PDA

View Full Version : Noah and Evolution


Whydoe
24th July 2006, 06:47 AM
This is a letter sent in to one of our small town newspapers by someone claiming to have the answers to evolution. I'm writing back with my reply but wanted to post it here first to see what you people think.

This is the full text (there is no web link for the paper, sorry - I'm lucky they have email)

They call this evolution?

In the last little while there’s been a certain amount of material that’s come across my reading desk concerning the evolution of movies, music and animals, and then my hair started to stand up. I didn’t draw a line in the sand, not yet.
Then there was an item about the evolution of humans. It said we came from come critters that crawled on all fours, and then became something that had long arms, hanging to the knees, suspiciously like an ape. At least by then they walked on hind legs.
This was supposed to be the next stage of evolution of man, hopefully not including women, my idea only, from primitive to modern, rock music loving, beer-guzzling, steak devouring, woman ravishing, man.
To my way of thinking, man has not evolved at all. Today’s man is the same as Moses of old, who got angry, throwing down his heavy cement commandments sternly admonishing his followers to keep order, Before him was Noah, the ark builder. He was much the same as us. This is, he walked upright and all that. He could speak and probably even write if he really put his mind to it.
There wasn’t much to write on in those days, except those awkward and heavy clay tablets, so no one bothered very much.
The point is, you can go back as far as you want in time, but you won’t find a human being much different from us. The animals shown in charts and graphs in schools and other locations are just that. They are the result of the vivid imagination of some scribbler from long ago, having listened to an evolutionist evangelist, then running straight to his desk to draw the various stages of evolution of man as he saw it, from the interpretations gained from the lecture he’d just finished attending.
After all, I’ve held in my hand quite a number of butterfly fossils, supposedly millions of years old. They’re the same as any butterfly you’d see today. They didn’t evolve or grow gills or anything like that.


To which I am replying....

Imagination Indeed

It appears some people should still be writing on awkward and heavy clay tablets. At least then they might think before they “scribble” something down. Most people, who have read past the first ten pages of the bible, understand how science works. According to a letter in the July 21 Weekender, Mr. ***** chooses to think that they just use their vivid imagination to draw out their conclusions.
You could probably write a thousand pages on all the scientific impossibilities in the book of Genesis alone. I’m not here to put down any ones faith. There are many amazing lessons to be learned from the bible and other religions. I’ve just become very tired of the fact that some choose to bash science as a whole when it contradicts something they were told to believe in.
I’m happy for you that Darwin’s material has finally come across your reading desk, Mr. ******. It’s been out for some time now. And, although, many of those theories aren’t written in stone (pun intended), at least it’s a starting point. I want my kids to go to school and learn what has been studied, proven and agreed upon in the scientific community. Not what was written “long ago” and NEVER proven in ANY way what-so-ever.
I must agree, however, that evolution is quite slow. It would seem that some “critters” are moving backwards through the evolutionary chain. Some need to look no further than a reflection for that fact. But before you start knocking those that are doing research, studying facts and finding cures for diseases and then “scribbling” them down; think. Scientists don’t invade other countries and blow stuff up because another group of scientists believe in something different.
I guess some people need to see a butterfly with gills and teeth for proof of evolution. As for me, I’m going to listen to some rock tunes while having a steak and beer.


Anything you think I should fix, add or omit?

Lothian
24th July 2006, 07:14 AM
This is a letter sent in to one of our small town newspapers by someone claiming to have the answers to evolution. I'm writing back with my reply but wanted to post it here first to see what you people think.

This is the full text (there is no web link for the paper, sorry - I'm lucky they have email)



To which I am replying....



Anything you think I should fix, add or omit?Ummm, all of it. I don’t disagree with anything you say but I doubt, in its current form, it will get published and Mr ****** will not see the reply.

While I don’t know your particular paper, I think most will find the tone too aggressive against a valued reader (contributor).

I think there is more chance of being published if you aim along the lines of pointing out the errors in the letter, that evolution is a very slow process. You could possibly point out that humans evolved round about 170,000 years ago. You could then say that the humans talked about in the bible are dated from 4000ish BC onwards, so long after humans evolved that it is not suprising that they were described to be very like us.

Edited to add
You could argue that Mr ****** is arguing that the 21 year old hasn’t changed much since he was 20 and a quarter, but I am not sure it is a great analogy even if the time scales are equivalent.

Unholy_Mackerel
24th July 2006, 07:20 AM
Butterfly fossils? How? Where?

I wonder if the original writer knows what a fossil is.

Maybe you could include a list of suggested reading material -- something besides the bible, I mean.

