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 ...
Our original morphology put us in a situation where predators found us easy prey unless we banded together for protection. That same morphology also put us into a situation where protein was very difficult to obtain unless a number of members cooperated in hunting.
"Why don't cougars form such societies?
Why do zebra, horses, elk, and any of a number of other organisms form societies? Evolutionary paths are contingent on current state. The direction animals take in forming societies depends on environment, co-evolutionary organisms, current morphology, weather, and the luck of the draw.
Never tried it. I'm a "Homme de bière" myself
Your English is getting better--missives? HEHE. They are separate processes (and in scale too), but without the creation of the universe, the conditions would not have been there for life to appear and evolution to take place, unless there was some kind of spiritual realm I guess. One does not take place without the other. If I hadn't been born, then I wouldn't be putting down my stupid nonsense (yes I think it is that too--I didn't need an esteemed higher-up such as yourself to point that out) that you are not so smart to read.
I bought a thesaurus.
but without the creation of the universe, the conditions would not have been there for life to appear and evolution to take place,
The two are related insofar as evolution requires the universe to already exist. But then everything else we know of or can imagine requires the universe to exist as well, so I really don't see your point.
Thanks for the links. This is an area that my son and I go rounds. I appreciate the added ammunition.
This premise is faulty and based on a false dilemma. The actions we label morals (the label is indeed a human construct) can also come from our genes, or from a combination of the three.
"If it is God-given, we have no authority to change it.
I don't believe there is a God, but I'll give you this one.
"If it is human-given, it is subject to change without notice.
Only if these morals are acceptable within a given society. Morals come from such things as kin selection, where we benefit from assuring the existence of our relatives, cultural development, where it benefits us to act within parameters set by living in large groups (we eventually set these conventions to law), and the structure of our brain which, through the multitude of potential synaptic connections, allows us to foresee the probable outcome of our actions and consciously determine the resulting benefit, including the ability to weigh equally likely outcomes.
"Ask Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot.
How?
Use your tracts any way you like. Just don't clutter up the website with them.
Now you're talking!
100% agreed
Nice try, but evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Nor does it say anything about the origin of the universe.
That may be true of evolution in the narrow sense of "Darwinian Evolution", but it is not true of evolution in the broader sense. The broader, modern sense includes the theory of "Chemical Evolution".
"Chemical evolution? is essentially the process by which increasingly complex elements, molecules? and compounds? developed from the simpler chemical elements that were created in the Big Bang?. Recent astronomical observations have discovered that chemical evolution has even led to the synthesis of complex organic? molecules in space, a discovery that could have serious implications on current theories of how life developed."
If people in religion can look on science (in the least terms) as man's efforts to explain God's processes, the two can coincide. Let's not forget some of the Renaissance people and what they had to endure (e.g. saying that the earth oribits the sun instead of the converse).
For me, my belief in God and that he created things is a cherished belief. If someone believes differently, fine, that's their perogative.
As it should be. I am also a believer. My faith in God and my religion I personally find to be completely compatible with science, including evolution.
Me too. I just believe it was God that was the mechanism, that's all. I am perfectly compatible with science too. Without it, where would we be?
That one was funny the first 12,000 times I read it on Free Republic.
The 12,000th time it was funny and the 12,001st time it wasn't? Didn't you think about that when it happened?
And thus we return to bluepistolero's point -- no doubt you would not make the statement that a Jew offering Scripture was posting "clutter" on the website.
But Christianity continues to be fair game.
ROFL!
Like my new tagline? Granted, it won't throw the creationuts into a tizzy the way the last one did, but...
Just saying the word "evolution" in a science discussion implies the theory of evolution. I have a feeling the person who claimed "there are 6 types of evolution" was certainly refering to the theory of evolution.
This is because if they did mean evolution in the general sense of the word then that makes their statement gibberish as it is the same as saying "there are 6 types of change". That doesn't make sense.
Because really there are as many types of evolution in the general sense as one choses to invent. For example we could use the term "glacial evolution" to describe how glaciers form and move, "volcanic evolution" to describe how volcanoes form, "orbital evolution" to describe how satellite orbits change over time, etc.
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.