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 ...
--- Like you say, just “Ask Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot.” In general, they tried to impose moral systems that prohibited our freedom to pursue our rational self interest and succeed. That’s without precedent in nature, can’t work. So they failed. ---
I disagree with you.
The concept of a totalitarian organization of beings is not without precedent. Take the honey bee for example.
It didn't work because human beings are not honey bees. God created us with free will. It is that free will that defies such organizational structures and leads to failure of such systems.
I realize that we can both rationalize whatever answer we want. God will sort it out for us though. :)
I know what a dinoflagellate is, but I wouldn't presume to say what he actually meant. For all I know he was talking about dinosaur tails.
EducationAs for debating him, let him come here and post if he hasn't already done so.
Tax Evasion
Considering I'm his son (and he's talked to me about this very subject before), then I would say 'yes, I know what he means'. ;)
All science is a work in progress. It's called learning-----something that you shouldn't try so hard to remain shielded from.
Well done, laddie!
;-)
Scotsmen drink, therefore anyone who drinks is a Scotsman?
Or is it, if you are a Scotsman, you must drink?
Sorry, I acknowledge that there are Scotsmen who don't drink, but that does not mean that all drunks are Scotsmen.
You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between people who CLAIM to be Christian, and those who ARE Christian.
Och aye!
And I suppose that's ALL of the amino acids?
Now before you deny, you might want to paste this into yur browser: http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/
Show me the lie.
post 6
In cytochrome c? Yes.
96% identical, not 1% identical. You could hardly have been more wrong.
From the site you are using to insult Dr. Hovind, I might remind you that the fisherman who dragged this thing up said that they knew what a basking shark looks like and they said it was not a basking shark.
So if your source lies there why go any further, it has been discreditied.
Forget it. Logic clearly is beyond you.
Quoting from the website you cited: "Darwin was basically right."
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_bio.html
Darwin was basically right. The fossil record leaves little doubt that biological evolution by natural selection has occurred and is continuing. The rate at which evolution works, however, remains unresolved, as does the possibility that other mechanisms of change are also operative in Nature. Cosmic rays, chemical drugs, intense radiation, or just plain DNA copying errors enable mutations to accelerate the motor of evolution, altering life’s genetic structure and causing some organisms to adapt to new niches in ever-changing environments. In thermodynamic terms, microbes, plants, and animals evolve far-from-equilibrium systems with combinations of properties that are unpredictable in detail. But the outcome isn’t all chance, for evolution does have its deterministic component; selection prunes, edits, and decides who is optimally fit for a given set of environmental conditions. Changes, and adaptations to those changes, are the keys to the genesis—and destiny—of all living things.
Admittedly, gaps in the fossil record hinder our complete understanding of life’s history, just as missing links hamper our current knowledge of galaxies, stars, and planets. It’s not easy squeezing evidence from stones and, in any case, genome mapping will now begin to fill in those gaps. To be sure, each day brings new ideas, new tests, new discoveries, and further refinement of our modern conception of biological evolution. And with these advances come greater objectivity, and progress too, while searching the sands of time to decipher erstwhile reality.
The BIOLOGICAL EPOCH has sketched the traditional view of evolution, namely, Darwinian evolution via natural selection. Yet, life is but a small, albeit important, part of the grander cosmic evolutionary worldview. This Web site suggests that evolution, universally considered, pertains to much more than mere life on Earth. The word “evolution” has been intentionally used in a broad, provocative way, attempting to capture the process of change on all spatial and temporal scales by means surely including, but not restricted to, biological Darwinism. Within the expansive, all-inclusive scenario of cosmic evolution, general trends are identifiable among Nature’s myriad, persistent changes over the course of an impressively long span of natural history, from the origin of time to intelligent life on Earth. In the next CULTURAL EPOCH, we shall extend the narrative to include our technological selves, for humankind, too, is most assuredly part of this unfolding and unifying epic-class story.
Exactly why I said "may" instead of should or must.
Your choice follow the evolution denying religion of Christ or the Christ denying religion of evolution. Can't do both, for the Bible makes them diametrically opposite.
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.