Posted on 07/16/2009 10:35:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
IN THE battle over how to teach evolution in public schools, Thomas Jefferson’s demand for a “separation between church and state’’ has been cited countless times. Many argue that the controversial alternative to Darwinian evolution, intelligent design, is an exclusively religious idea and therefore cannot be discussed under the Constitution. By invoking Jefferson’s principle of separation, many critics of intelligent design assume that this visionary Founding Father would agree with them.
But would he? For too long, an aspect of Jefferson’s visionary thought has been ignored, hidden away as too uncomfortable for public discussion - his support for intelligent design.
In 1823, when materialist evolutionary ideas had long been circulating, Jefferson wrote to John Adams and insisted that the scientific evidence of design in nature was clear:...
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Using this same logic, one could say that if Jefferson were still alive, he would still believe in the institution of Slavery.
Next thing you'll be quoting the Koran, or the Bhagavad Gita.
Of course not, but Darwin was the first person to propose the theory.
It is disingenuous to argue that Thomas Jefferson did not support a scientific theory that was first published 33 years after his death.
That is like saying that George Washington did not approve of air travel
Nah, what's sad about being an evolutionist (aside from being called an "evolutionist," as though a scientific theory is an "ism") is that creationists constantly describe some cartoon version of evolution and then tell you that's what you believe.
Jefferson no doubt believed in the four humours, as well. So let us know when you come down with a serious infection, and we’ll make a housecall with our leeches and bleeding trays.
Though I do not accept your premise, I must ask: Do you, as a believer, think “non-sentient” animals are incapable of miracles?
Today’s roboticists, with the most sophisticated engineering in the world, cannot come anywhere close to creating an autonomous robot that can perform the simple task of walking quickly through an unknown environment and negotiating obstacles or stairs with any reliability. Using high-performance computers capable of performing literally trillions of operations per second, they still cannot design a system to process all the variables of locomotion and balance.
Meanwhile horses, within minutes of birth, can walk. Within hours, they can run.
What is that, if not a miracle?
I understand the issues just fine, thanks. And I have no problem with Thomas Jefferson believing whatever he did. But if GGG posts an article from the Discovery Institute promoting more of their bilge, I’ll comment on that bilge.
And I'm sure you're aware that many people who accept evolution don't see any conflict between that kind of intelligent design and the ToE. But the author of the article is a director of the Discovery Institute and explicitly positions intelligent design as an "alternative to Darwinian evolution," and then tries to make Jefferson's support for "intelligent design" sound like support for "Intelligent Design." It's the same kind of DI propaganda trick we were discussing in the other topic--get people to agree with something mild and inoffensive and then claim that means they agree with something more radical.
So what part of it was “bilge”?
The point is that Jefferson looked at the scientific evidence and concluded that it pointed a designer without reference to divine revelation.
Romans 1:20
PS There are many reasons Thomas Jefferson’s name is on my least favorite list of the founding fathers, not least of which is his gutting of the Bible to suit his own preferences.
By some accounts that should be enough to disqualify him as a conservative.
“For example, in 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions - the information - for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive. Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous “sequence hypothesis,’’ according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code.”
This part is a pertect example. Can the D.I. name a gene that shows no signs of an evolutionary origin?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkED8cWRu4Q&feature=player_embedded
Very simple just do this and then go and pick up their Noble Prize.
The Bible was gutted and truncated many times to suit the preferences of various organized churches. Why do you think different Bibles include different books?
Is 1st Maccabees included in the Bible you read?
Anti-creationists are thus because they are too math-impaired to envision the scale of the universe and cannot see empirical data, such as metapatterns, before their eyes. They lack sufficient spatial reasoning ability.
People who lack the upper reaches of intelligence often also lack the ability to understand that they are not that intelligent; hence their circular logic: I don't understand it, therefore it is invalid. Rather than ask probing questions in an effort to understand unfamiliar topics, they defensively, and often derisively, dismiss ideas beyond the limits of their cognitive abilities, actively blocking the growth of intelligence within themselves.
“The fact that Thomas Jefferson died 33 years prior to the origination of the Evolutionary theory proves this entire article to be disingenuous”
You mean he died decades before Darwin’s particular exposition of evolutionary theory. But Darwin did not pull his theories out of thin air. Have you never heard of Erasmus Darwin or Lamarck?
Granted, Darwin tends to be the starting point today in the minds of laymen and scientists alike. But we’ve moved so far beyond him that it’s safe to say we have more of an advantage on the subject than he had over his predecessors.
The circular reasoning can be found on the creationists' side, in which they answer questions about the universe with "God did it!" to make up for their own lack of scientific understanding.
Two words: I disagree.
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.