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 ...
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, [saying],
22:8 He trusted on the LORD [that] he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
Thank you for the wonderful, prophetic verses! All of these things hapened to Jesus the day that He was crucified. Although I have no idea what you think they mean, I and my friends know and treasure, the full meaning. Thank you again!
bluepistolero
bluepistolero
Can you believe this thread?
This thread is a fault line.
bluepistolero
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?
That's a childish question.
"Actually, it's the stoning to death of kids that really get my goat. But if you're cool with that...."
Ahhh. Long time no ping RWP!! No need to bait back and forth needlessly. We know you apply pure rationalism to what you read, and I apply, well, wisdom to what I read.
I'm curious; given you know first hand what the london tube bombings were all about (I followed the threads carefully and appreciated your on the scene reports) and must have a greater appreciation of how life has changed courtesy of the jihadists, and given such individuals who conduct such madness need to be confronted w/ great violence, violence greater than stones ... do you think kids milk fed on rationalism and scientific reasoning grow up to be fine warrior men? And if so, do you have a resource showing us Christians, who seem to produce fine warriors by the bushel, how we should replace the warrior ethic of God, with the warrior ethic of, ahem, Darwin?
Honestly, First Imperative Kantian types don't seem to leave much literature behind regarding why a 'warrior' must fight, and especially why an intelligent rational type should risk losing the chance of passing on his genes fighting an allah crazed nut.
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?
That's a childish question.
" There is little evidence that you know what you are talking about."
Please. I'm talking about the evo players here who spend day after day looking for entertainment here on these threads, but the abortion threads .... why these players have nothing to say as a rule.... the evidence is their presence of their silence on the matter...
But of course, evolution and its teachings have had zero impact on 40 million kids not drawing a breath. I keep forgetting that 'fact'....
I know what they mean as well as anyone. I also know you're afraid of the truth. Giles Corey was crushed to death by stones, for refusing to stand trial as a witch. Good Christian men, probably not all that different from yourself, stoned to death an eighty year old man in Salem, Massachusetts, in September of 1692. September 19, to be exact - 313 years ago come Monday. Chew on that for a bit.
Yeah ... posting number 1 would be too dangerous for the folks out there. G.U.T.S needs to be ..... yeah, CENSORED!!
"Obviously 99% of the creationists are a lost cause."
Isn't in nice to know that 99 percent of the creationists would also never say the same for 99 percent of the evos??
You folks are just one small step away from experiencing what we have experienced. You may not recall, but I once was a die hard evo, a 'eureka' type after I dissected that oh so famous fetal pig in college... I bought it all hook line and sinker.. but then ... I took that small step.
Funny, why is it a one way street? Why is it you hear so few rationalists who, as Christian Creationist Adults, throw it away and take that one small step into scientific rationalism, and then enthusiastically join PH's posse?? I mean, you gotta admit, it feels GREAT on your side of the fence, yes?? So why is the magnetism so weak?
" It isn't."
Can you name one Freeper who is willing to discuss what it used to mean being a typical bible thumper, who then traveled into the light of reason and now 'gets it'? That is why I said it is a one way street... - I have seen it many times in the example of my direction, but don't witness examples ever in the other...
"Can you name one Freeper who is willing to discuss what it used to mean being a typical bible thumper, who then traveled into the light of reason and now 'gets it'?"
That assumes that when people start to understand evolution and agree with it, they automatically discard their religious faith. It's a childishly simplistic assumption.
Why do you ignore the many evolutionists here who ARE Christian?
"That is why I said it is a one way street... - I have seen it many times in the example of my direction, but don't witness examples ever in the other..."
You just haven't been looking hard enough.
I think ol' blue has learned to spew irrelevant verses rather than learn anything.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, weighs less than a duck...
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.