HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 22, 2005 I don’t know how many times I have to tell Tracey Stevens that his attempts to refute the theory of evolution have nothing to do with me, as I have never used the theory of evolution to support any argument against Christianity. Christianity is self-evidently false without any reference to evolution, the big bang or thermodynamics. Why he keeps bringing up my name in this context is something I’ll never understand. He must have some preconceived notion that I belong to some faction or club that subscribes to a set of universally accepted tenets called the Articles of Atheism. I won’t pretend that I know enough to defend the theory of evolution or any of the others. In fact, I myself entertain doubts. Moreover, I simply do not care whether they are true or false. I do know however, that despite his loudly-proclaimed faith in Jesus, Tracey cannot raise the dead, heal the sick, move mountains, multiply fish and walk on water. If Tracey says he believes in Jesus and God, and Jesus says these things are possible for those who believe in God, then somebody, either Jesus or Tracey, if not both, is lying. And this has nothing to do with Darwin. Now, I see in his article of December 8, “Maybe Evolution Can Evolve a Really Sound Theory,” which I just skipped over, assuming that I had made it clear that I don’t care what he thinks about evolution, that he mentions me as if I had made myself Darwin’s apologist. What led me to this is the first place is that his article included a big, long paragraph on microbiology that I knew Tracey Stevens could not possibly have written. I had noticed, in reading his previous articles, that his command of the English language is not all that it should be, even though I didn’t call him on his grammatical blunders and faulty diction. Therefore, he could not have written that paragraph. So copying part of his article and placing it on a search engine, I found that the paragraph was lifted verbatim from Wikipedia, without any acknowledgment. It would appear that Tracey Stevens was trying to lend to his article an aura of intellectualism that his other articles belie. It’s ridiculous to copy half an article on evolution from Wikipedia, as if you were scholar enough yourself to have composed it, with intention to daunt someone, and thereby make a case for the existence of Jesus. He also makes some little sly reference to the addition of the word “metaphorically” by Darwin to one of his books. Apparently, this was in reference to the ideas that microorganisms are “scrutinizing” the environment looking for useful mutations. Obviously enough, lower forms of life are not “scrutinizing” in the way that an art critic would “scrutinize” a painting, for example, but the non-existence of a suitable verb to fit the exact circumstances might lead someone to use a figurative formation. After all, we say that space modules “rendezvous”, as if they were lovers at a tryst. When we say that a proton exercises an “attractive” force on an electron, we don’t mean that it’s “cute”. So Darwin’s choice to add the word does not invalidate the book, not that I ever had anything to say about the book in the first place. "Abracadabra! Hocus pocus! Mumbo jumbo! I have a Messiah!" ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
