Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lincoln Arts <lincarts>
> Subject: Re: Fw: creationism vs. evolutionism
> > > Is everyone aware of what Darwin discovered, how and
> > >why, and why he was so vehemently attacked by the church and religious
> > >factions? What did Darwin find, and what did it imply?
> > No, and obviously not.
> And one of you thought that philosophical discussion didn't go over well
> this list!! Hah!! ;>)))
> Look, Darwin was a botanist; he studied plants. (Bit of history, and I
> quote: "In order to fully understand the sensations of a
> European in the tropics, we must remember that Europe had been ravaged by
> the final Ice Age to a greater extent than any other part of the planet.
> More than 80 percent of local plant species had perished. Until the
> mid-seventeenth century, Europeans had never even glimpsed many of the
> plants that form our everyday landscape."
> (Two comments: Of course, this Ice Age never occurred in the
> world, and, for you artists, this was the reason for Claude Monet's
> of the gardens at Giverny - so that he could paint flowers!)
> All of the above led many European explorers to bring back plants and
> flowers from their travels - to replenish the devastated landscape.
> began to flourish, as well as plants bred in greenhouses. Darwin noticed
> differences between 'domesticated' plants and plants 'in natura or their
> ancestral forms'. Thus, either there were very many varieties of, say,
> Begonias,...or something was changing the Begonias. Darwin developed his
> theories of adaptation and natural selection according to the evidence in
> front of him. He was to much of a systematic scientist to do otherwise.
> "HOWEVER, the Bible stated the opposite. According to Genesis, the world
> Darwin's time was identical to the world that God had created in six
> See the problem? It is all a matter of change in life forms, Homo sapiens
> notwithstanding. So it has been a debate between those who support the
> of unchanging species and those that support the idea that species
> Interestingly, the idea of evolving species dates back to the Greeks
> philosophers. What changed between the time of the Greeks and the time of
> Darwin? The Christian Church, and only that.
> Quoted passages are from "Darwin: Nature Reinterpreted" by Pietro Ventura,
> Houghton Mifflin (1995). I used the book to teach my children about
> Darwin's theories. By the way, I did present them with theories from
> sides'. They talked about it and decided that the religious theory was
> silly and seemed contrary to common sense. They were 8 and 12 at the
> last year.
> By the way, Darwin stated his underlying principle thus: "As many more
> individuals of each species are born than can survive (attributed to the
> thinking of one Thomas Malthus, according to whom populations increased
> geometrically while food supplies increase in a simple arithmetic
> progression, thus forcing living beings into a struggle for survival), and
> as consequently there is frequently recurring a struggle for existence, it
> follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner
> to itself...will have a better chance of surviving and thus be naturally
> selected. This preservation of favourable individual differences and the
> variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have
> Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest."
> It is an interesting side note, and worth serious consideration in the
> of what is happening to education these days, that that attribute which
> ensures Homo sapiens' survival, so much so that it is a critical part of
> classification - "THINKING man", is that same faculty which is being
> threatened into atrophy (de-generation).
> Larry Parker