<-Click hereCan we evolve down? Have we evolved up? Hmmmm.... There's this belief that we've reached the top of the evolutionary chain. Okay, let's buy that for sake of argument, okay? And since the Darwinian thing is all based upon natural selection and genetic adaptation – well – does that assume that every species always goes one way? Well, no. Any one can slip, right?
And anyone can get a step ahead.
I guess all we can assume is that we humans have got an edge. For the moment.
Although every now and then I meet someone who makes me wonder if, just possibly, we're already slipping some. And I'm going to bet you've also met them... right?
***
Want to see the virgin image from my FlashCard? Here you go....
6 comments:
Hehe, I really don't know what that is and why you had the idea to photograph it, but it's more than funny and it works perfectly :)
Hmm ... only now read the text.
I think what the creationists lack most, is a feeling for time. A hundred years are a pretty long time when viewed at from a human POV. 1000 years are only comprehensible in terms of history, of events, of remnants of cultures. A million years is only a number (incomprehensible by itself) and a billion a thousand times more so.
In fact, whatever the mechanisms were, they would not have to bother us at all. Otoh, this whole debate is not about science, about knowledge, about reason, it's about beliefs and politics.
When creationists argue against evolution, they really argue for their own beliefs and for their perceived right to apply their beliefs to a policy that would set their rules to everyone, the non-believers as well. It's more a matter of tolerance than anything else.
Whatever. What is human and in which regard are we different? Conscience? And what's that anyway? A sense of a "Self"? Do we need a sense of time in the equation or do we not?
Wow, I wouldn't have thought any of that without your text, but your text is so much more powerful with the image than it would be without. Thanks for all the fish!
(Andreas)
#1) It is a fish and it is a girl. I call it - Fish Girl :}
#2) Evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity. Creationism is a religious doctrine, like transubstantiation. There is a difference between the two. Deny a religious doctrine and something might go wrong for you after death. Deny a scientific principle and something will go wrong for you in a jet plane. The first is somewhat more theoretical than the latter when it comes to proof.
Gottit?
OK, got it: the solution is to let them ride jet planes :)
I've spent most of my 50 years on this planet enjoying the outdoors, both of the swamps of south Louisiana, and now the mountains of western North Carolina. I've examined close-up and first-hand the diversity, complexity, and interaction of plant and animal life in both settings. Maybe I'm just a simple-minded man, or perhaps just a born skeptic, but to imagine that all I've seen in nature "just happened" at some point in time as the result of some chance combination of electricity and base chemicals requires more faith than I am able to muster. To me, the overwhelming evidence says that the evolutionist is the true person of faith.
As for the photo, there's an eeriness to this one, Ted. It's as if the fish is observing the human from behind the glass. It reminds me of the question, "Who's observing who at the zoo?"
(John) As I wrote, "Deny a religious doctrine and something might go wrong for you after death."
As a theology professor of mine once asked, "If you make the bet that there is no theological truth... And you lose... What's the downside?"
Post a Comment