From: slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Date: 26 Aug 92 05:56:35 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug25.102900.9620@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>
>Accepting the evolutionary paradigm does strip humans of their
>sense of purpose, sometimes their worth and dignity.

It doesn't strip me of MY sense of purpose, worth, and dignity.
Maybe you and others suffer from a lack of these attributes, but
that is a personal problem, not a problem created by a scientific
theory.

>Evolution
>says that we are just a walking and breeding bag of chemicals
>which arose by pure chance. We are no different from animals
>and the rules of the jungle such as dog eats dog and survival
>of the fittest reign.

Actually, I would say that the "rules of the jungle" do NOT apply to
modern humans as you are characterizing it.

>In actual fact, humans are special, made
>in God's own image, created to have fellowship with Him and
>with each other - of whatever race. It is God who says all
>people are equal in His sight.

Actually, God seems to be very discriminatory.  All people are NOT
created equal in His sight (at least according to the Bible).  Women
are the subordinates of men and are supposed to dress modestly, keep
quiet, and have babies.  People with any sort of birth defect cannot
"receive the bread of God at the altar."  Homosexuals are certainly
not equal in His sight.  People with certain diseases are shunned by
God.  Etc. etc.

>Apartheid, racism, bullying etc are man-made evils.

True.

>The
>rejection of God and man's decision not to obey God's
>will are the major contributors to this sorry state of
>the world.

False.  If you look at most instances of unrest in the world, they
are at least partly caused by different religious views.  I'm not
saying that religion is the only cause of conflict, but it is
certainly more prevalent than conflict arising over disputes of a
scientific theory.

>Where is `love your neighbour' in the
>evolutionary philosophy?

Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, not a philosophy (like
religion).  "Love your neighbor" is not a part this scientific
theory, nor should it be a part.  "Hate your neighbor" isn't a part
of the scientific theory either, yet it does seem to be a part of
the religious conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere.

>We have already established that
>evolution has no scientific basis and is merely a
>system of belief.

Who is "we"?  And what evidence was used to establish this fantasy?
Religion is a system of belief.  Science is not.

>How strange. I thought evolutionists reckoned that all humans alive
>today are descended from a pair of ape-men from the distant past.

I believe the predominant theory is that modern man evolved from a
population of primates that also diverged into lines of apes.  The
different colors of skin seen today are the result of several
different alleles at multiple loci in the genome.  Over thousands of
years, these alleles changed through mutation driven by natural
selection, leading to the wide diversity we see today.

Noah and his wife could not have possessed ALL of the alleles for
skin color, and one generation isn't enough for mutations to account
for three sons with different skin colors (unless of course you
invoke that 'God willed it to be that way').

>Creationists believe all humans today are descended from Adam and
>Eve. Are the two approaches so different that you can brand one as
>impossible?

YES!!!!  ABSOLUTELY!!!  Unless, as I said, you invoke the Will of
God (tm) as most Creationists must do frequently.


-- 
Steve Linke
Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
La Jolla, CA
Newsgroups: talk.origins