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 ...
;^)
Neither does gravity. Or the weather. Or algebra.
If mindless, purposeless Evolution is true there is no such thing as good and evil.
Even "mindless, purposeless" evolution does not obviate the existence of God - it merely implies that He didn't do it. Directly, anyway. In any case, even if we assume atheism, that still doesn't mean there is no such thing as good and evil, it merely means we're on our own to define what good and evil mean. Which, if there is no god, it appears we've already done.
Ol' Kent is laughing all the way to the bank.
Yeah, that pretty much how the other Calvin saw it, too!
There sure has to have been VERY many 'environmental changein' and 'population isolatin' events to get this many different creatures on Earth.
Sorry. I'll just sit in the back and not bother anyone...
Go about what you were doing. Don't mind me.
But what shall we call the PC idiocy that has captured and ruled us these last few years?
The IRS is laughing all the way to his bank too ;)
Jesus does. (Hint: Its a Big Daddy reference).
Now post the cartoon where he creates his Calvanisaurus from things found in the earth.
I read somewhere that some anthropologists believe the association of sex with procreation only occurred after the domestication of animals, and probably came about through observation of said animals. I think they may have based their findings on the lack of association evinced by modern-day primitive tribes that do not practice animal husbandry.
No..
really....
I heard he was the hottest thing going in the early 17th century.
I would call it PC idiocy, the same as you just did.
Good intentions based on false information resulting in bad decisions.
On the contrary, you can believe whatever you'd like, just understand that it's not science and has no place in science class.
But I DO reserve the right to comment on their 'interpretation' of the data preserved in the Earth.
Fair enough. Just understand that I, as a religious Jew who hasn't studied Christianity in depth, am as unqualified to discuss specific tenets of Christianity as you are to discuss evolution, assuming you've received no formal scientific training.
With thanks to an earlier post today by CDL, please know the following...
Calvin was not acting as an agent of the state in the matter of Servetus.
*Calvin was not the judge of the case.
*Calvin was not part of the Jury.
*Calvin was not the prosecutor of the case.
*Calvin did not pass sentence on Servetus.
*Calvin did not approve of the sentence handed down.
*Calvin did warn Servetus against coming to Geneva.
*Calvin did testify as a witness against Servetus.
*The council of Geneva was controlled by a majority of Libertines who were hostile to Calvin, and not likely to grant his wishes in the matter.
*Servetus already had the death penalty hanging over his head in Catholic Europe, as did Calvin."
Them's the facts, for all you literalists.
"What business did the Pope have telling Galileo what he could teach or publish. What business did the Pope have questioning Galileo?"
Apparently you aren't aware that America wasn't founded until much later.
"Besides. It wasn't just Catholics. Martin Luther insisted that the sun revolves around the earth because the Bible says so."
Who, specifically, did Martin Luther persecute?
"You should learn more about Giordano Bruno."
You mean the person who was burned at the stake for saying that there were multiple Christs? What about him? The fact that he was a heliocentrist is completely irrelevant to the reason he was burned at the stake -- belief in multiple Christs.
Again, I would agree with you that what Bruno believed is not really the Church's business, but it would be anachronistic to expect the Pope in those ages to behave as if he was the president of the USA.
What's really interesting, is that what Gallileo thought was his best argument for heliocentricity (that of the tides) actually turned out to be completely false, and Keppler, who had already postulated his idea before Gallileo, turned out to be correct.
The ultimate problem was that the Church wanted Gallileo to either (a) prove his case, or (b) stop pestering everyone that they _had_ to believe in his model. The Church was content to leave Copernicism as a working hypothesis, or even the best working hypothesis, but Gallileo was not content with that. He wanted everyone to believe his way, even though at that time he did not have proof, and had some major obstacles, especially since he still held to circular orbits.
The Church actually helped promote Gallileo and his ideas until he wanted to say that his ideas were indisputable fact. At that point they asked him to put up or shut up. It's unfortunate that the Church at that time was as reactive as it was, but it's again anachronistic to expect authorities of that time to act as if they were US officials.
In fact, Copernicanism was never ruled as heresy by the Church. In fact, Pope Urban, under whom Gallileo was persecuted, said that Copernicanism would not ever be defined by the Church as heretical.
Sadly, this story has taken on much of the same mythical status as the scopes trial, in which most people learning about it don't know the actual facts, but only the cultural myth developed to turn the actual facts into a "morality play".
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.