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 ...
Take it up with the Christian Reconstructionists, not me. They say it's economical and a way the whole community can join in execution fun.
You're right. I was a bit tangential in the conversation, a sort of entrepreneur of looniness as it were, but still, I was referring to you, so I should have pinged you. My apologies.
At the same time, anyone who makes psychosexual hay out of disagreements about evolution deserves mockery.
I have come to conclude your average T.O.E dude/dudette seems to avoid this subject. Perhaps you two have some thoughts, ideas, about how 'falling in love' VALIDATES the T.o.E.
Oh, we're on this again, are we? Well, I'll simply let Cole Porter speak for me. Seems to me the link between evolution and falling in love has been adequately established.
Well, the problem is that you seem to have mistaken a scientific theory for an ecstatic experience. It's not a religion. Maybe the problem is that so many of you guys mistake it for one, and then you're all so disillusioned with it when you find out it doesn't change your life. No one is ever is 'die-hard' believer in Coulomb's Law, but I assure you, if you come after that, we'll defend it also.
LOL! Thats why my cranky old neighbor sat next to a pile of rocks on the front porch.
I suppose Evolution is also responsible for you guys losing to Texas last week?
Perhaps you two have some thoughts, ideas, about how 'falling in love' VALIDATES the T.o.E. I would love to hear it.
Of course falling in love validates ToE. The explanation is so obvious that only a complete idiot or someone determined not to see it could miss it if they gave the matter 2 minutes consideration. Does that remind you of anyone? I seem to recall some fool who couldn't imagine why faithfulness validated the ToE and had to have the explanation spoon-fed in grinding detail, now who was that?....
Any chance of letting that wisdom filter apply to what you write?
Comedy Gold never gets old. We'll be running repeats of those posts on satellite for years to come. My big fear was that you'd try to pretend that the humour was some kind of intentional parody of looniness, which somehow would have made it much less funny.
Most British natives are agnostic/indifferent. Do you think our armed forces are inneffective for their size? Many israelis are secular. How would you regard the effectiveness of their armed forces?
Like all of your other arguments, it works in your head, but fails to engage with the real world. What you don't follow is that observation trumps hypothesis every time.
It hasn't at all, that I can see, except everyone is a bit warier of young brown bearded men with backpacks on the tube.
Incidentally the willingness to die for one's cause does not a good warrior make. Armies full of such people are known by the technical term "losers". The most important attribute for a warrior is the preparedness to make your enemies die for their cause. That's the kind of guy I'd want next to me in a foxhole.
Look Patrick, you asked for another Dr G stream of unconsciousness, and the Lord Provided. I'm not convinced that this was up to the standard of his earlier work however. Kind of like that "Difficult Third Album" syndrome.
Anyone know what #1431 said?
Nothing like the classics!
Whatever happened to ModernMan anyway? He's done his time. We need a writing campaign to bring him back!
I've made an inquiry about it. I don't always get responses. When I do, sometimes it takes a few days.
It was an argumentum ad "Yer a buncha pedo-fags"-um.
It was posted by bluepistolero, who is now banned or suspended. I think it was a seriously misguided response to my #1406, a quote from Plato on the death of Socrates.
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.