-aid.

Seems there are two kinds of nuts: those who end up drinking it themselves, and those who end up wanting to force it down other people's throats. I have these guys pegged for category 2, along with sundry Ayatollahs, Fuehrers, and General Secretaries of the Supreme Soviet.

And yes, I make the comparison in all seriousness.

[Right Wing Professor]

Judging him from his words; I'd have to agree.

Good deal. Let you all be known as apologists for the stoning to death of incorrigible children. Glad we got that settled.

[Elsie]

Their concept of the Almighty is limited to a few tens-of-thousands of words mistranscribed over many centuries, and because of this they are, for lack of a better phrase, unable to see the forest for the trees.

Therefore; worship trees, 'cause we have NOTHING to depend upon that we can RELIABLY point to that We can POSITIVELY prove that came from 'god'.

[Elsie]

We really hate misleading, out-of-context quoting.

But we REALLY hate spamming by gobs of Scriptures that are obviously metaphors; not real truth stuff!

--EvoDue

[xzins]

You forget yourself. You don't believe in hell. :>)

You need to come up with a this-world punishment....how about "doomed in this only life I have to be a creationist even though I don't want to be."

(it's ok...you can thank me later.)

[Elsie]

Thanks, I stand by what the Bible says about divorce, it is not a sin unto death.

Well....

If you've REALLY enraged the ex; it may be!!!