From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:05:06 GMT

In article <BrsxAp.DGt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:

>Below is an illustration of why a Christian should utterly reject evolution.
>It is also an example of how much of what is called science and or education
>is a crime against the family and taxpayers in general.

Of course, Mr. Maier is certainly correct, if evolution were not fully 
supported by the evidence, and if evolution were not the only currently 
valid _scientific_ explanation for the origin, diversity, and similarity 
of species.  His assertions would certainly be valid.

>Andy Peters has relegated the holy institution of monogomaous  marriage to some evolutionary
>happenchance, which may not be universal for humans, and is the subject of some scientific
>debate as to why it came about in the first place.  Of course, Mr. Peters is
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>certainly correct, if there were such a thing as evolution.  His assertions
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>would certainly be valid.  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now that you've admitted this, I'm sure you will stop claiming that
evolutionary theory requires that humans be polygamous.

In article <BrsMCD.8rp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:

>On the other hand , if A&E are just a figleaf of our illustration, and
>humans originated from herds of apemen, then it is the natural order of
>things to be polygamous and copulate with anything in heat.

Are you now willing to retract this statement, Chuck?

Are you willing to admit that you don't really understand what evolutionary
theory predicts?

Can we expect you to stop making strawman statements about what
evolution, a concept you do not understand, implies for the faith
of all Christians everywhere?

Chuck, evolution is not a religion; those of us who accept it do not
turn to it for our morality.  My personal basis for morality is
based on the fact that I can observe and predict the effects of my
actions on those around me.  Many others who accept evolution base
their morality on the Bible, because they believe it to be a message from
God.  The Bible does not lose its worth as a tool for teaching morality
just because the whole thing is not literally true.  The whole blasted
thing could be allegorical, and God could just have written it to tell
stories with morals.  Even though I don't believe in your God, I recognize
the Bible as a valuable resource for _ideas_ about morals.  Even if
I don't believe in Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father and
all that, I can believe that the Bible is a _message_ from God telling
me what is moral and what is not.

This is not a rhetorical question, please answer it.  What is more
important:  believing in God, Jesus, etc., or following the moral
guidelines set up in the Bible?  If I believe in your God, but
break the rules, am I better or worse off in God's eyes than if I
don't believe in him/her, but follow all of the rules?

I apologize for the slight transgression.  Oh well.

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *
Newsgroups: talk.origins