lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (05/01/84)
Quoting Dave Norris: >I am not a "creationist", as I understand that term. But it is impossible >for me to see how man could have evolved from chance. Well put, Dave! Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (05/03/84)
> >I am not a "creationist", as I understand that term. But it is impossible > >for me to see how man could have evolved from chance. > > Well put, Dave! ===================== Man did not evolve from 'chance'. Man evolved from proto-hominids. (because most of the stupid proto-hominids were eaten) Proto-hominids evolved from apes. It goes on a bit further than that, but I leave it up to you to read a book in basic Archeology.. Steven Maurer
lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (05/04/84)
My purpose in congratulating Dave Norris for his statement, "... it is impossible for me to see how man could have evolved from chance," was not to agree with the apparent sentiment being expressed. Please note the wording that Dave chose, in particular the phrase " ... impossible for me to see ..." I was congratulating him for the perhaps unintentioned accuracy of his statement. The point is that this impossibilty may lie in Dave's emotional commitment to his beliefs, rather than in any intrinsic difficulties of the the theory of evolution. Regarding the phrase "from chance", I think we can take this to mean "by chance". However, the abandonment of an explicit teleology required by the theory of evolution doesn't entail the view that humanity is an entirely haphazard development. Consider the title of Jaques Monod's book, CHANCE AND NECESSITY, meaning chance isn't the whole story. The search for meaning in evolution is difficult, but this shouldn't be surprising. I find irony in the accusation that evolutionists "think they have all the answers", when it is precisely the lack of answers that these accusers are really frightened of. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew