Skip to comments.
Intelligent design [was] old news to Darwin
Chicago Tribune ^
| 13 September 2005
| Tom Hundley
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 ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; crevo; crevolist; crevorepublic; enoughalready; thisisgettingold
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 1,501-1,515 next last
To: Junior
361
posted on
09/13/2005 1:13:39 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Dimensio
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
362
posted on
09/13/2005 1:13:50 PM PDT
by
bluepistolero
(Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump)
To: bobdsmith
Note that the creationists are resorting to threats instead of backing up their claims. It's another symptom.
363
posted on
09/13/2005 1:14:55 PM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Elsie
The only "point" I got from your post is that you'd rather change the subject....
364
posted on
09/13/2005 1:15:03 PM PDT
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: atlaw
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.
365
posted on
09/13/2005 1:15:27 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
To: Quark2005
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?
366
posted on
09/13/2005 1:15:54 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: johnnyb_61820
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?
To: bluepistolero
See post 331
Which was a slam specifically against creationists, not Christians in general.
368
posted on
09/13/2005 1:16:14 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Elsie
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?
To: Elsie
That's OK. We wrote you off a long time ago anyway. :-)
To: Dimensio
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?
371
posted on
09/13/2005 1:18:51 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Dimensio
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?
372
posted on
09/13/2005 1:19:09 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Doctor Stochastic
OOOooooh!
I think I've been insulted (maybe).
373
posted on
09/13/2005 1:19:54 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: 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. 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
374
posted on
09/13/2005 1:20:30 PM PDT
by
bluepistolero
(Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump)
To: Right Wing Professor; longshadow
I see the Kent Hovind (and Laura Callahan) supporters are around.
375
posted on
09/13/2005 1:21:00 PM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Vive ut Vivas
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?
376
posted on
09/13/2005 1:21:20 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Elsie
377
posted on
09/13/2005 1:22:25 PM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: Thatcherite
378
posted on
09/13/2005 1:22:55 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Elsie
There's nothing ELSE about it that upsets you?
Yes. The Comic Sans font.
To: 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.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
380
posted on
09/13/2005 1:24:41 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 1,501-1,515 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson