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 ...
In all honesty, I count myself an interested student of the subject, and would be delighted to learn more. I genuinely appreciate your reply to my post; I do not, with respect, agree with all the interpretations you have set out, but would be delighted to explore these matters further with you, if you are agreeable (and allowing for interruptions as I also have to get the kids ready for bed shortly!)
Can we begin with this assertion:
Heliocentrism had been thought up by the Greeks, and likewise rejected by them long before the Church was ever involved
No one is suggesting that heliocentrism originated with Galilleo, and you are right to point out the theory was certainly current in Classical Greece, if not before. But it is not accurate to state that "the Greeks" or even Greek 'scientists' somehow collectively considered and then rejected heliocentric theory: individuals held different views (Aristotle rejected it, Eratosthenes embraced it to the extent of predicating that the earth was spherical and even calculating, using experimental methods, it's circumference, to a remarkable degree of accuracy--though partly through luck, that's another story!).
The above isn't meant to be pedantic: it is important to note that, in most Greek states that were democratic (another splendid idea of theirs), there was no religious body that ruled on 'orthodoxy' or 'doctrine.' The trial of Socrates, in which a charge of atheism was included, was entirely exceptional--another story, off the subject for now.
The pope allowed Gallileo to teach and write about heliocentrism, as long as he presented it along with geocentrism in a balanced view
With respect, this sounds awfully like the ID "teach the controversy" argument transposed to Galilleo's day. I'd like to check the sources for your claim before commenting further -- back shortly. Thanks
That's your model for American government, and that's why you folks worry me.
This line of research is just pregnant with possibilities.
I'm not quite sure what to make of the fact that I've picked up "the post of the Beast."
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Surely a coprophage would JUMP on this stuff!
I am not an Evolutionist, either. But I DO reserve the right to comment on their 'interpretation' of the data preserved in the Earth.
BTW ...not being a Christian doesn't stop most of them from making judgements about those who claim to be.
But; behavior DOES influence amount of offspring output.
Where does this moral principle to which you appeal come from? A statement that itself presupposes some sort of moral code that presumably is just part of the furniture of the universe is inconsistent with the notion that morality evolved. Evolution provides no accounting for the origin, evolution or existence of morality in the first place, and no basis for any moral judgment concerning different approaches. If mindless, purposeless Evolution is true there is no such thing as good and evil.
Cordially,
"Beware of the Blob - it slips - it drips - it slides......"
Feels better than letting them HOWL!!!!
Probably not; as His listeners were fully aware of the references He was making.
What WAS 141??
Yes, but environments change. The concept of natural selection does not specify what traits will be successful. The environment and ecology at any given time does that.
??
Stuff goes in; different stuff comes out; sometimes.
Other corelations have been figured out.....
You really seem to have a persecution complex. This is at least the third time that I've noticed on this thread you've come to the defense of Christians when nobody was really attacking. It almost seems as if the legitimacy of your belief system pends on your status as a continual victim.
If we presuppose we are autonomous specks of lint in the arid drier vent of the cosmos, that is what we become.
The "evolution isn't true because I'm uncomfortable with it" argument. Irrelevant to the topic, as is anything John Calvin said, whatever influence he had 200 years ago. If the Founding Fathers wanted a Calvinist society, they would have explicitly stated it in the Constitution. I for one am quite glad I don't live in a theocratic state of any denomination.
I had assumed your name came from a pet cat. Cats don't listen as well as dogs do. And they tend to be rude when they talk back.
Cover the cables along the floor and wall with ABS or PVC tubing. Just make sure the tube terminates higher than the dog can reach. Or go wireless.
Until her death, my mother owned a kennel where she raised and sold championship German Shepards, Toy Poodles and Shelties. As a consequence of that, I get along with dogs much better than I get along with people.
"Besides don't you believe in the inerrant word of Freep?
People who talk to voices in their heads scare me. Their mutterings also make it difficult for me to converse with the others living in my head. (Nice beings, but I do wish they didn't generate so much garbage)
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.