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 ...
Well, you blew me off the last time I asked for chapter and verse (in Darwin) of a fantastic claim you made about Darwinian evolution (Evolution claims that life began with an explosion...), choosing instead to make more fantastic claims about Darwin (racist and hate-filled) and finishing with the ever popular "look at what Marx and Lenin thought of Darwin".
So tell me, do modern evolutionist dispute Darwin's central thesis of natural selection? Of course not, even Michael Behe (the most famous of the ID'ers) recognizes the truth of natural selection.
You also trot out the completely misunderstood notion of "favored" races, which is the actual term used, it is traits that are deemed undesirable - in terms of natural selection, not in the sense in which you use it. You might try to read a bit more of Darwin than just the full title of his book.
It is interesting to me that you choose to completely avoid substance in your posts, spouting only empty platitudes almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Those regimes were fascist as well, which would be like forcing bees to work for the queen.
I “figuratively” agree with the rest of your post though. Let God sort out which explanation is more a rationalization. Regards.
The Theory (can't say that enough) of Evolution
Ah, that old lie raises its head again. It never fails - every single creationist argument must include a misrepresentation about the meaning of the word "theory." They think the application of word somehow weakens evolution's case; it only strengthens it.
Rhesus monkeys, eh? Cherry-picking data is better than quote mining, I guess. But that doesn't say anything about evolution. If you could find such a disparity between humans and apes, then maybe you'd have a point. You do understand that there's a difference between monkeys and apes, don't you?
And while we're on interesting facts, did you know that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than mice and rats?
In your mind, possibly. Not anywhere else.
Have you heard about Hovind's arrest for felony assault? His being charged with tax evasion? Read it all here
Boy, have you ever got that wrong. Evolution says nothing about the origins of life.
BTW, the Bible says man was created from dust.
Can’t argue with that… I’m sure they followed up with where the respondents thought it should be tought. Science? Sociology? Literature? World Religions?
You need to post your "Don't feed the troll" sign for our CR/IDNewsgatherer.
It was an outright lie anyway. Never accept anything a creationist tells you at face value, even the words 'and' and 'the'. Any claim they make has a high probability of being completely made up.
Exactly what do you mean by: It's called learning-----something that you shouldn't try so hard to remain shielded from.
Go argue that with an atheist. I might quibble with the particular scenario at issue here, but I have never said that morality is a human construct. "Survival of the fittest" -- which by the way is not a phrase modern evolutionary theorists use -- isn't a moral statement, its simply an observation. Individuals that are able to survive to adulthood, find mates, and rear their offspring so that they can in turn pass on their genes are from an evolutionary perspective "succesful." How they do that -- whether its being a yeoman farmer or relying on handouts -- is up to them.
Are you telling me creationists lie when they say "hello?"
In truth, morality is, at its basic, based upon the concept of enlightened self-interest -- balancing the desires of the individual and the necessities of the social group.
There are not six. There are thousands.
The Evolution of Autos: SUVs & 4WD Vehicle Timelines
The Evolution of Aircraft Carriers
But none of these are part of the Theory of Evolution are they? Neither is "cosmic evolution"
Whose going to be the one to break the news to the Pope?
Huh! Fishermen: they're almost as big a liars as Creationists.
They generally don't say 'hello' to me :-)
You do understand that there's a difference between monkeys and apes, don't you?
Condescending, much? It doesn't do you much a favor when you presume me to be a dummy.
And while we're on interesting facts, did you know that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than mice and rats?
Okay. Your point?
It was an outright lie anyway. Never accept anything a creationist tells you at face value, even the words 'and' and 'the'. Any claim they make has a high probability of being completely made up.
Pardon me if my source of information ('Exploring Creation with Biology' by Dr. Jay L. Wile and Marilyn F. Durnell) had a very selective view of cytochrome C sequences (my fault for not noticing the 'A Highly Selective View of Some Cytochrome C Sequences Compared to Human Cytochrome C Sequences' above the data table).
Has it ever occured to you that grouping all creationists together and branding them as 'liars' doesn't reflect well on you?
LOL!
By the way: hello.
No. It's a result of long experience. Most scientists who've had to deal with creationists will tell you the same. It's like Ray Charles and bad luck; if they didn't have false claims, they'd have no claims at all. The only way to prove a bogus theory is with bogus information.
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.