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 ...
Because it doesn't match up with what we know to be natural history. Jesus commonly spoke in parables, that's no big secret. That pattern is pretty well established in His teachings, and so is His disdain for those who are hung up in the specific details of God's writings rather than trying to discern the precepts behind them.
Yes. It's a 25% extension of what they want to say to you.
Advertising, dear boy, advertising. Every time he spews a Hovind line or touts a Hovind position, he draws the more gullible among the creos to him and his products.
Not to mention using FR as a test group for potential new products. He may even use it as a source of ideas for new products.
bluepistolero
Not at all. Those marks on the screen are words, and if you read them you will find that information gets into your brain (careful now). Faith is belief sans evidence. What I posted for you to read was evidence. But you aren't interested. You can't have already read and pondered it; just straight back with the flip response. As ever.
It doesn't matter how many times people point out the methods by which science operates, we still hear that same tired (and incorrect) argument.
They operate like the MSM and the DNC.
And, if it weren't for the fact that God chats with me (c.f., the "voices in my head") I'd be right there with you. The Christianity espoused by the purveyors of creationism on these threads is almost a comic book version. It's almost as if they took the term "children of God" to heart and have refused to grow up because of it.
Like any good parent, God has tried to prepare His offspring for the Real World. Unfortunately, despite His best efforts, there are some who refuse to strike out on their own as mature adults. Instead, like many in this day and age, they'd rather take up residence in the basement and not be bothered by reality.
Yes, I'm insane. I know it. I simply haven't gotten around to getting my certification yet.
Ah, I thought you were responding to my more recent posting to you. If you wish to characterise atheism as faith you may. I would say that I don't have the confidence (hubris?) to pick one creation myth to believe out of the thousands available to me for selection.
Well, let's start with those trees (the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). They fairly shout "metaphor", don't they.
If they're literal, perhaps you'd like to take a stab at describing what they look like, what kind of fruit they bear, and why we don't seem to have any of them around anymore.
Perhaps they were killed by global warming.
To: shuckmaster
call a rock great, great grandpaw
It appears he passed a little of the rocks down in your head. No, I call God my great, great grandpaw 50 generations back, so a rock can not pass anything down to me, but, what about you? To: newsgathererEvolution doesn't say we came from rocks.
|
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. [Gen 3:24]
Where are the Cherubim and the flaming sword?
You don't seem insane to me. But then I must be insane, since I don't accept Pascal's Wager.
It doesn't matter? Hold on there, fella. If I am to take it as a literal, as opposed to metaphoric, lesson, it matters a whole heap. Trees like that should either be avoided at all costs, or sought out with all due haste, depending upon your point of view.
I take back what I said earlier. That's an example of a belief that does deserve to be made fun of. It's just crying out to be made fun of.
SOME evolutionist have been proven to be child molesters.
You know, I don't either. I felt something was amiss with it when I ran across it in a college philosophy class (great way to meet girls, by the way). It wasn't until a logic class a couple of semesters later that I came across the concept of "false dichotomy."
The Cherubim drowned in the Flood, which also killed the assorted Magic Trees in the Garden of Eden. Unless of course their magic protected them from a year under 5 miles of water.
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.