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 ...
Do you believe God has already "appeared"?
LOL. Seriously that was one of the most sane posts I have read on these threads. It explains everything about YEC psychology.
Ooops. Your presuppositions are showing. You're only half right. And any of us is only "decent" by the grace of God. 8~)
Yep.
Do you call capital punishment "murder?"
I don't even accept your premise that there is a deity.
So God does not show favor as He wills?
Or is there no God?
I agree with you on this.
So there are no absolutes? Every nation which says it's "guided by God" is equally questionable?
I believe our freedoms under our Constitution are absolute, including our freedom to worship or not worship as we each of us see fit. Above all, it is freedom from 'thought police'
By all means, guide your own life, and the life of your faith community by your belief in your God. But the wall separating church and state is in the best interests of both church and state. A Church endowed with great secular power may be too easily corrupted, and a state ruled as a theocracy to readily descends into dreary conformism and murderous despotism
Well, then forget post #747.
We do speak different languages.
No, I do not.
I do call putting someone to death, not for their actions, but for their beliefs, murder. And a state which performs such murders I call tyrannous
I actually have those in my desk.
I stand corrected. I am lousy at the whole liberal PC thing of s/he gender/sexual orientation lifestyle nomenclature or whatever....
'Man' = 'generic homo sapiens, of', I should have thought--and qualified
But are they breath mints, or candy mints? It's an ancient riddle ... :-)
You've bought the propaganda.
Again, just as an exercise, what would be so terrible about a government guided by Scripture and the will of God, just as most of the founding fathers envisioned?
The judiciary wields the sword and the church wields the keys, both subservient to God.
If one believes in the truth of Christ risen, why is this an unacceptable banner to hold above the heads of the citizenry?
Indeed, it should be our goal.
The founding fathers were at considerable pains to avoid any establishment of religion.
Then you have to call most of Europe, especially Spain and Italy, "murderous" and "tyrannous" for their likewise judgment that preaching anti-Trinitarianism was a state crime of the highest order.
When in Rome...
:-)
We aren't arguing. I may have skipped an introductory phrase or six in my post. We are coming from pretty much the same position.
I had thought I was just adding an interesting sidelight to your post. It's been one of those busy multi-interruption days. Sorry if I seemed argumentative.
Indeed I must, and indeed I do.
I must also now log off and get back to the real world. I read the earlier links you posted; will endeavour to read the more recent ones when time permits
Cordially
However, the vast majority took it for granted that the country was created by Reformed Christians who are now most likely spinning in their graves to see how far their "divine imperative" has been led astray.
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.