Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent design [was] old news to Darwin
Chicago Tribune ^ | 13 September 2005 | Tom Hundley

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; crevo; crevolist; crevorepublic; enoughalready; thisisgettingold
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,361-1,3801,381-1,4001,401-1,420 ... 1,501-1,515 next last
To: js1138

Conclusion: Tivo is simpler and easier to understand. All hail Tivo.

1,381 posted on 09/16/2005 12:59:17 PM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1375 | View Replies]

To: js1138

What was the line about a thousand religions and only one sauce?


1,382 posted on 09/16/2005 1:00:00 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1370 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I'm not defining God in this question to be anything other that who is really is given the supposition that we're all equally in the dark as to WHO this God is.

But do I read you correctly that IF this God were the God of the PCUSA, you wouldn't be adverse to having the entire world believe in this God? (My original question was just "God" but I think you're now further defining the concept as the PCUSA God. Correct?)

1,383 posted on 09/16/2005 1:01:54 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1353 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
IF there exists a God who created heaven and earth (one that we would agree on at some future date, considering the supposition here is that there IS such a God), would it be a bad thing for all the world to acknowledge that specific God?

Who knows? Hypothetically speaking if that God planned to torture forever everyone on earth who acknowledged Him then that would be a bad thing. Such a God might even lie about His intentions to fool worthy people into spreading His word.

You are assuming that (a) the God can be trusted and (b) the God is good according to conventional human standards of morality. Neither of these propositions is in evidence.

All hypothetical. I am not saying that this is true of the Christian God, but you cannot demonstrate that my proposition is false.

1,384 posted on 09/16/2005 1:02:05 PM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1378 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Sure, acknowledge all you want. I'll probably join you. However, I refuse to let anyone who claims to speak for said god to run things.


1,385 posted on 09/16/2005 1:03:11 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1378 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
What God wants, God gets of course.

Of course. Or else He's not God.

1,386 posted on 09/16/2005 1:04:01 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1350 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

I like #2, but keep searching. I want the best for the List.


1,387 posted on 09/16/2005 1:04:04 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Discoveries attributable to the scientific method -- 100%; to creation science -- zero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1374 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
The only assumption the question is making, and it is stated as the given assumption, is that there is a God.

IF there is a God and that God is reality, regardless of any of our beliefs, would it be a "good thing" or a "bad thing" for all the world to believe in this God?

1,388 posted on 09/16/2005 1:08:27 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1384 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Sure, acknowledge all you want. I'll probably join you

Excellent. That makes three. Now we can progress to the definition of this God.

1,389 posted on 09/16/2005 1:10:12 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1385 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
But do I read you correctly that IF this God were the God of the PCUSA, you wouldn't be adverse to having the entire world believe in this God? (My original question was just "God" but I think you're now further defining the concept as the PCUSA God. Correct?)

You're sure all the PCUSA elephants are the same elephant?

But OK, if the skies opened, and a great bright light appeared, and a giant voice said, "I am the Omnipotent one, exactly as described by the PCUSA, well close enough, and they got a darn sight closer than you ragheads, anyway, and from now on I'm running things around here", well yes, I'd be inclined to give him due deference. I'd prefer, however, to let The Big Guy take care of the enforcement of credulity himself. It's beyond my pay-grade, and besides, I don't care.

1,390 posted on 09/16/2005 1:10:33 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1383 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
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?

My question has never required us to draw distinctions between the definitions of God; the question is presupposing we acknowledge the simple "existence" of some undefined, yet-to-be-determined God, creator of heaven and earth.

I think you knew that, but you just liked the image of elephants balancing on butter dishes.

1,391 posted on 09/16/2005 1:15:34 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1338 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
My question has never required us to draw distinctions between the definitions of God; the question is presupposing we acknowledge the simple "existence" of some undefined, yet-to-be-determined God, creator of heaven and earth.

Good. His name's Allah. A billion Muslim's can't be wrong.

1,392 posted on 09/16/2005 1:18:19 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1391 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

"If there was no God, I wouldn't care who knew it."

An honest admission you don't care about the truth. Thanks.


1,393 posted on 09/16/2005 1:19:40 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1331 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Oooh, bad bad bad. That was "Muslims".

And I do indeed love elephants standing on butter dishes. Well, most of them.

1,394 posted on 09/16/2005 1:22:37 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1392 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Well, you're the one who insisted on defining this God further into the PCUSA God, but glory be, it's a sight closer than I ever thought you'd go.

I have problems with the PCUSA concept of God, but none that can't be discussed and debated (especially considering I'm a member in good standing.)

Now further, it's my understanding that CR's are simply in agreement with you, Professor. They, too, think it would be a "good thing" rather than a "bad thing" IF there is a God that all the world bow to Him.

Life is long and God's time-table is His own business. If you're so inclined, read some of the books I linked to in freebooks.com. I wish you prosperity and joy, and hope you find them by the will of the one true God of all creation.

1,395 posted on 09/16/2005 1:24:29 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1390 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Good. His name's Allah. A billion Muslim's can't be wrong.

No no no. Its Chtitithtylthlyu. And once I am President, if you dont bow to His will you will be stoned and smighted.

1,396 posted on 09/16/2005 1:25:35 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1392 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I do indeed love elephants standing on butter dishes

Things are getting a bit odd around here. :-)

1,397 posted on 09/16/2005 1:25:48 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1394 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Oooh, bad bad bad. That was "Muslims".

Your transgression has been noted in your permanent file at the Apostrophe Police HQ.

1,398 posted on 09/16/2005 1:28:52 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1394 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I already answered. Who knows? It depends on what the God is like.


1,399 posted on 09/16/2005 1:30:46 PM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1388 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Now further, it's my understanding that CR's are simply in agreement with you, Professor. They, too, think it would be a "good thing" rather than a "bad thing" IF there is a God that all the world bow to Him.

No. I specifically said I wouldn't care whether the rest of the world gave due deference. I said the Big Guy needs to take care of that on his own. So we don't agree.

1,400 posted on 09/16/2005 1:32:05 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1395 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,361-1,3801,381-1,4001,401-1,420 ... 1,501-1,515 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson