Posted on 12/27/2008 5:57:08 PM PST by Inappropriate Laughter
Michio Kaku says that modern medicine depends on the theory of evolution. Does it?
Whether one agrees with evolution or not, most would have to agree that as a scientist/naturalist/anthropologist, Darwin was pretty far up there.
His “Voyage of the Beagle” is an amazing work. The descriptions of the wildlife, the geology, the social cultures he runs into are simply astounding.
I highly recommend this book, it’s not about evolution, it’s about taking a (what was at the time) dam dangerous long journey over the ocean in a rickety boat!
INTREP
Thanks for the link. It was hysterical. He was a real popular, fun guy.
Who am I to argue if he considers himself a descendant of slime?
I wonder if Darwin got a tingle up his leg? ;)
Evolutionists do. Is there some reason why their comments on God and the origin of life cannot be addressed, mentioned or criticized?
In any given instance, hypothetically speaking—that is, solely for the purpose of rational contemplation and with great care taken to minimize emotions—in which a given individual’s reputation is elevated far above that merited by his accomplishments, at times seeming as though his admirers are on the verge of deity worship (much the way Desmond Morris worships a lump of slime), to what extent does such inaccuracy of assessment reflect the intellectual failings of those admirers?
In this case the individual is of course Charles Darwin. My purpose is not to offend or insult but to encourage the safeguarding and continual development of one’s intellect.
In conjunction with post # 47, consider the following which was written by Lucretius in the first century B.C., exerpted here from Benjamin Wiker’s book, Moral Darwinism:
“Many were the portents also that the earth then tried to make, springing up with wondrous appearance and frame: the hermaphrodite, between man and woman yet neither, different from both; some without feet, others again bereft of hands; some found dumb also without a mouth, some blind without eyes, some bound fast with all their limbs adhering to their bodies, so that they could do nothing and go nowhere, could neither avoid mischief nor take what they might need. So with the rest of like monsters and portents that she made, it was all in vain; since nature banned their growth, and they could not attain the desired flower of age nor find food nor join by the ways of Venus. For we see that living beings need many things in conjunction, so that they may be able by procreation to forge out the chain of the generations...
“And many species of animals must have perished at that time, unable by procreation to forge out the chain of posterity: for whatever you see feeding on the breath of life, either cunning or courage or at least quickness must have guarded and kept that kind from its earliest existence; many again still exist, entrusted to our protection, which remain, commended to us because of their usefulness...
“But those to which nature gives no such qualities, so that they could neither live by themselves at their own will, nor give us some usefulness for which we might suffer them to feed under our protection and be safe, these certainly lay at the mercy of others for prey and profit, being all hampered by their own fateful chains, until nature brought that race to destruction.”
In any given instance, hypothetically speaking—that is, solely for the purpose of rational contemplation and with great care taken to minimize emotions—in which a given individual’s reputation is elevated far above that merited by his accomplishments, at times seeming as though his admirers are on the verge of deity worship (much the way Desmond Morris worships a lump of slime), to what extent does such inaccuracy of assessment reflect the intellectual failings of those admirers?
In this case the individual is of course Charles Darwin. My purpose is not to offend or insult but to encourage the safeguarding and continual development of one’s intellect.
In conjunction with post # 47, consider the following which was written by Lucretius in the first century B.C., exerpted here from Benjamin Wiker’s book, Moral Darwinism:
“Many were the portents also that the earth then tried to make, springing up with wondrous appearance and frame: the hermaphrodite, between man and woman yet neither, different from both; some without feet, others again bereft of hands; some found dumb also without a mouth, some blind without eyes, some bound fast with all their limbs adhering to their bodies, so that they could do nothing and go nowhere, could neither avoid mischief nor take what they might need. So with the rest of like monsters and portents that she made, it was all in vain; since nature banned their growth, and they could not attain the desired flower of age nor find food nor join by the ways of Venus. For we see that living beings need many things in conjunction, so that they may be able by procreation to forge out the chain of the generations...
“And many species of animals must have perished at that time, unable by procreation to forge out the chain of posterity: for whatever you see feeding on the breath of life, either cunning or courage or at least quickness must have guarded and kept that kind from its earliest existence; many again still exist, entrusted to our protection, which remain, commended to us because of their usefulness...
“But those to which nature gives no such qualities, so that they could neither live by themselves at their own will, nor give us some usefulness for which we might suffer them to feed under our protection and be safe, these certainly lay at the mercy of others for prey and profit, being all hampered by their own fateful chains, until nature brought that race to destruction.”
I would say the same to you. Spontanous generation and the rise of the simple to the complex without and intelligent designer. is a legitimate child of neither the Bible nor Science.
It defies the plain language of Scripture as well as the less reliable empirical organs of science.
If you want to talk about beauty, don’t use it as the serpent did to deceive. Let’s talk about the beauty of Truth rreveled and unrevealed.
I do not accept that ignorance is a divine virtue. An appreciation for the beauty of quantum physics, differential equations, molecular chemistry, or the unraveling of the human genome in anyway detracts from the infinite Genius that created it all.
pee yoo!
Nor do I. Call science “Science” and the theory of evolution “Mythology,” However.
Rember the limitaions of science. Science is probablistic. We know certain facts with greater certitude than we know Hypotheses and theories.
Creation and evolution do not work together. If there was no fall of man, there was no need for a Savior.
The transitional forms that Darwin predicted would be found in the fossil record have never appeared.
Darwin’s family tree is full of incest and mutants. This was his motivation.
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.