Date: Fri Jul 27 2007 - 09:34:11 EDT
I think that there is also the case that language like "designed by God for
leaping" is not the sort of language you expect in an encyclopedia & hence
the sheer incongruity of such language was a big cause of merriment.
But as I say, it did provide an opportunity indirectly to talk about my
faith, so there was an upside (albeit one unintended by the original
authors).
Iain
On 7/27/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> > -----------
>
>
>
-- ----------- 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.
