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]

[bluepistolero]

There are two different worlds being discussed here; one is religious in nature, the other is scientific

No, there are two world views being discussed. One is politically correct, and one isn't. America was founded on one of them, but now, the other has taken hold. It is espoused by people with a mindset totally opposed to the first one, and it does not want the first worldview to even exist. It is a dangerous idealogy. It is a worldview that wants man, aka as science to be god. It will tolerate no other God.

bluepistolero

[Junior]

So have some creationists. Your point?

[Elsie]

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

Did you come to these conclusions scientifically?

[Junior]

You've got to keep the number of "real" Christians low, otherwise you start bumping up against that magic 144,000 number.

[Quark2005]

My answers to your questions:

1. Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?

Yes.

2. Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

No.

Why would one imply the other?

Do you believe in the absolute inerrancy of Scripture as literal history? Please read Post 240 before answering.

Despite what you might think, creationists do not have a monopoly on Christianity.

[Elsie]

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

It didn't work with me...

;^)

[Dimensio]

What ever happened to the STRONGER critter eating the food of the weaker?

Depends on any number of other environmental conditions. What's your point?

[Junior]

No. I consulted my Magic Eightball. Man, you need to up your meds today.

[Elsie]

Why not??

I have been before!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Creationists continue to practice Al-Takeyya.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Every time I see this post it really bothers me how "Testament" is spelled wrong.

[bluepistolero]

Lol.

[Elsie]

Is this an appeal to Authority?

[Elsie]

Cryptic answer.

[Dimensio]

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.

Do you have an actual argument to make against the theory of evolution, or is your specialty baseless claims of persecution and hyperbole?

[Elsie]

I guess you are one of many folks who refuse to take the Bible as it is written.

[Elsie]

I see you got my point ;^)

[Thatcherite]

I guess you are one of many folks who refuse to take the Bible as it is written.

I don't take it at all. I am an atheist.

[Elsie]

I see you got my point as well.

[atlaw]

Maybe you can tell me, Elsie. What does a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" look like, and what kind of edible fruit grows on it?