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 ...
"What part of man creates for himself a moral structure? "
His reason.
"Is it something we have more of now than we did 2,000 years ago?"
Some of us value it more than others.
"Have we so quickly forgotten New Orleans?"
Some of us value it more than others.
In that case, so do these guys:
And this guy too EXECUTION OF A CHILD AND ADULTERERS IN CALVIN'S GENEVA
The Swiss seem hard on him..., but no more so than the Catholic Encyclopedia. "The Reformer did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva. The iron yoke could not be shaken off. In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a sort of revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin's theocracy triumphed."
Yes, darn it, the man does seem somehow to have gotten the reputation of running a theocratic nightmare state where kids where kids were whipped by the state for sassing their parents, adulterers and blasphemers were executed, and tyrannical moral codes were imposed on the populace. Must be more of that anti-Christian bigotry you've been pointing out to us.
Are you sure we should be encouraging him?
Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria, Solo Christo, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide.
Man is God.
Got it.
I'll be at your house October 31.
I'm really struggling to square these claims with the article on Servetus in the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus )
As for Calvin's opinion of Servetus he wrote to his friend Farel on 13 February 1546 (seven years prior to Servetus being arrested in Geneva): "If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight." (Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Baker Book House, 1950), p. 371.) And during Servetus' heresy trial, Calvin also wrote: "I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty." (Walter Nigg, The Heretics (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962), p. 328.) As mentioned he had also been the one to notify the authorities of his being in Geneva and he also provided letters as evidence for the prosecution. He felt that Servetus had attacked his friends in the Reformation and so the evidence he provided often concerned defending these friends as much as attacking Servetus. Further Calvin pleaded with the Geneva City Council to execute him by means of decapitation because it was more humane than burning at the stake. He also expressed hopes to the end that Servetus would convert from "his blasphemy" so possibly be spared. These hopes proved illusory and the council rejected his plea concerning decapitation.
Ain't them's fact?
Rome called for the arrest and conviction of Servetus for his anti-Trinitarianism, a crime punishable by death throughout Europe at that time.
Geneva agreed with Rome.
Context counts.
"Man is God.
Got it."
Apparently you didn't. :)
You're quote mining here. The word was being used to describe the inordinate manner in which they were posted when a reference or link would have sufficed.
Bible-believing Christians were accused of "risible sophistry" in post #486,
No, creationism was referred to as "risible sophistry" when given the guise of science. This description is absolutely accurate.
with a delightful comparison to "fundamentalist Barbarian vandalism" tossed in for effect, apparently"
A little over the top perhaps, but obviously an allegorical reference to assault on legitimate science and knowledge by sectarian attacks.
In post #306 we have the usual assault that a secure belief in Scripture is "something peddled by false prophets."
No, I stated that creationism is something peddled by false prophets. Creationists do not have a monopoly on Christianity, much as you would like to think so. You are the one who excludes anyone who disagrees with you from being a Christian ad hoc, thus making anyone who disagrees with you anti-Christian. "Scientific creationism" has nothing to do with a secure belief in Scripture, it is junk science, pure and simple; it is not taken seriously by scientists for the simple reason it is wrong and can be easily shown to be so. The people that are peddling it are for the most part, complete charlatans, and what's worse, good people are buying into what they're peddling. Learn a little more about the science behind it and you might actually learn evolution's place in our natural history.
And finally we have a complete and hysterical rewriting of history and this country's founding tenets under the guise of anti-Calvinism.
Funny, you still have yet to point out in which Federal document it's clarified that the U.S. was founded as a Calvinist society. This is because it's not true.
People (many of whom are Christians) are only trying to point out what they see as flaws in your arguments, and you're playing the victimhood card. You should realize that tactic won't affect many people on a conservative message board, of all places.
More's the pity.
...the perils of theocracy
See, this is what I don't understand. What's so perilous about a nation guided by God, obedient to His word and productive according to His will?
Yeah, that's a real fright-fest. God save us from Himself.
That makes it all better.
All that I can find is that Adams said there were three periods in which the principle of government advanced in England. One was the period beginning with Machiavelli and continuing onto Poynet's account of Calvin's Geneva. The second was the Cromwellian interregnum in England, and the third was the period of Sidney and Locke and the Glorious Revolution.
I'll send the dog sled out to meet you at the airport.
When God appears, we'll give that serious thought.
In the interim, all we've had are nations ruled by men who said they were guided by God, insisting on obedience to what they claimed was his word, and productive according to their will. From 16th Century Geneva to 21st Century Iran, same old same old.
As the author of post #486, I really do need to point out you are quoting out of context. The original:
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 barbarian vandalism. The sect of religion is immaterial
I thought (and continue to think) this is unambiguous: it is 'Creationism' (and not "Bible-believing Christians," a phrase I do not use) which I characterise as 'risible sophistry,' and it is religious fundamentalism, in whatever religion it arises, which I claim bears responsibility for a number of acts of 'barbarian vandalism' (the example in the posting was the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan). The word 'barbarian' was misspelled in my original, a correction you have applied, with my thanks.
I do not say you have willfully misrepresented me; I do feel you have misunderstood what I wrote
Cordially
You, I do not doubt for a moment, are a decent man who shares many/perhaps most of the same conservative values that I do--but with respect, the statement you have made above is indistinguishable from the 'logic' (it is not logic) used by the Taliban of Afghanistan to justify their murderous theocratic nightmare
And for such regimes as the Taliban's, I think your phrase "fright-fest" a most apt characterisation
This is why those who believe in evolution and those who don't appear to speak different languages altogether.
Our presuppositions are miles apart.
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.