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 ...
See #1480.
I stand corrected. Guess it was naive of me to give the benefit of the doubt.
Non-controversial placemarker.
An honest admission you don't care about the truth. Thanks.
Huh??
What is the 'FR official' definition of SPAM?
Length?
Content?
Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience. Free Republic is a noncommerical site. Please do not post advertising, solicitations, spam or any other commercial messages. Do not spam us with links to your own site. No one likes spam.
1431?
Ask the AM.
He(she?) yanked it and 1361 and 1365.
I do not keep a record of every thing I post.
Well said LOL.
Did you miss the injunction against multiple font-colours and comic-book faces in the posting rules?
Did you folks know that the event at NO was predicted??
Proverbs 22:3
Festival of the Deteriorating Troll
Words to live by.
Hardly a specific prediction of an event, though.
Here's an answer:
Such a God would be self evident and would need no more acknowledgement than the nearest oak tree.
If He wanted universal acknowledgement, that is.
Big prime coming up ...
And evolution is provable and observable? No, it is a fable when it starts with: "millions and millions of years ago in deep space there was nothing and all that nothing came together and compressed into one dot, smaller than a period on a page and that dot of nothing started spinning, ..." Now that is a fable!
But, He who created all things, Christ Jesus, did give every man, woman and child a free will to make their own decisions and follow and believe either Him or the devil, all make a choice, I have made mine, you seem to have made yours.
1,500 !
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.