Date: Fri Jul 27 2007 - 09:05:24 EDT
Iain said: *Yes it is embarrassing when you colleagues laugh out loud about
statements in an encyclopedia stating "designed by God for leaping", when
such people (as do I) accept that they evolved that way.*
To clarify: I think, Iain, that you'd agree that the kangaroo's legs were
indeed "designed by God for leaping." However, you would say (as would I)
that this wasn't like God sketching them out on a napkin and then poofing
them into existence. The long processes by which contemporary kangaroos
developed reflects God' providential design, which includes all sorts of
wonderful leaping creatures.
The idea that "God designed" the kangaroo's legs isn't laughable, nor even
as a general matter is the idea that God could have poofed them into
existence if He had so desired. What gives an unecessary opportunity for
legitimate derision is an "explanation" of God's design that ignores the
plain evidence of how it came about, and that requires thing like kangaroos
floating on rafts to Australia or pooping on command in buckets.
On 7/27/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The people who were laughing about it were my strongly atheistic
> colleagues, and they were laughing about the original version on the
> "Conservapedia" article on Kangaroos (it has since changed but you can dig
> into the original in the history.
>
> Yes it is embarrassing when you colleagues laugh out loud about statements
> in an encyclopedia stating "designed by God for leaping", when such people
> (as do I) accept that they evolved that way.
>
> I also stated that it did, however, lead to an opportunity to share my
> faith with one of my colleagues, also an atheist, but not such a scoffer as
> the others, by explaining that I didn't follow that simplistic
> fundamentalist viewpoint - and we were more able to concentrate on the
> spiritual meanings behind the Genesis narratives, rather than having to
> defend laughable science. One of the other statements on that article was a
> theory that the Kangaroos floated on the sea to Australia after the flood on
> matted vegetation. Another raiser of great amusement was the statement
> (again no longer in the article) that "alternative theories" included (given
> in the same sentence) that the aborigines "sang" the Kangaroos into
> existence spontaneously, and the theory of evolution.
>
> I don't think creationists realise just how much of a laughing-stock they
> are turning Christianity into. My atheist friends are also aware of
> Woodmorappe's theory that Noah could have trained the animals to defecate in
> a bucket on command on the Ark. (Again, much sniggering resulted).
>
> Now if you can't see just how laughable that is ... well I give up.
>
> And this is my real concern, and of many on the ASA list. It is difficult
> to be an effective witness when all this stuff has such a high profile.
> That's what people think all Christians are like. Real scientists are never
> going to accept creationist pseudo-science, and the best I can do is to say
> No that's not central to what I, as a Christian, believe. We need to get on
> with the truth of the gospel, not theorising about where all the poo went on
> the Ark.
>
> Iain
>
> On 7/27/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > Friends – I have been off-line for some time due to computer hijack
> > issues (and that despite running all the latest tools to keep free of these
> > pests out there!) but when I came back on I saw a report about laughing at
> > the idea that a Kangaroo's legs were designed for leaping. I think I also
> > saw comments about some being 'embarrassed' by this observation.
> >
> > I am intrigued. Would someone explain which part or parts are laughable
> > and why?
> >
> > Blessings
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
>
> - Italian Proverb
> -----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
