Re: The Darwin Fish
john queen (john.queen.ii@mail.utexas.edu)
Tue, 10 Jun 1997 09:13:43 -0500----Isn't this the truth? What are the mechanisms of evolution? Random
genetic mutations? All I've heard discussed since subscribing to this
forum is philosophical discourse. For instance, Ive listened in as the
subject of discussion as gone from evolution to racism, materialism and
abortion. Evolution has a long way to go before it can be truely called a
theory. There is almost no science to talk about when it comes to
describing how ape to man evolution may have occured.
Evolution clearly needs help. For years I've heard "well it happened over
billions of years, that's why we cannot detect it". Ive seen the 'how the
giraffe got it's lond neck' used as a scientific explanation for evolution.
Of course this is fallacy. Ive read about the different colored moths
which is not an example of real evolution (the formation of new dna, new
cells , tissue, organs, organ systems, immune systems, skeletal etc and
etc). Genetic mutations guided by natural laws is what I hear most.
And so I go back to what I said before. I believe that most people who
'believe' evolution brought us here realize that thier gut feeling requires
alot of faith. The transformation of man from apes if analyzed in a
scientific manner(instead of running over it with flowering words
containing genetic mutation), would be a miraculous occasion. What is the
driving force? What are the mechanisms?
I dont think what I am offering is empty. I am merely pointing out how
words can hide the complexity of an issue. I dont mean to be too harsh
when talking about darwin. However, our knowledge is far superior to that
of darwins. Quoting darwin is commendable is a historic setting. Quoting
darwin in a scientific setting is like quoting an alchemist at a inorganic
chemistry seminar. They were intelligent men but we know much more than
they did.
As I said before, why else would someone put the words darwin in a fish
unless they were comparing darwin to Jesus? I understand the humor, but
the humor is in the comparison. They both require faith. More faith for
the former.
john w queen ii
At 12:10 PM 6/9/97 -0600, you wrote:
>At 12:42 PM 6/9/97 -0500, John Queen wrote:
>>----The evolutionist know that thier beliefs are religous. What does
>>Darwin and Jesus have in common? Nothing except what they taught and
>>studied requires faith in things you cannot see or explain.
>
>Do you have anything to offer besides empty rhetoric?
>
> _____________________________________________________________
>| Russell Stewart |
>| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
>|_____________________________________________________________|
>| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
>|_____________________________|_______________________________|
>
> 2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.
>
>