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 ...
But off course they're two separate unrelated processes. How the universe came to be has no more bearing on evolutionary mechanisms than your parents' specific position at the moment of your conception has to do with the content of the missives you post on this website.
In some of the genealogies of the Jews, a grandfather's name may be listed, as opposed to a father's, and if the wife was widowed and married to her late husband's brother, his name, rather than, the paternal father's may be listed. Or just the Patriarch may be listed, as in David. It's like saying you are of Scottish descent, of the McDonald's, even though your father is Sam McCloud, but your mother was a McDonald. There are no discrepancies.
bluepistolero
Where did I say that?
You do admit that there is evidence for evolution?
Yes.
All I know is that God created this universe, this Earth, and mankind. He may have used evolution to bring us to this point. He may have designed us all using a set of initial blueprints. I don't know how God created us. All I know is that He did.
I am willing to talk about it, and I suspect that there are many others who are quite willing to talk about the origin of life as well. It's just not a part of the theory of evolution. It's a separate, and no less interesting issue. It is on MUCH shakier ground than is evolution, something that anyone with any knowledge of the field will admit.
Is not abiogenesis part and parcel to evolution? A brick wall is built with bricks, bricks with clay, etc.
The we're in agreement. ;)
I agree, not in the grand sense of the concept. I'm only pointing out that you can't nitpick either recorded or natural history using the Bible as a 100% inerrant, literal record.
The point of Peter's denial was that he denied Christ 3 times, in spite of his professed faith; not the who, where, and when of it.
The point of Christ's geneology was that he was an heir to the legacy of King David, not specifically what person was how many steps removed from Jesus.
And in my opinion, the point of the account of Creation was that God was ultimately responsible, not when, where and how He did it. The specifics are not something the Bible even really seems to attempt to address, or else one would think there would have been more than a few pages dedicated to something of such colossal importance. The specifics details of what, where, when and how are something science can address; as long as ultimate responsibility is deferred to God for the existence of ourselves and the universe, I really see no conflict between what any scientific theory and the Bible says.
In any case, the evidence supporting the Big Bang, the gradual change of the earth over billions and years, and biological evolution of life on earth (all of which are separate theories) is too overwhelming to be brushed under the rug just to keep us content with a particular interpretation of Scripture. Science really has nothing to say about why - that is matter that can only be handled by faith.
Masons built the wall, but brickmakers made the bricks.
For macro-evolution to exist, new genes and alleles would have to be added to the creature's genetic code. Of course, that is clearly impossible
I don't know if you are a Biblical literalist or not, but you realize that you have just destroyed the position of Biblical literalism if your above statement is indeed true. After all, we know that there are many genes for which there are more than four possible alleles. However, if your statement is true, then we cannot all be descended from the same two individuals (Adam and Eve) since Adam and Eve could only have passed at most four alleles for each gene on to their offspring. (Adam could have had alleles A and B, Eve had C and D, any allele E would then be impossible.) Of course, since your statement is completely untrue, there's no threat to either Biblical literalism or evolution in it.
It seems to be the purpose, using science as a tool, to marginalize some Americans and to ridicule their beliefs. Further, the theory of evolution, is just that, a theory. It is not science, and the proof of that is, to be science, a theory must be able to meet certain experimental tests and be provable. Evolution can never be proven, using the scientific method.
bluepistolero
Your understanding of science, I think, is far afield. Please read some of PatrickHenry's List o' Lists, particularly the one dealing with scientific theory. It does no good to distort the way science works in order to try to discredit it. You only discredit your own argument.
The scientific method. Wikipedia article. Exhaustive discussion.
What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article.
The Theory of Evolution. Excellent introductory encyclopedia article.
Is Evolution Science? It certainly is. Here's why.
Evolution and the Nature of Science. Excellent discussion.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, macro-evolution.
Ichneumon's legendary post 52. More evidence than you can handle.
Post 661: Ichneumon's stunning post on transitionals.
|
Just fetch us a fundamental Judaist to argue with, I'm sure you'll see the same zeal. That is the part of it that you don't get. No-one is promoting evolution to "undermine Christianity". That is tinfoil hat raving. Evolution is promoted because we have looked at the evidence for it and find it persuasive.
bluepistolero
It's a wild fantasy of some creationists that scientists are huddled in their labs, bibles opened, as they frantically and fraudulently try to discover things that will discredit religion. Ironically, that's the mirror image of what actually goes on in various centers of "creation research," as the creation "scientists" review the publications of real scientists, searching for phrases that can be twisted to bolster a literal reading of Genesis.
What does the Bible explicitly have to say about evolution?
This is one of the greatest misconceptions argued by anti-evolutionary advocates.
A more accurate way to word your parenthetical statement would be: (a wealth of data supporting this hypothesis, none contradicting it)
Other misconceptions in your response:
Inner workings of a cell are too complex to have evolved
The eye is too complex to have evolved
Darwin wrote that the eye was too complex to have evolved
Evolution cannot be proven because it cannot be directly observed
Scientists are in discord over evolution
The order of life cannot arise from the disorder of separate parts
Horse fossils do not show evolution
Did I miss any?
But the problem with "science" is that it's continually asserting the "why" of things, especially in terms of evolution. It assumes quantum physics is determined by reality rather than a set of given assumptions.
It is a house of cards built upon the jokers in the deck.
bluepistolero
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.