Hey Siarlys, I went and checked Genesis 1:21 and I didn't find anything
that said that whales evolved from land animals. And in fact it says
God created the water creatures and THEN the next day created the land
creatures.<br>
Genesis 1:21-25:"<font face="Verdana"><font size="2">And God created great whales, and every living
creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after
their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that <i>it
was</i> good.</font>
</font>
<p><font face="Verdana"><font size="2">22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the
earth.</font>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><font size="2">23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth
day.</font></font></p>
<font face="Verdana"> </font>
<p><font face="Verdana"><font size="2">24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the
living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of
the earth after his kind: and it was so.</font>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><font size="2">25 And God made the beast of the earth after his
kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the
earth after his kind: and God saw that <i>it was</i> good.</font></font>"<br>
</p>
<p>Help me out here Siarlys, very rarely do I ever see something wrong with what you say, but here I HAVE to question ya.<br>
</p>
God bless ya'll,<br>
Lance<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/9/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List</b> <<a href="mailto:gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net">gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div></div>
<div>It's a new year, and time to throw out something provocative. I recently
sent the text below to the editors of <em>Science</em> magazine. I don't know if
they will publish it, but the young man who plays the keyboard at church liked
this draft.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The context may not be recognizable. It responds to articles about
University of Kansas professor (and chair of religious studies) Paul Mirecki
offering a course entitled:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">REL
602 Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and other
Religious Mythologies.</span></i></div>
<div> </div>
<div>In a widely publicized email, Mirecki described the course:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The
fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in
their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the
category "mythology." I expect it will draw much media attention.
</span></i></div>
<div> </div>
<div>It did get some attention.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The
Associated Press reported December 6 that police are investigating a roadside
beating of Paul Mirecki 6:40 a.m. Monday on a rural road south of Lawrence,
Kansas. Mirecki told the Lawrence Journal-World that the two men who beat him
were making references to his proposed course.<br><br>December 7 the university
announced Mirecki had resigned as chairman of the religious studies department.
2 days later Mirecki told the Lawrence Journal-World he had been forced to step
down.</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Which leads to my letter to the editors.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>--Siarlys</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<p> When a professor of either science
or theology designs a course as "a nice slap" in anyone's "big fat face," it
should be no surprise that someone might throw a physical punch in response.
True, assault and battery <i>are</i> crimes in most states, even if "fighting
words" have provoked the attack. Still, University of Kansas professor Paul
Mirecki exemplifies the self-destructive arrogance which gets in the way of
expanding respect for plain scientific truths. What is the point, in a country
where religious faith has always played a powerful role, to offering a course
entitled "Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Mythologies"? Frankly, the
traditions of ancient cultures are entitled to more respect than to be used as a
foil for such petty sarcasm.</p>
<p> Professional opponents of science
are not the problem. Their ability to influence millions of our devout fellow
citizens, who have been told their faith is under attack, is the problem. "Yuk,
yuk, look what those Christians are up to now," is not helpful. It might create
more respect for science to teach a course that <i>distinguishes</i> the
Judeo-Christian and Islamic scriptures from the respectable (but superstitious)
folk tales that our ancestors fervently believed in. Nobody who truly believes
in the inerrant truth of every word in the Bible could deny the misnamed "Big
Bang" theory. It is so succinctly described in Genesis 1:3. There is of course
no <i>scientific proof </i>that "God said, 'Let there be light'" -- but ample
evidence has been assembled that "there was light." How did Moses know that,
before telescopes and orbiting anisotropy probes? There is little to the
theories generally described as "evolution" that are not encompassed by the
clause "then God said, let the waters bring forth the living thing that hath
life." Does any more primitive religious tradition offer such sophisticated
accounts? </p>
<p> I don't want to resurrect a 1960s
cliche by saying "some of my best friends are fundamentalists," but it is a
fact, many are. Up close and personal, they are cheerful, friendly, thoughtful,
worthy of respect, and listen with respect and interest when I defend modern
cosmology and biology. (It doesn't hurt that I go to the same church). We
falliable humans need less mutual contempt, and more open dialog on what we
think we might know. Intelligent Design can be reduced to a perfect legitimate
observation of some long odds in the existing data. (Fred Hoyle acknowledged a
few, in his own research on fusion in stellar cores.) That, of course, robs ID
of its arrogant claim to be an "alternative theory." Yes, whales did evolve from
land animals. That is also mentioned in Genesis by the way, chapter one, verse
twenty-one.</p>
<p> Albert Einstein described the
motivation of his entire life's work as "I want to understand the mind of God."
If Einstein could recognize that "The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is
not," could not humans in pursuit of the truth available through science
exercise a little subtlely also? </p></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>GCFL-discuss mailing list<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:GCFL-discuss@gcfl.net">GCFL-discuss@gcfl.net</a><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss" target="_blank">
http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss</a><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>No animals were harmed in the sending of this message.<br>However, a few million electrons were extremely inconvenienced...