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 ...
No, the agenda of a small band of Christian fundamentalists is a 'target'. Many, many Christians aren't picking a fight here, only some, and it has nothing to do with their 'Christianity' (though from these threads, there is a marked lack of Christian charity among some Creationists).
I have heard no one here challenge the absolute right, enshrined in our Constitution (which I put right up there in the list of great human achievements) to worship freely. But no religion has the right to be smuggled into the science classroom, least of all in the shoddy disguise of ID.
Religious literalism, which starts from doctrine, is not a suitable place from which to commence scientific enquiry. Islamic Fundamentalists in Afghanistan simply abolished science teaching; if we are foolish enough to elevate ID quackery to 'equal time' status with current science, we will in effect do the same
I took the inverse ratio of lima beans to fruit flies, divided by the number of blue moons in 1957 (being sure to factor in the frequency of ear creases in Utah on any given day in March) and voila!
12,001 was just one too many.
Trust me. It's all very scientific and provable beyond a doubt. Balancing the equation is all that matters.
Thus, 3 = 1 is just for pesky malcontents, among whom I count myself fortunate.
So you did think about it. And, thanks for the glimpse into your thought process.
Aw crap! Remind me to turn down the volume on my HiFi system the next time I click one of your links :P
Sorry :)
Further on this: that is neither the case, nor the point.
Does anyone recall how, prior to 9/11, the crazed Taliban fundamentalists used the beautiful stone Buddhas of Bamiyan for artillery practice, utterly demolishing them on the grounds they were 'idolatrous' and 'contrary to God'? I'm not a Buddhist, but that mindless act of vandalism broke my heart. Those guys were always barbarians.
The absurd attempt to smuggle the risible sophistry of Creationism into the classroom, to pretend it has any of the merits of science, is to me a comparable act of fundamentalist barbarin vandalism. The sect of religion is immaterial
Just saying the word "evolution" in a science discussion implies the theory of evolution.
The problem is how we understand TOE. It is more than just Darwinian Evolution to modern scientists. Most scientists (and laymen) continue to use the simpler term “evolution” to
refer to both chemical and Darwinian evolution. As such, it is seen as a "unified theory" that knits together the fields of Biology, Physics, Chemistry, etc. For some, that is its attraction.
Entirely hypothetical, because I never see Jews do that. Or Muslims. Or Scientologists or Buddhists or Hindus. Funny, huh?
But Christianity continues to be fair game.
No, Christians reproducing long lists of biblical verses are fair game. It isn't for the purposes of communication: if the purpose were to communicate, you could always cite chapter and verse. We all know where to look up our favorite translation on line. It's to browbeat the heathen, and to parade your own sanctimony. Matthew 23:27.
Do slime molds form societies?
But I thought hypothesis was good?
Indeed. But it won't have any substance, in the manner the Theory of Evolution has substance, until you can find an actual case that supports the hypothesis. At the moment it's as evanescent as angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Would RWP tell Torah- or Koran- or Sutra-bashers to give it a rest? I guess that just one of those things we weren't meant to know.
While on the subject of false Christs, what do you think of "Icons of Evolution," commissioned by the Rev. Moon?
I thought effdot was banned. Is he back?
My learning hasn't evolved into knowing anything about it. 8~)
The "evolution" debunked by the purveyors of creationism on these threads absolutely, positively IS a comic book version, the Jack Chick "Big Daddy" version.
That's not a rarity! Happens all the time.
500
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.