Intelligent design [was] old news to Darwin

Chicago Tribune ^ | 13 September 2005 | Tom Hundley

[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]

[shuckmaster]

I have always believed that evolution is an invention to escape the fact that there is a God greater than us.

Wrong. Evolution is a process by which populations gradually change over multiple generations. God is a religious diety. It's really illogical to compare a diety with a natural process as if they were incompatible and only makes you appear foolish to do so.

[bethtopaz]

what?!

[johnnyb_61820]

"Sorry, common ancestry means just what it says. That all lifeforms on earth had a common ancestor. How this ancestor came into existance in the first place does not matter a lick to the theory of evolution."

You missed the point entirely. The only reason why evolution would posit a universal common ancestor was because the theory is excluding other events that would create new ancestors. We have no direct evidence for a single ancestor, therefore it is either (a) a spurious claim, or (b) a deduction from something else. If it is a spurious claim, then it needs to be removed as a proven entity. Really, though, the reason it is positted is that the theory of abiogenesis used by evolutionists exclude life from occurring more than once. However, if evolution removes abiogenesis from its dogma, then it loses universal common ancestry as well.

[Right Wing Professor]

We have no direct evidence for a single ancestor,

What about the 16S rRNA phylogenetic tree?

[atlaw]

Why do evolutionists distance themselves from the discussion of the origin of life?

I don't see that happening at all. If you want to talk about abiogenesis, talk about abiogenesis. If you want to talk about the theory of evolution, talk about the theory of evolution. Relatively simple.

The more pertinent question is why creationists insist upon advancing the patently false argument that the theory of evolution is fatally flawed and/or worthless because it does not address abiogenesis.

[Thatcherite]

Hmm, from a rock or by and in the image of God. As for me, I’ll stay with God being my great, great grandpaw 200 times removed.

Gross misrepresentation of the mainstream scientific position aside...

You have an interesting way to determine factual truth. Which appears to be just go with whatever position makes you feel most comfortable in yourself. Others of us prefer to examine the evidence before deciding.

[TOWER]

Why do evolutionists distance themselves from the discussion of the origin of life?

We do not distance ourselves from discussing the origin of life. It's just that when we talk about the theory of evolution, we talk about the theory of evolution. When we talk about abiogenesis, we talk about abiogenesis. For some strange reason however, when creationists and IDers want to talk about the theory of evolution, they end up talking about abiogenesis.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Funny thing, though - all of the evolutionary mistakes and frauds have been exposed by scientists. Compare that with the creationist lies and frauds, which have been exposed by... scientists.

I'm not implying anything about scientists. Just the theory of evolution in general.

Once again, you imply that "theory" somehow means "not proven." That's just not the case, and insisting that it does is disingenuous at best.

I'm well aware of that. Scientific theories are used to explain observations and phenomena. However, my issue is the usage of the theory of evolution as a fact, when it is clearly not.

[Thatcherite]

what?!

Try reading ShuckMaster's post again if you didn't understand it the first time. It really isn't that hard.

[Dimensio]

Evolution claims that life began with and explosion, and explosion of absolutely nothing, that explosion of nothing created a dot, a dot that could be smaller than a period on this page, that dot than exploded and over the course of billions and billions of years, that explosion became earth and all the suns, moons, stars, planets, etc.

No, it doesn't. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with how the universe, planets or stars formed.

If you are going to support something, than you should atleast have some idea of what you support.

Says the one who seems to think that a theory in biology somehow addresses cosmology.

[Dimensio]

OK, list the six differant definitions of evolution or the six types of evolution if you prefer

There are no "six different definitions of evolution", no matter what cranks like Kent Hovind or Jack Chick say.

[Thatcherite]

However, if evolution removes abiogenesis from its dogma, then it loses universal common ancestry as well.

Conclusion is completely unrelated to premise:

a. abiogenesis could occur more than once, and lead to non-common ancestory

b.A divine spark could occur only once, removing the need for abiogenesis, but preserving common ancestory.

The two phenomena are not linked, except perpetually in the minds of those who illogically argue against common descent by disputing abiogenesis.

The evidence for common descent in numerous correlating fields of modern observation is so strong that it has even been accepted by the leading science-qualified lights of ID such as Denton, Behe, and Dembski.

[Dimensio]

Now commoon, let's start by having yu define exactly what type of evolution you want to discuss. You say evolution, I come back with cosmic evolution and you say, no, not that one, well which one of the six are we going to discuss?

The Theory of evolution, which covers changes in biological populations over time and nothing more. Are you really so dense as to believe that this is somehow directly tied to "cosmic evolution" (which is just a label, not a scientific theory), or are you trying to muddy the debate with semantic games?

[Stultis]

Evolution in no way descounts toe existence of a deity,

OK, show me where in the theory of evolution God appears.

Show me where in the theories of embryology and human development God appears.

Recall that the Bible (and in some cases God himself) repeatedly affirms that God is intimately and actively involved in the physical creation of individual humans in the womb. For instance He "shapes" and "molds" the human body in the womb, He covers it with "skin and flesh," He "knits it together" of "bone and sinew". (Job 10:8-12) Else where he "forms inward parts," etc.

Surely, unless you can show me where God appears in the theory, you must concede that embryology is atheistic, and must at least be opposed by a competing theory of embryological creationism?

...of course we must also have theistic long division as an alternative to the atheistic version which fails to mention God, but that need is maybe too obvious to even mention...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I'm well aware of that. Scientific theories are used to explain observations and phenomena. However, my issue is the usage of the theory of evolution as a fact, when it is clearly not.

You're aware of a billion year old human fossil?

Link please.

[balrog666]

Not content with just scraping the bottom of the barrel, the trolls appear to be recruiting from underneath the barrel.

[highball]

But you do recognize that evolution has been tested and affirmed, that we see natural selection in our world today, that two hundred years of study have supported Darwin's hypothesis?

You do admit that there is evidence for evolution? More evidence for evolution than for any competing notion, which is why evolution is a "theory" and ID doesn't anywhere near a theory?

[Stultis]

Now commoon, let's start by having yu define exactly what type of evolution you want to discuss. You say evolution, I come back with cosmic evolution and you say, no, not that one, well which one of the six are we going to discuss?

Did you even read the lead article? It starts out:

So what would Charles Darwin have to say about the dust-up between today's evolutionists and intelligent designers?

Darwin had nothing to say about "cosmic evolution" (i.e. cosmology). The article has nothing to say about "cosmic evolution".

Do you need more hints?

[Quark2005]

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.

Being that you seem to think Kent Hovind is a reliable source of information, you're obviously not a person who cares too much for what science has to say, so let me ask you a couple questions about the inerrancy of the Bible:

Which of the 3 accounts of Peter's denial of Christ do you believe, the one in Matthew 26:69-74 which says Peter denied Christ first to a servant girl, second to another girl, and then third to "those" standing nearby;

or the one in Mark 14:66-72 which says Peter denied Christ first to a servant girl, second to the same servant girl again, then lastly to "those" standing nearby;

or the one in Luke 22:54-62 which says Peter denied Christ first to a servant girl, second to a man, and then to another person ?

Can't believe all 3, because they're not the same.

Or try this one out:

Compare the genealogies leading to Joseph in Matthew 1 and Mark 3 ?

They're different. Which account do you believe? If only one is exactly true, how is that you call the Bible 100% inerrant?

I'm predicting you won't give a coherent answer to the question; it just looks to me like you're just trolling for attention anyway.