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 ...
They should teach that in school...
Ten Commandments?
Does this mean you are going to make me President? I promise to carry out God's plan. Trust me.
Oh, you want me to suppose that I believe in *your* God. Yikes. The Presbyterian God is the one who (according to them) told my Dad's fellow Ulstermen that they should burn Catholic families out of their homes. Since we were Catholic, we were a bit sensitive about that.
Now, it seems, he's moved from arson back to stoning.
Nope, I think if your god were the only one available, I'd still be an atheist. Denial is preferable to depression.
Oh I know exactly who He is and what He wants.
For now He wants you to give complete control and authority over to me. When the time comes I will pass on more Divine wisdom.
Thank You! Go to the head of the class with Rightwingnilla. You may skip study hall and hit the beach early.
Now we can debate if that God exists and if so, who that God is.
It's my understanding that's what the CRs are postulating. They simply have answered the "If" with their particular "yes" being the Triune God of the Old and New Testaments who affords eternal salvation to all those who believe in His Son, Jesus Christ.
No king but Christ.
I can see how this rattles some people, however. It always has.
Oh crap, I just remembered. My wife is Jewish.
Now what? Can I still be president?
*Let me be fair here. I'm presuming the god who commands arson is the same one who commands stoning. Entirely unwarranted, I know; and I know many thoroughly decent Presbyterians in America whose God doesn't seem to command either, and who seems to be a decent, if rather staid, chap, though with unfortunate liberal tendencies. I very much suspect this is a different God entirely, since its hard to believe a propensity to incite violence could be so easy to lose.
Well, you're entitled to your beliefs, but that's not my belief. See, this is how debate works.
But our starting point is that we agree it would be "a good thing" if we both believed in the same God of creation (assuming that one, true God exists.)
You never answered MY question. If there is no God, would you want everybody to know it? Wouldn't it be wonderful if everybody knew the truth?
If there was no God, I wouldn't care who knew it.
Well shucks doc. How are we going to set up this wonderful new republic under the "banner of Christ" if you don't believe me?
Have some faith my son. Vote for Nilla in November.
It's taqqiya, one of the more manifest traits of creationists.
Can you believe this thread?
Pass the tequila.
Of course. It's my belief that God loves the Jews as His first chosen people. Christ was a Jew; Mary was a Jew; Joseph was a Jew; David was a Jew; Moses was a Jew; Woody Allen is a Jew...
Mozel Tov.
The requirement came from the need to survive. There would have been all sorts of survival strategies attempted by our ancestors. The ones that worked (cooperation) allowed those who practiced them to survive, while those practicing less successful strategies were eventually weeded out. That all there really is to it.
Bananas was a pretty good movie.
She never answers my questions. Anyone else want to try this one? If I think of an elephant in the refrigerator, and you think of an elephant standing in a butter dish, are we thinking of the same elephant?
Seems like a simple enough question to me.
Come over for coffee and apricot rugelach. We'll talk. Bring the Mrs.
I have a strange feeling neither Woody nor my beloved wife would want to live "under the banner of Christ".
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.