Miscellaneous Comments About Intelligent Design

The more things change the more they stay the same. I mention this because I was perusing a book on creationism published in 1876. The book was written by Thomas Wharton Jones and is called Evolution Of The Human Race From Apes and Of Apes From Lower Animals A Doctrine Unsanctioned By Science. The quote below is from the “advertisement”:

In conclusion, let it be observed that, in contesting the scientific soundness of the Doctrine of Evolution, and arguing for the reasonableness of the common belief that all things were created by design and for a purpose, I necessarily refer to the Creator’s wisdom and power, but I abstain from any theological discussion. Even if the conditions under which my Lectures were delivered had permitted, it would have been out of place to introduce Theological arguments, seeing that my aim was, as already intimated, simply to combat the claims set up for the scientific validity of the Doctrine of Evolution not supererogatorily to defend Revelation.

Nope, can’t discuss the designer back in 1876 and can’t discuss the designer now…
Then there is Denyse O’Leary. Denyse is claiming, hold on to your butts for this one, that David Raup is some kind of sneaky ID mole in the Darwinian Evil Empire. This makes me giggle, but isn’t really what I wanted to talk about. Denyse is also claiming that textbooks don’t discuss extinction. Yet Raup discusses extinction in the textbook he co-wrote with Steven Stanley, as does Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology, Ridley’s Evolution does, and so does Young’s The Life of Vertebrates, Freeman and Herron’s Evolutionary Analysis, and Wicander and Monroe’s Historical Geology: Evolution of the Earth and Life Through Time. One wonders what textbooks O’Leary has actually read…

About these ads

14 Responses

  1. O’Leary doesn’t read textbooks. She looks at the cover then decides it says what she wants it to say.

  2. O’Leary doesn’t read textbooks. She looks at the cover then decides it says what she wants it to say.

  3. Be fair, some things do change. Thomas Wharton Jones was a much better writer than Denyse O’Leary.
    Bob

  4. Be fair, some things do change. Thomas Wharton Jones was a much better writer than Denyse O’Leary.
    Bob

  5. Be fair, some things do change. Thomas Wharton Jones was a much better writer than Denyse O’Leary.
    Bob

  6. she has read “how to lie for Christ”–author unknown

  7. Reading the convoluted, distorted and duplicitous writing style you used as a quote, I am forced to conclude that Thomas Wharton Jones is a direct lineal ancestor of one William A. Dembski.
    I wonder if there is there anyway of tracking how often he brought out his crazy on Fridays?

  8. Things seem to go in cycles. In 1876 and 2005, it was improper to mention the identity of the designer. But in 1908 it was perfectly acceptable, and ID supporter John Phin wrote:

    But on the other hand it must be equally obvious that if we find strong and unmistakeable evidence of intelligent and controlling design in the earliest stages of the development of this planet, that evidence applies with equal force to the existence of a designer, or in other words, to the existence of a personal God.

    And just last weekend, Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute, in debate with famous atheist Christopher Hitchens was openly pontificating about a “creator God.” Why the Stanford IDEA Club would invite a famous atheist and non-scientist to debate the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design is another question.

  9. Things seem to go in cycles. In 1876 and 2005, it was improper to mention the identity of the designer. But in 1908 it was perfectly acceptable, and ID supporter John Phin wrote:

    But on the other hand it must be equally obvious that if we find strong and unmistakeable evidence of intelligent and controlling design in the earliest stages of the development of this planet, that evidence applies with equal force to the existence of a designer, or in other words, to the existence of a personal God.

    And just last weekend, Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute, in debate with famous atheist Christopher Hitchens was openly pontificating about a “creator God.” Why the Stanford IDEA Club would invite a famous atheist and non-scientist to debate the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design is another question.

  10. Things seem to go in cycles. In 1876 and 2005, it was improper to mention the identity of the designer. But in 1908 it was perfectly acceptable, and ID supporter John Phin wrote:

    But on the other hand it must be equally obvious that if we find strong and unmistakeable evidence of intelligent and controlling design in the earliest stages of the development of this planet, that evidence applies with equal force to the existence of a designer, or in other words, to the existence of a personal God.

    And just last weekend, Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute, in debate with famous atheist Christopher Hitchens was openly pontificating about a “creator God.” Why the Stanford IDEA Club would invite a famous atheist and non-scientist to debate the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design is another question.

  11. There’s a post queued up, waiting for approval.

  12. There’s a post queued up, waiting for approval.

  13. There’s a post queued up, waiting for approval.

  14. I guess I was just to thick to recognize Raup’s ingenious plan–instead, my interest in evolution was fueled all the more by using his text in college. I wonder if my paleontology prof was also a mole for the Creationists.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers

%d bloggers like this: