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 ...
But what are the odds?
Ironic. Like I said, people trying to sell "creation science" fit this bill perfectly.
You know your Bible well, that is commendable. You might want to branch out and study a bit of science as well; then you might be less vulnerable to the "ravening wolves" that are abusing both Scripture and science.
Quote-mining evidence!!!!
You left out the " and Creationists"!
See there!
You'd BETTER be nice to Mormon's on FR!!!!
HuH?
Well, I got post 900: where are my Testamints???
I didn't originally post that verse, merely copied it to show context.
I guess I'll have breakfast instead....
Your loss.
Thank you, you have proved Second Peter 3:3-7 and Romans 1:21-32, beyond any shadow of a doubt. But, being a scoffer of both the Wrod of God and the word of God, I doubt you'll understand the important moral lesson you just proved.
Thanks again,
Jake
Mormon's what?
It might explain "voices" and audio hallucinations.
Oh my, Elsie, I'm going to be generous here and assume this was just one of your playful postings, because I can't imagine that you are making a serious point here.
And I can scarcely frame in my mind what serious point there could be: some extreme 'libertarian' claim that simple possession of child porn is protected by freedom of speech? Please don't be arguing that, just when we were all starting to really like you!
Possessing child pornography is not a 'victimless crime' of thought alone and not deed, for children were abused by someone to produce it, and as a consumer thereof you have indeed participated in an extremely grave and repugnant crime. That's why you're prosecuted (and can reasonably expect to be persecuted, as you have it, as a resident in prison).
True, we don't execute anyone for this particular offence (tempting though that might be). But before we diverge any further from the topic of this thread, I'll close with the observation that, whatever the punishment for this crime, it should be determined by the authority of the people working through democratic government rather than set by theocrats
Only if they are fought for!
Indeed. And some of us have at various points in our lives sworn an oath (in my case an affirmation) to defend that constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The question is, when the Christian Reconstructionists such as Gary North reject that constitution, why don't they fall under the rubric of 'enemies foreign and domestic'? You said 'Evo dudes' were trying to divide Christians. Shouldn't you be divided from them on this?
Incidentally, lest anyone think these are merely a fringe movement, the major financier of the Discovery Institute, Harold Ahmanson, is a Christian Reconstructionist
Correction: that's Howard Ahmanson.
That's because it's not hard to demonstrate that this just isn't true. Ideas that aren't logically right get rightfully dismissed.
3.5 billion years is PLENTY of time for small changes to amount to a change of colossal magnitude. Simple example - continental drift rates average somewhere around 10% of the growth rate of your fingernails. In a billion years (do the math), that's more than fast enough for a continent to relocate halfway across the earth. You may think that's apples and oranges, but we have observed evolutionary rates that are more than fast enough to produce the kinds of change you're talking about.
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.