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]

[Elsie]

Oh NO!!!

You're a JW????

[bluepistolero]

See post 331, which reads in part: A creationist website (or theme park!) is an intellectual toxic waste dump, littered with debunked science, shabby theology, dishonest quotes, and shameful debate tactics. Their contributors are a bizarre collection of fools, frauds, and lunatics, who appeal to the tragically gullible among the uneducated and the ineducable, cruelly bilking them of their savings by selling them nonsensical tapes, books, and comics.

You are free to highlight for us the non-persecutionary remarks as well as the hyperbole.

bluepistolero

[Doctor Stochastic]

Note that the creationists are resorting to threats instead of backing up their claims. It's another symptom.

[highball]

The only "point" I got from your post is that you'd rather change the subject....

[Junior]

I'm still waiting for the satellite photos of the angel standing guard with the fiery sword.

I hear they're being suppressed by the NSA (which really stands for "Nasty Satanic Agents") in an effort to make people not take the Book of Genesis literally.

[Elsie]

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

Yes.

Before I answer YOUR question, please indulge me WHY you say YES to the above question.

Just what makes you think the OM is NOT literal?

[Right Wing Professor]

Even then, there are many problems in which "horizontal transfer" must be invoked. I'm not against horizontal transfer in general, but if it has to be invoked to explain away problems, the technique isn't all its cracked up to be. There is no way to tell the difference between "horizontal transfer" and "this tree doesn't work".

I presume you know that 16S isn't subject to horizontal transfer. So your point is?

Since horizontal gene transfer seems to be most common where we can't see it, don't you think that invoking it is going past where the evidence goes?

But we know it happens. We observe it in modern bacteria. That being so, wouldn't it be odd if there weren't evidence for it in evolution?

You can only really keep the tree if you assume its existence in the first place, which means that you are assuming a specific idea of abiogenesis.

One more time; what about 16S rRNA?

[Dimensio]

See post 331

Which was a slam specifically against creationists, not Christians in general.

[Vive ut Vivas]

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

And not taking the Bible exactly as it is written is an illegitimate viewpoint, how?

[Right Wing Professor]

That's OK. We wrote you off a long time ago anyway. :-)

[Elsie]

ou said this: Darwin's theory of evolution cannot make any meaningful predictions regarding which family receives the food.

And you ask what MY point is?

What kind of predictions CAN "E" make then?

[Elsie]

You said this: Darwin's theory of evolution cannot make any meaningful predictions regarding which family receives the food.

And you ask what MY point is?

What kind of predictions CAN "E" make then?

[Elsie]

OOOooooh!

I think I've been insulted (maybe).

[bluepistolero]

You might want to re-read my posts as you seem to think that I think, anyone who claims to be a Christian, really is. Only the Lord can tell the sheep from the goats, but too, a shepherd who spends time among the flocks, learns to differentiate a baa from a bleat.

bluepistolero

[Doctor Stochastic]

I see the Kent Hovind (and Laura Callahan) supporters are around.

[Elsie]

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

At least this proves you've read SOME of it.

There's nothing ELSE about it that upsets you?

[Thatcherite]

What kind of predictions CAN "E" make then?

[Elsie]

AH....


A man of FAITH!

[Vive ut Vivas]

There's nothing ELSE about it that upsets you?

Yes. The Comic Sans font.

[Dimensio]

You might want to re-read my posts as you seem to think that I think, anyone who claims to be a Christian, really is.

No true Scotsman fallacy.