And don't forget the part about the way they EAT PEOPLE!
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 ...
About 8.7 on the StinkOmeter, shall we say?
Ol' Tripper did not show up for me.
One man's trash is another man's treaure.
That was the first thing that came to your mind?
It was SOOooo long ago....
Or they view the Bible as a source of moral teaching and not "How Things Work"
I have some cupralite to sell...at gold prices.
http://scienceviews.com/photo/library/SIA0651.html
>>What intelligent designer would put a recreation center next to a waste disposal facility?
One man's trash is another man's treaure.<<
DK
The lack of humor in these threads is the clearest indication that something is WRONG here. I wish more people would get that.
I'm not a Christian. I believe it would be improper for me to comment on the Christian Bible.
You asked:"...I have a specific case history in mind. I had a mother cat that developed an abscess in her mouth and was unable to eat for a couple of weeks. We had lots of cats at the time and didn't notice immediately.
Under these circumstances, what would you predict the mother's behavior toward her babies would be. Would you expect her to keep feeding them, even though she was starving?..."
Yes, she would try to keep feeding them.
But, then, I'm a biologist and know the right answer.
What has this to do with 2 families in a hurricane?
I believe the original question concerned what Darwin would predict in a situation where ethics requires self-sacrifice. There is no single Darwinian answer, but evolution, in some species, has produced self-sacrificing individuals.
Evolution does not predict selfish or unselfish behavior. It is irrelevant to questions of ethics and morality.
Cellular ones do. And they build edifices too.
Cell towers?
Yes, and I believe it was an early form of microwave communication.
Considering how small those critters are, I guess it just worked out that way.
C'mon guys. One cannot antropomorphize a theory.
And then there is defining selfish.
If it satisfies the parents to sacrifice their own children to benefit the other family, then that is selfish behavior.
As for cats, momma cat is doing what makes her feel good.
And, of course Darwin is irrelevant here except for predicting the outcomes as opposed to the actions.
Damn, lost an "H" somewhere.
And don't forget the part about the way they EAT PEOPLE!
Well it just makes sense that a cellular slime mold would be the first to develop cellular communication.
But only fat people. Which reminds me....
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.