IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP


Karl King kingke at perkin-elmer.com
Tue Dec 31 07:43:42 EST 1996

Mike O'Hara wrote:
> 1. Firstly, while I agree the Theory of Evolution is a theory, it is a
> demonstrable theory. A number of high school practicals use a
> demonstration of the selection of  mutation, one of the cornerstones
> of the theory. 

My objection, here, is that you fail to mention WHICH theory of
evolution you are discussing. Darwin, for example, made no mention of
mutations. He rejected fundamental genetics (he read Naudin's report,
but rejected it in favor of his own theory of gemmules.) 

When Darwin wrote that "Nature does not proceed by leaps", we might
suppose that he had mutations in mind. Perhaps not. He dismissed sports
as irrelevant, then changed his mind later in life. Of course, by then
he had also come to accept that acquired characteristics may be

Your notion that evolution is a demonstrable theory is, of course,
totally irrelevant. Proofs and demonstrations and even evidence are
completely useless against a belief that is based on faith. Even looking
at evidence could be construed as a lapse in faith.

It is a curious sort of mind-set: to reject the evidence of one's own
senses, to doubt one's ability to reason, all to accept -- blindly and
unthinkingly -- the statements of some other HUMAN, who pretends to know
the Will and Mind of a God.

Still and all, I think that it is an amusing fact that some devout
Christians point to the Old Testament, claiming that it denies
evolution. Are there any Jewish Creationists?

And who was the guy who ripped off his father-in-law by selectively
breeding spotted cattle. Sounds line a practising evolutionist to me.

Happy New Year
Karl King
(a pro-Evolution web page)

More information about the Mol-evol mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net