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 ...
I'm sorry. I knew as soon as I hit post that it was wrong. I couldn't stop myself. I never make mistake's like that.
Zionist!
I see no value at all in belief. From where I sit, belief allows charismatic leaders to make evil and absurd statements, such as that God has ordered the destruction of a city and the killing of all the people. Or statements that slaves should obey their masters.
No rational person could simultaneously believe that these reflect the will of the creator and that the creator is good.
But somehow faith overcomes the Orwellian paradox. I think that on the whole, faith is an evil and dangerous thing.
Now if you were to allow faith to step back and question whether it was really god speaking these absurdities, I have no problem with faith in a creator. I just can't accept people who claim to speak for the creator.
Please stop spamming.
Then raising the cup to his lips, quite readily and cheerfully he drank off the poison. And hitherto most of us had been able to control our sorrow; but now when we saw him drinking, and saw too that he had finished the draught, we could no longer forbear, and in spite of myself my own tears were flowing fast; so that I covered my face and wept, not for him, but at the thought of my own calamity in having to part from such a friend.Nor was I the first; for Crito, when he found himself unable to restrain his tears, had got up, and I followed; and at that moment, Apollodorus, who had been weeping all the time, broke out in a loud and passionate cry which made cowards of us all.
Socrates alone retained his calmness: What is this strange outcry? he said. I sent away the women mainly in order that they might not misbehave in this way, for I have been told that a man should die in peace. Be quiet, then, and have patience.
When we heard his words we were ashamed, and refrained our tears; and he walked about until, as he said, his legs began to fail, and then he lay on his back, according to the directions, and the man who gave him the poison now and then looked at his feet and legs; and after a while he pressed his foot hard, and asked him if he could feel; and he said, No; and then his leg, and so upwards and upwards, and showed us that he was cold and stiff.
And he felt them himself, and said: When the poison reaches the heart, that will be the end.
He was beginning to grow cold about the groin, when he uncovered his face, for he had covered himself up, and said -- they were his last words -- he said: Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?
The debt shall be paid, said Crito; is there anything else?
There was no answer to this question; but in a minute or two a movement was heard, and the attendants uncovered him; his eyes were set, and Crito closed his eyes and mouth.
Such was the end, Echecrates, of our friend; concerning whom I may truly say, that of all the men of his time whom I have known, he was the wisest and justest and best.
Now that's crazy talk. ;)
It's not Damon Runyon though.
Washington: First in War, First in Peace, Last in the National League.
"But it's fascinating to see how much vitriol is engendered by the term."
I'm not a Presbryterian .... yet. And I too share your reaction to the vitriol. It seems, somehow, that the Sovreignty of the Father is a real sticking point in the craw of many.
bluepistolero
The sovreignty of people who claim to know that the Father wants us to stone sassy kids and loose women to death is a huge sticking point, yes.
"I noticed nothing about the idiot part......"
He's sensitive to your fragile self esteem...
Actually, it's the stoning to death of kids that really get my goat. But if you're cool with that....
Try "sovereignty". You might want to step back a bit - it's rubbing off on you ;)
bluepistolero
Try this on for size: "You kids get off my lawn, or there'll be a stoning tonight for sure!"
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.