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 ...
"How substantively different are they? "
Quite.
"Am I obligated by them?"
Only if they are right. Do they recognize reason as the foundation of morality or is it feelings and supernatural commands?
Conservatism's bottom line is preserving those things that make us strong. Even evolutionary reflection would affirm that theism has stood the test of time and that agnosticism/atheism have not. Evolutionary agnosticism probably will not be any improvement.
I would change the handle to read "agnosticism/atheism are cancers on conservatism."
You will not become a Christian, imo. You don't want to, and you seem firm in that. In my view, that indicates that God has allowed you to set your heart in your current direction, AND you have the neat added benefit that He has firmed up your decision by giving you the freedom to do so.
Moses told Pharaoh, "Let my people go." But Pharaoh hardened his heart against the Lord. And the Lord also hardened Pharaoh's heart.
So...I have no illusions that you will become a Christian.
We have no illusions about creationists, either.
And, what would these be?
bluepistolero
Well, at least we're clear with one another. :>)
That should allow us to go be friends and do some bass fishing.
Theism, agnosticism, and atheism are all old ideas and are all still here. Thus, they have all "stood the test of time" to that limited extent. I'm not very impressed with that particular claim to legitimacy. "Breaking a mirror is seven years bad luck" has stood the test of time.
Evolutionary agnosticism probably will not be any improvement.
Evolutionary skateboarding probably won't have much of a run either.
You will not become a Christian, imo.
I will not become a creationist unless that is my punishment in Hell.
Petitio principii.
I disagree with nearly everyone, particularly my friends. Sitting around saying "yup" all the time seems pretty boring.
I am not Jewish, but I subscribe to the aphorism, "Two Jews, three opinions."
The current plan is that they'll be allowed to be agnostic privately. However, if they publicly declare their agnosticism, they'll be stoned to death.
bluepistolero
I'm content to disagree. My understanding is that moments of enlightenment come upon us by divine appointment. That is done in conjunction with God's own Word. He prepares the offer with a bit of pre-education. That which is appropriate here is: "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Now, we're gonna disagree anyway, so let's go out and discuss this over coffee. I'll put a pot on. Then we can go fishing.
I just bought a used bass boat, so we can fish in the stream behind the house or up at the lake.
"Well, they are always free to go live somewhere else, or start their own country..."
If the Constitution stays as written, they won't have to go anywhere.
How do you get to "selfish" from "promoting group survival?"
Isn't it interesting that people are allowed to advocate sedition and treason on this conservative web site?
bluepistolero
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.