Nick Bogaerts
24th July 2006, 08:28 AM
I'm afraid I would have to agree with Lothian. I appreciate the effort in composing a response--most would never bother--however I can't see it published in its current form. You are being sarcastic without being witty, and lack both conciseness and clarity.

I would rework the introduction, making it much more polite, even outwardly apologetic, but keeping an ironic tone.
The second paragraph I would scrap altogether--the Bible's lack of scientific accuracy is interesting in its own right, but is of no consequence to the point you are trying to make.
The fourth paragraph should probably come in second. Briefly discuss the scientific evidence for the descent of man, and the timescale. Scrap the comment about bombing countries, it has no relevancy.
Then the third paragraph, the issue of education. Keep that one, but tone down the sarcasm.
A lighthearted one-sentence conclusion is good. Keep your final comment about rock, steak, and beer.
On a question of style, I would get rid of the "(pun intended)". I'm sure the reader is quite capable of spotting puns on his own. Don't patronize him.

I hope I'm not putting you off with my criticism, for that is not my intent. It is worth the effort of writing a letter to the editor on this topic, and I hope you can craft it into something publishable.

gfunkusarelius
24th July 2006, 08:47 AM
the original mail actually looks like a bit of a joke. i dont totally understand the humor, but it is written cleverly enough that i somehow doubt it is really a creationist. more likely someone having a kick and getting published by spouting some crafty but silly opinions. its all over the place, too, it doesnt seem to follow the standard arguments of creationists or IDers and he makes arguments that are pretty much charicatures and he gets off track and talks about moses in a goofy way.
i could be wrong tho, he could be for real.

Whydoe
24th July 2006, 09:34 AM
Thanks a bunch guys. And, no, I don't mind any criticism. I have an "open mind" for that stuff - that's why I posted it here. Anyway, here is my 2nd draft... hopefully a little less sarcasm.
According to a letter in the July 21 Weekender, Mr. ******* chooses to think that scientists just use their vivid imagination to draw out their conclusions rather than from research and fact finding.
There are many amazing lessons to be learned from the bible and other religions. I’ve just become very tired of the fact that some choose to bash science as a whole when it contradicts something they believe in.
I agree that evolution is quite slow. It would seem that some “critters” are moving backwards through the evolutionary chain. Humans evolved around 170,000 years ago. The bible talks of humans in and around 4000 B.C. Not much will change in humans in that length of time.
I’m glad you can look at both sides of the equation but I’m not sure what reading material came across your desk to make you think evolution is such nonsense. Many of those theories aren’t written in stone, but at least it’s a starting point. I would like my kids to go to school and learn what has been studied, proven and agreed upon in the scientific community. Not what was written “long ago” and NEVER proven in ANY way what-so-ever.
I guess some people need to see a butterfly with gills and teeth for proof of evolution. As for me, I’m going to listen to some rock tunes while having a steak and beer.


edit: removed name

JamesDillon
24th July 2006, 10:07 AM
Out of curiosity, if this letter was published in a newspaper, presumably indicating the name of the author, why bother removing it here?

Meffy
24th July 2006, 10:58 AM
I'm too dizzy from the transformation of Moses' stone tablets first into "cement," then into clay to comment coherently.

Lothian
24th July 2006, 11:04 AM
Acording to wikipedia and google

Noah was around 2350 bc and Moses 850 years later in 1500 BC.

grayman
24th July 2006, 11:10 AM
I'm too dizzy from the transformation of Moses' stone tablets first into "cement," then into clay to comment coherently.

Lest you forget that Whydoe intends to listen to rock music.

Meffy
24th July 2006, 11:46 AM
Lest you forget that Whydoe intends to listen to rock music.
Color me petrified.

brooklyn44
24th July 2006, 04:52 PM
ot
Ive been meaning to ask:
Why the ubiquitous references to Wikipedia? I'm skeptical about its inability to maintain integrity. is the forum ok with wikipedia and not other online encyclopedia?
renee

Meffy
24th July 2006, 06:39 PM
Use whatever reference materials you like. Wikipedia is popular because it's big, multilingual, and wide-ranging. There are so many competent "editors" that dubious entries tend to be caught and rectified. Controversial topics usually have discussion pages where the various sides can hash it out.

It's a good quick lookup tool. For serious work it's a good idea to check other sources too.

Whydoe
24th July 2006, 07:23 PM
Out of curiosity, if this letter was published in a newspaper, presumably indicating the name of the author, why bother removing it here?

Just thought it would be better is all. I don't publish my full name at the bottom of the letter on the forum either - but it will be in the paper.