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 ...
(Chick made me use it! ;^)
You need to step back a bit so you can read the words........
Man it's gotta suck being employed as a security guard for the Almighty.
You do realise it is rude to try to confuse these guys with facts when they've already made their minds up.
Am I going to have to post the MANY times Jesus said:
"I tell you the truth."
?
Well, for starters, that species that are morphologically similar would show fewer mutations in their mtDNA than species sharing fewer derived characteristics.
Man it's gotta suck being employed as a security guard for the Almighty.
Isn't that what the creationists/IDists think they are? Among other things.
Not at all....
Upon what FACTS do you base your assertion that there is no god?
Whatever. You're trying to muddy the waters with silly off-topic tangents.
You ignore posts, dodge questions, and change the subject when evidence for evolution is put forth.
That's disingenuous.
We are responding to echos in this thread..... ;^)
I guess I need a bible with the metaphors snipped out, so I won't be so damned confused.
Which is why it's called faith, I suppose. On another note, I think a much more interesting issue to ponder is what it's like when religious beliefs undergo a period of change.
For example, pagan->X-ian (Roman & N European), X-ian->Islam, Hindu->Islam, pre-Columbian->X-ian, etc. At what point will the Bible run out of steam and a new religion emerge, complete with its own writings that begin to replace it as the 'word of god'? Does that mean X-ianity will be someday be taught alongside the other mythologies of the ages?
My atheism is "Weak Atheism", not "Strong Atheism". I don't say for sure that there is no God (which would be strong atheism). I just say that I don't see any evidence that there is one, therefore I don't believe in one, any more than I believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Clause. Pretty similar to agnosticism really, but off the fence on the disbelief side.
I've read them. But since I neither accept the Bible as literal truth nor am even a Christian, it's kind of irrelevant to me.
Let's get this straight right now. You can post how MANY times the New Testament (spelled right) says Jesus said, "I tell you the truth."
Two many people herein and throughout the world confuse Scripture with God. They do not worship God, they worship a Book. They can no more know the mind of the Almighty by reading a book than They can know the thoughts of Abraham Lincoln in his box in Ford's Theater by reading the Classic Comic version of his life (we do know what went through his head, though, but that's a different story).
I have to be ruder with those lacking a rudder.
"I tell you the truth."
No, I've read the whole Bible, most of it more than once. I know what Jesus said. The truth he revealed was a bigger picture of life and God and man's place in the world.
And many times, if not almost all the time, He did this through parables. Remember this verse?
"Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: 'I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.'"
-Matthew 13:34-35
I'm thinking you simply need to up your meds.
Neither strict Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism (the current synthesis) have the start of the universe or abiogenesis as part of the science.
"And what, would you mind telling me, is the “common descent”.
You and Pan paniscus share a common ancestor. That common ancestor shares a common ancestor with Gorilla gorilla. Nowhere in this sequence is knowledge of the origin of life necessary.
"Now as for “It doesn't say where the first life came from” Let’s take a look at that for a moment, a “common decent”, but no explanation for where the “common decent” came from.
Once you get to the very first organisms, you have left the realm of evolution.
"And you call that science?
Yes. I also call Cosmology, Physics (including quantum mechanics), Astronomy, Geology, Biology, Geophysics and others that contribute to the ToE, science.
"I believe that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and all things in them and on them. Evolutionist believe that in the beginning a big bang of nothing took place and all life came from that big bank of absolutely nothing.
Many 'evolutionists' believe a God created the universe.
"Evolution is a religion that takes more faith to believe than Christianity. We have Christ the Creator, the evolutionist has a big bang of nothing creator.
You also have a God created out of nothing. Evolution is either: a fact - as shown by the change in allele frequencies in extant organisms, or - a theory - where science attempts to explain how the fact comes about.
"Oh by the way, I do believe in a big bang, just not the same as your big bang, wanna hear about the big bank I believe in?
Not really.
"Now tread carefully, for I may just ask you to define evolution, all six definitions would be required.
Do you equivocate out of habit or intent? The 'evolution' of stars has nothing to do with the origin of species.
"Ever heard the ole saying “Know thy enemy”? Well, first you need to know what you believe in, that would include all six definitions of evolution, and then you need to study the Bible to know what I believe in.
What six definitions might those be?
"For trust me on this, when it comes to Creation by God vs evolution we are at war.
Okaaayyy.
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.