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]

[Thatcherite]

BTW, I've come back to full-blown posting for a little while in honour of ModernMan. I got really mad over that issue and my first reaction was to drop out of FR. But then I thought that would be just would the forces of anti-reason would want. Always do the opposite of what the opposition would want... So, MM, hope you are reading this. Come back soon!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Matt 7:15,16
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Matt 24:11
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Matt 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

II Pet 2:1,2
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

I John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

[Vive ut Vivas]

That would be Dr. Kent Hovind PhD. Care to debate Dr. Hovind, while I can't arrange it, I know someone who can.

That says it all, right there. Priceless.

[Quark2005]

Have you read the Koran?

Large parts of it.

[Junior]

It's not really that difficult. I believe Hovind actually posts on these threads. I have my suspicions of who he is, too.

[Quark2005]

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

I would consider the horrendous science behind creationism to be a blatant example of something peddled by false prophets. I know them by their fruits.

[highball]

"If there's falling, there must be an Intelligent Pusher?"

; )

[Kleon]

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?

Sorry to confuse you. I don't want to talk about the evolution of rock 'n roll, the evolution of stars, or the evolution of the English language. I want to talk about the Theory of Evolution, which falls under biology and describes the changes in species over time.

[Right Wing Professor]

Oh joy. More endless quoting from tracts, evidently to give the quoter some aura of holiness.

Can we take the Bible as read, and give up the endless spouting of verses? Please?

[Right Wing Professor]

I believe Hovind actually posts on these threads. I have my suspicions of who he is, too.

Really?

Hovind, you're an unintelligent, criminal, noxious charlatan, who would in any civilized society be making license plates for a long time. And by the time the IRS are done with you, you probably will be.

Please all feel free to add to this.

[balrog666]

People who act like clowns get treated like clowns - why would expect anything different?

[johnnyb_61820]

"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."

You've proven my point. You can't claim universal common ancestry as fact without a specific idea of abiogenesis. Otherwise (a) would be allowed to occur, and therefore there would be no reason to conclude universal common ancestry.

"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."

What, specifically, speaks to Universal Common Ancestry that wouldn't equally speak to Universal Common Requirements?

[b_sharp]

"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.

If you are looking for evidence of Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolution, the only kind we are interested in, then evidence of evolution is observable every time an organism reproduces. If you are expecting to be presented with the typical creationist strawman version of evolution, you will not see it. All evolution, even though it results in higher taxonomic classes (which are purely human constructs by the way), works only at the species level. Anything you've been told or read that states we should see something such as a cat giving birth to a dog is at least wrong and at most a lie.

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

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The study of abiogenesis is far too young to base it's truth value on it's success rate. Abiogenesis is not evolution since evolution requires an organism, pre-biotic or not, that experiences selection of the results of imperfect replication. At this point, evolution can only be applied to living organisms. This in itself precludes it being applied to the origin of life.

[Vive ut Vivas]

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

Because scientists don't use evolution for any practical purpose or anything.

[Elsie]

The shadowy Area 51 has Evolved to Post #52: Chisled in stone.

---

---

Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).  

M. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           ?        Teeth incisors = ?       K. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           pointy    Teeth incisors = small       J. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           stubby        Teeth incisors = BIG       I. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           less stubby    Teeth incisors = big       H. Eyes =           smaller    Nose =           more blunt    Teeth incisors = smaller         G. Eyes =           SMALL    Nose =           Pointer    Teeth incisors = Skinny           F. Eyes =           BIG    Nose =           Blunt    Teeth incisors = Thin         E. Eyes =           HUGE!    Nose =           pointy, again    Teeth incisors = Bigger         D. Eyes =           Smaller    Nose =           Getting wider    Teeth incisors = Bigger: two!         C. Eyes =           Huge, again!    Nose =           broader    Teeth incisors = very small         B. Eyes =           less huge    Nose =           less broad    Teeth incisors = ??         A. Eyes =           bigger again    Nose =           rounded    Teeth incisors = small

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .

 

 

 

---

---

 

Are you convinced yet?

 

Oscillating eye sizes,

head shapes that shift back and forth,

teeth that are large, then small, then large again.

 

Yeah; I believe this stuff!

[bluepistolero]

You might consider asking for a refund on your lobotomy or check to see if it is reversible. Brain science has made amazing progress since the 50's.

bluepistolero

[Elsie]

Didn't you use to be a Christian?

[bobdsmith]

Oscillating eye sizes,head shapes that shift back and forth,teeth that are large, then small, then large again.

That's microevolution within the overall trend of macroevolution.

[bluepistolero]

Well you have to believe it. After all, there are charts and graphs, and lots of diagrams which prove it. Not believing it would be stupid, and you don't want to be labeled stupid.

bluepistolero

[Elsie]

Evolution and natural selection are in no way incompatible with a belief in God.

 

Oh, but a CHRISTIAN 'god' would tend to disagree with you"

---

---

 

Unfortunately, most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says.  If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and then of the New Testement writers, they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.   Was Paul WRONG about this???