>
> >i.e., most
> >>would agree that scientific evidence for evolution is more than adequate
> >>to dispute the literal creationism of Genesis
> >
> >
> >
> >The theories of evolution and Genesis are not necessarily incompatible.
>
>Evolution is a fact; natural selection is a theory that accounts for it.
>Genesis describes a sequence of events counter to the known facts of
>evolution, as well as proposing a mechanism different from natural
>selection (a different issue).
>
>* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
I also believe that evolution is a fact. Species are not static. Anyone who
breeds animals knows that.
Last time I looked, the literature still refers to it as "Darwin's theories
of evolution", as did the recent PBS series. Few dispute evolution within a
species. The argument is whether one species becomes a new species. To my
knowledge, no one has shown through the fossil record how one species
through several intermediary stages became a new species. What they have
found is the sudden appearance of a new species. They call it "punctated
equilibrium", and then use it as an explanatory mechanism (religious people
would call it creation). That proves that psychology doesn't have a monopoly
on naming a phenomena and then using the label as the explanation, e.g.,
traits.
One doesn't have to choose between Darwin or God as some extremists think.
You can juat as well believe that evolutionary mechanisms are what God uses
to create.
One last thing. I don't believe that you should take Genesis literally. What
I find impressive is that the order is nearly right--the big bang (Let there
be light),a formless earth, oceans, sea life, plant life, animals, humans.
Very impressive for 7,000 BC.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
