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 ...
|
Thanks for the ling, and thanks again for being a Promethian light in the darkness.
In before the firestorm!
Creation says we are all made in the image of God and that He created us.
Hmm, from a rock or by and in the image of God. As for me, I’ll stay with God being my great, great grandpaw 200 times removed.
There are two historic figures who discuss how human life was created and from that discussion, draw conclusions on how we are to live.
One, claims that we are created in the image of God, but flawed by our own selfish desires, and therefore must seek repentence and act against those desires. His advice tells us that it is better to love our neighbor than ourselves.
The other, claims that we are descended from apes. Since there is no creator, there is no basis for morality beyond a human construct. The concept of "survival of the fittest" tells us that survival is our primary driving force and that leads to the exact opposite conclusion "it is better to love ourselves than our neighbors".
One approach, if followed leads to a human race that evolves into a world of peace. The other leads to a human race that evolves into destruction.
Ironic, eh?
Evolution in no way descounts toe existence of a deity, it just doesn't hand-wave the process away by invoking invisible spirits (much like the Theory of Gravity doesn't assume that "God likes to push stuff down".)
Question: What is the purpose of life under the theory of evolution?
Answer: To survive long enough to reproduce.
Nice try, but evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Nor does it say anything about the origin of the universe.
OK, show me where in the theory of evolution God appears.
but as for me, I'll still stick with being created in the image of God, you want to call a rock grandpaw go right ahead, but as for me, Abba Father will do, thank you.
No, evolution does not tell us one way or the other how to behave. Nice try though.
Sorry, but in evolution there is not purpose given for life, none that I can find anyhow, but, if you have chapter and verse, I would be most interested in seeing it.
Hmm, from a rock or by and in the image of God. As for me, I’ll stay with God being my great, great grandpaw 200 times removed.
Careful, both sides might rip you for that one:).
Science is concerned with the HOW, theology and phiolosphy with the WHY.
If not, then please describe the moral implications of gravity.
Evolution and religion have nothing to do with one another. Man is the only animal that needs "religion". He had it long before the "Christian" era. Worshiping the moon, sun, rocks, alligators, bulls etc. no end. He used "witch doctors" to deal with the unknown. Religion will aways be with man. The current debate , lie global warming is a colossal fraud.
OK, show me in ANY scientific discipline where God appears.
By your logic, 2+2=4 denies the existance of god because god does not appear in the teaching of math. Likewise, teaching basic grammer is akin to teaching atheism because god is not mentioned when learning the ABCs. Must be a strange world to live in with your logic.
"No, evolution does not tell us one way or the other how to behave. Nice try though."
If you want me to spell it out, I can.
Suppose there are two families trapped in a hurricane ravaged area. There is enough food and water to keep one family alive.
What would Darwin's theory predict the behavior of Family A to be?
1) Give the food to family B.
2) Take the food for family A and let family B fend for themselves.
Be honest with yourself.
Raymond Sebond used the same argument (and title!) in the 15th century.
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.