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 ...
I was browsing through a book a couple months ago and found a statement that no patient in the history of psychotherapy has ever reported hearing voices saying to be extra nice to the spouse and children.
Horizontal meme transfer, perhaps?
By Jingo, Holmes, how do you do it, I ask with Watson-like admiration.
I'm in the wrong time zone, alas, to really participate in these threads when they are at their most lively--I've only now had a chance to catch up on your exchange with Dr. Eckleburg.
And what can I possibly add? My 'paranoia' has been validated. The thread is the best illustration of what we've all been pointing out: the whole Creationist/ID schtick is nothing to do with 'science,' everything to do with a really frightening political/theocratic hidden agenda.
And I think the nature of that agenda is pretty clear, too. Entirely at odds with freedoms safeguarded by our Constitution, it is very scary stuff
Dr. Eckleburg You've bought the propaganda.
No, I have read quite a bit of history, and continue to read history--including the material in the links you kindly provided earlier in this thread. With respect, of all the works on history in general and American history in particular which I have read in recent years, the one work which can best be characterised as 'propaganda' is the tract to which you directed me by Loraine Boettner (a partisan theologian, not an historian). A dissection of that tract would be facile and, given the wealth of far meatier material on the fascinating period in which our nation was forged, a waste of time.
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?
Precisely the same thing that would indeed be terrible about 'a government guided by the Koran and the will of Allah', or, 'a government guided by the Vedas and the will of Shiva and Vishnu'--fill in the blanks howsoever you please, and you will not come up with a formulation 'envisioned' by the Founding Fathers. Quite the reverse, demonstrably.
The judiciary wields the sword and the church wields the keys, both subservient to God.
That is an admirably concise definition of a theocracy. The United States is a constitutional republic governed through multi-party democracy. Most of us like it that way.
If one believes in the truth of Christ risen, why is this an unacceptable banner to hold above the heads of the citizenry?
There is no incompatibility between a belief in the risen Christ and a belief in democratic freedoms. I would hazard that the majority of Christians do indeed hold both beliefs very strongly indeed. And would find the kind of theocracy, which you appear to advocating, an unacceptable and utterly repugnant 'banner,'--had you the courage to openly unfurl it.
Indeed, it should be our goal.
No, it emphatically should not. And I hold that the manner which some appear to be using to further that goal, such as falsifying both science and history, is, frankly, very alarming.
Why Yes of course herr commadade. I will of couerse do as you say. /Saracsm>
I have said all I want to say at this time, I look in my graddaughters eyes and I see the hand of God, followers of evolution look in the eyes of their granddaughters, the ones they haven't help get aborted, and see pond scum and a rock.
You tell me to study, seems as if you should say that to the advocates of evolution who don't even know what they believe in.
In the beginning God created!
Well, we've got the usual attendees in these threads mostly, but from time to time new folks pop in for a while, and it seems that just us hard heads on both sides 'contend for the faith' and neither group shifts much from their original position.
We've been so confrontational, that our wounds received long ago have healed and nothing much fazes us now, so levity has emerged as a sanity saver.
After all, like two opposite tribes on Survivor, we are STUCK on this big island for a loooong time, so we may as well be a bit more corgial in our interactions.
(See... I am calmer when back on my meds...)
Sure; for we DO have the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
(Though it DOES seem like midnight in the Garden at times.)
DNA from another thread has mutated to this one!!!!
Ok then....
WHO posted 141???
Forgotten??
NO; for it is mentioned in the Bible --
Proverbs 22:3
He was referring to "tracts." You know, those gawdawful pamphlets, bifolds or trifolds found in laundromats and busstop benches, and which claim that God is going to condemn just about everyone, but especially atheists, Catholics and Jews, to everlasting hellfire and damnation, and how, by just renouncing all rationality and blindly accepting the pamphleteers particular point of view one can escape this fate and spend an eternity navel-gazing in the presence of the Almighty.
|
To: Quark2005; bluepistolero
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Matt 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. Matt 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. II Pet 2:1,2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. I John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 302 posted on 09/13/2005 2:17:53 PM CDT by Dr. Eckleburg (Steven Wright: "So what's the speed of dark?")
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Oh joy. More endless quoting from tracts, evidently to give the quoter some aura of holiness.
Can we take the Bible as read, and give up the endless spouting of verses? Please? 309 posted on 09/13/2005 2:37:29 PM CDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Right Wing Professor; bluepistolero
LOL. Spoken like an academic.
You use your "tracts" and I'll use mine. 424 posted on 09/13/2005 3:58:19 PM CDT by Dr. Eckleburg (Steven Wright: "So what's the speed of dark?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Dr. Eckleburg
You use your "tracts" and I'll use mine.
Use your tracts any way you like. Just don't clutter up the website with them. 468 posted on 09/13/2005 5:03:43 PM CDT by Right Wing Professor
|
When I tell another cornball joke to a new audience (even 1 is an 'audience'... or maybe victim!) the wife'll say, "Don't laugh! It only encourages him!"
learn what something is before you attack it
see above
"Let's get them 'christians' fightin' between themselves over 'calvin' and we'll sit back and watch!"
--EvoDude
CC List-o-Links
This happenes ALL the time in these threads, from both sides.
I think we tend to type MUCH less than we think or would say if we were face-to-face and thus the fullness of our ideas get truncated, causing misunderstanding.
Just like....
Every nation which says it's "guided by law" is equally questionable.
Only if they are fought for!
OUR country 'persecutes' someone, NOT for being a child molester, but for having child pornography on their computer.
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.