Posted on 12/15/2005 9:10:41 AM PST by flevit
Simon Schama appears to have little understanding of biology (Opinion, September 4). With an ostrich mindset that tries to ignore reality, pseudo-scientists continue in the vain hope that if they shout loud and long enough they can perpetuate the fairy story and bad science that is evolution.
You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to question evolution theory - you just have to have an open and enquiring mind and not be afraid of challenging dogma. But you must be able to discern and dodge the effusion of evolutionary landmines that are bluster and non sequiturs.
No one denies the reality of variation and natural selection. For example, chihuahuas and Great Danes can be derived from a wolf by selective breeding. Therefore, a chihuahua is a wolf, in the same way that people of short stature and small brain capacity are fully human beings.
However, there is no evidence (fossil, anatomical, biochemical or genetic) that any creature did give rise, or could have given rise, to a different creature. In addition, by their absence in the fossil record for (supposed) millions of years along with the fact of their existence during the same time period, many animals such as the coelacanth demonstrate the principle that all creatures could have lived contemporaneously in the past.
No evidence supports the notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs, nor that whales evolved from terrestrial quadrupeds, nor that the human knee joint evolved from a fish pelvic fin. And the critically-positioned amino acids at the active sites within enzymes and structural proteins show that the origination of complex proteins by step-wise modifications of supposed ancestral peptides is impossible. In other words, birds have always been birds, whales have always been whales, apes did not evolve into humans, and humans have always been humans.
But you might protest that it has been proved that we evolved from apes. In fact, the answer is a categorical No. Australopithecines, for example, were simply extinct apes that in a few anatomical areas differed from living apes. If some of them walked bipedally to a greater degree than living apes, this does not constitute evidence that apes evolved into humans - it just means that some ancient apes were different from living apes.
Have you met the mother-in-law?
Thomas, if you have actually read the Bible, then you know why God flooded the earth. It's not something inferred from the text, and it's not a matter of translation.
The explanation is 100% transparent and blunt.
Given that you're not even questioning the reason given in the Bible, but asking what the reason is, I can only consider your claim to have read the Bible as suspect. And that's using my best message board manners.
"Only a matter of time before a ping and a wave of defenders of the evolution dogma."
You mean like when agent Smith says "More."?
"for the truth to be told"
Reply:
Hopw do we know 'truth'? I thought your phrase "to be told" was interesting--is it to be 'told to us" by some ancient text?
The sheer number of claimants as to 'knowing the one true truth' is so many that one must doubt all of them equally.
I mean, if I told you that a snake came up to me in my garden and started talking in fine Aramaic and that what he was to say would determine the entire future of the human race, would you believe me? But if I told you this was written in a book 2000 years ago, does it make it more believable? I mean, snakes can't even pronounce Yiddish properly.
When I was visiting my parents over T-Day, my mom mentioned that he had recently converted to Catholicism. My conclusion is that, as a leading scientist, he probably grew weary of these types of crevo debates and felt more comfortable in a church that fully embraces evolution.
Thomas Aquinas had it all figure out almost 1,000 years ago: over time, man may be able to explain natural law (eg DNA, evolution, el al) but who created natural law?
Believing the literal passages of texts written by goat herders roaming the desert over 2,000 years ago violates the very natural laws (ie our evolution into sentient/understanding beings) that enable mankind to perform such inquiries in the first place.
"using my best message board manners."
Reply: I appreciate that.
But why do you keep ignoring the theological and moral issues of having innocents killed in a Flood? I imagine that you oppose abortion, as do I--yet here is an 'account' that God killed innocent fetuses. Don't you see the contradiction?
It is unfortunate that the 'reasons' in the Bible do not forbid killing fetuses and born babies.
Aren't you hiding from dealing with the issue?
The Noah's Flood myth is not a good story for children, not good science, and not even consistent with Christian/conservative morality.
They can't pronounce the "P"s worth a darn. They're pretty good on the sibilants though.
thomas - I learned a very long time ago that when someone asks a question about the Bible, but isn't willing to break it's covers, they're not interested in hearing what the Bible has to say on the issue.
I'm not ignoring any issue. I've pointed you to the answer. And if you read just the first few chapters of the Bible, you'll understand why the strawman you've created is inaccurate (the supposed contradiction of killing fetuses).
If you're unwilling to read for less than 30 minutes on the subject, you've made the choice to remain ignorant of the subject and to continue with your assumptions.
Lucky - That's exactly why I think thomas was being less than honest when he claimed to have read in the Bible. It's very straightforward about the what and why of the flood.
You wrote: "all mankind, other than Noah's family, was determined by God to be evil."
Reply: Maybe so, but this differs with my idea of the innocence of fetuses, newborns, suckling babies, and toddlers.
And why kill annimals and plants?
"the supposed contradiction of killing fetuses"
Are you now denying that fetuses were killed in Noah's Flood? Are you denying that innocent newborns and toddlers were killed in the Flood?
I am sure that if anyone did this today, they would be condemned and punished by our laws.
Most biblical scholars put the flood date, according to the timeline of the Bible, from 2348 to 2304 B.C.. That makes it a bit over 4,000 years old. Egypt had a unified kingdom almost a thousand years before that.
You assert that the story of the flood is mythical, but then rely upon factual assumptions outside of the myth to criticize it. If it's just a story, isn't it just a story?
I'm glad the author still has an open mind.
Which bible? The one that starts "In the beginning ..." or another one?
I would find it fascinating to learn that there are folks out there who believe the Judeo/Christian Bible teaches both.
Ana! A place to insert this serenditipitious info.
Can you communicate with the son of the friend of your parents and ask him to take and post a digital photo of the swarm of the earthly manifestations of the flying spaghetti monster near the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (first floor, near the admissions and business office.)
I was there with a sick relative recently but had't brought my camera.
how do you know the skulls collected weren't anomolies or disfigurations of humans or apes? it's like putting leaves next to each other. a maple leaf is certainly going to look different than a pine needle
Hey, ask your Medical Doctor.
If your doctor says that man and apes didn't evolve from a common ancestor, it's time to change doctors.
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.