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]

[newsgatherer]

Nice try, but evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Nor does it say anything about the origin of the universe.

Really?

Where did you get that idea?

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.

Than on earth, some how it started raining and that raining on the rocky surface caused some kind of soup, that soup gave way to life and out of the depths of this soup came the life that later became all life on earth.

If you are going to support something, than you should atleast have some idea of what you support. Going to support evolution, call a rock great, great grandpaw, as for me, well I’ll just say Abba Father and look back at God as my creator and great, great grandpaw.

[newsgatherer]

Careful, both sides might rip you for that one:).

Go for it, take your best shot.

[Havoc]

it just doesn't hand-wave the process away by invoking invisible spirits

Uhmmm.. Yeah, actually it does. The invisible spirits of evolution exist in the form of Macro-evolution - so completely invisible it has never been and will never be seen. But it's waved about as though it were a proven fact.

[Havoc]

You seem to have forgotten the social sciences - Psychology deals with the why and tends to base it's approach from the same mindset as the evolutionists..

[newsgatherer]

OK, show me in ANY scientific discipline where God appears.L

No, you show me any scientific proof of evolution, but I will settle for one instance of proven mission link, not susie collins or olympia snowe, thank you.

Or how about one time where, in a lab, under controlled conditions, life was created out of non life.

[newsgatherer]

Must be a strange world to live in with your logic.

Evolution teaches that you and all life on earth, came from a rock. Creation teaches that I was created in the image of and by God and you think I life in a strange world.

Really?

[ImaGraftedBranch]

Can't put words into Darwin's mouth until he has used an electron microscope to view a cell, or learned about the most important source of biological *information* to humankind: DNA.

Wonder what he would have thought of dinoflagellum...

[Just mythoughts]

"Evolution in no way descounts toe existence of a deity, it just doesn't hand-wave the process away by invoking invisible spirits (much like the Theory of Gravity doesn't assume that "God likes to push stuff down".)"

You are correct that evolution does not discount a deity, there are two you know, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Suppose there are two families trapped in a hurricane ravaged area. There is enough food and water to keep one family alive.

What would Darwin's theory predict the behavior of Family A to be?

1) Give the food to family B.
2) Take the food for family A and let family B fend for themselves.

Be honest with yourself."

Why should family A give the food and water to family B and commit suicide? Any moral code that demands one commit suicide is evil. We are not sacrificial animals.

As for what evolution would say, that depends. Is family A closely relate to family B? It may not even matter. We don't blindly follow biological *instincts*; we are a culture based species. There is no way to know what Family A in your little story would do. One would hope they wouldn't sacrifice their own children because someone told them it was their obligation.

[moog]

Sorry bud, I'm with you on this one. It was a joke. Sounds like you're looking for a fight though:) (another JOKE).

[newsgatherer]

Sorry bud, I'm with you on this one. It was a joke. Sounds like you're looking for a fight though:) (another JOKE).

Welcome aboard,

[Alter Kaker]

Evolution says we are all decedents of a rock that was created from some dust that formed from an explosion of nothing.

No it doesn't. Evolution says that all species share a common descent and provides an explanation. It doesn't say where the first life came from.

[moog]

I've been on board long before it was called ID.

[ml1954]

Creation says we are all made in the image of God and that He created us.

That we are made/created "in the image of God" idea/theory really just makes the creationists/IDists feel better about themselves.

That's really what it's all about. They just can't stand the thought they might be something less than made "in the image of God".

[Kleon]

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.

You're confusing two very different scientific theories. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

[Alter Kaker]

Suppose there are two families trapped in a hurricane ravaged area. There is enough food and water to keep one family alive. What would Darwin's theory predict the behavior of Family A to be?

Darwin's theory would make no prediction regarding the behavior of the family. Darwin's theory is not a substitute for religion -- it is not a moral code or an ethos, it is simply a scientific explanation for observed phenomena, namely observed change in allele frequencies over time. Natural selection isn't a good thing or a bad thing, its just something that happens -- although people have done their best to change what nature selects for. Want examples? The development of eyeglasses and the discovery of insulin have resulted in a large increase in the frequency of genes causing myopia and childhood diabetes in the general population -- because affected children are no longer dying before adulthood. I don't think you'll find anyone opposed to eyeglasses, we're just using society and technology to select for different characteristics than our ancestors did.

[moog]

That's really what it's all about. They just can't stand the thought they might be something less than made "in the image of God".


You're right. Some evolutionists are indeed soemthing less than made "in the image of God." Good point.

[moog]

While I support creation, natural selction does occur and you bring up a point. Just because one may oppose evolution does not mean that one should reject all science or encourage antagonism towards all scientists. Science has made the life we enjoy today possible.

[moog]

Him to another---You're confusing two very different scientific theories. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

But evolution did arise out of the other theory.