Topic awaiting preservation: Evolution vs. Creationism (Page 13 of 13)

Warmage - while that is true of medieval abbies (and the occasional gothic/victorian era church), it does not seem to be remotely the case with modern catholic churches. FWIW.

Fig - yes, the concept of entering the church and having something kneel and look up at is certainly a primarily catholic fixation...

Jesus = God is held by every mainstream xian church that I know of. The modern day Arians are the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. But among Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, members of the Church of Christ and Assemblies of God, etc. you will find agreement on the deity of Christ.

This was not a new concept at the council of Nicea in 325. This doctrine was held by the writers of the gospels the earliest of which would have been in circulation as early as 50 CE and not much later than 70 CE. The gospels were written within the lifetime of the apostles themselves and the deity of Christ is clearly evident in them.

So not only is it acceptable for xians to worship Christ, it is foundational to the faith. WS, I am really quite shocked that you would still say "Jesus was not God" after all the threads we've had on that in the past.

The charge that Catholics worship statues is one that gets under my skin. It is a fact that a good many Catholics do worship statues of saints and Mary *but* it is expressely forbidden in Catholic doctrine to do so. It is totally unfair to criticize a religion based upon the actions of wayward followers.

Now about whether it is forbidden by God to make ANY image... I've never read that verse that way. I've always thought that to mean the people of Israel were not to make graven images of gods as was the standard for religions of that day and region.

briggl, even if we determine that commandment to mean zero graven images, then you still have to understand it may have only applied to the nation of Israel and not necessarily to xians. If you need more explanation on why some of the commandments in the OT don't apply to us today, just let me know. We have covered that before in earlier threads too.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 03-24-2005 22:07)

*architectural history memories coming back...*

the cruciform church was very prominent within the rennaisance/baroque periods and beyond, most of the great european cathedrals are designed this way. steeple, choir, nave, transcept, etc.

bugs, good point on the catholic church, i was more trying to make the point that that sort of imagery isn't really even found in many protestant churches. as you've probably read there seems to be a conflict as to whether that sort of iconography can exist at all and not be worshippped, i personally don't see why it can't but others don't agree.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

I think the key point is whether the OT commandment prohibits making any graven image of anything, anywhere, for any purpose whatsoever. I seriously doubt that was the commandment but we need to look at it closer.

I agree with you, Fig, that one can have images of saints and the mother of God *without* worshipping them. This should be obvious by the actions of many good and faithful Catholics who know what their church teaches.

We need to dig deeper into that commandment for briggl.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I would certainly be interested in getting a more reliable translation, but the way it is worded in my King James version is *very* clear - no graven image....

Bugs - the followers, wayward or not, in reality define the religion.

I would certainly say that the majority of catholics behave in this way (from my experience).

I know that my church has a huge cross hung up at the door coming into the building. But you touched on something DL. Not a single cross at my church has Jesus on it. Why? Well, Jesus is resurrected, He isn't there anymore.

The phrase "kneeling at the foot of the cross" is to signify talking to Jesus. This is the place where He died and acomplished the climax of His ministry on Earth. I am pretty sure that the cross, in that sense is a symbol. Kinda like the fish. It symbolizes what Jesus did for us. Bowing at the cross is not the worship of the crucifixtion (what an ugly object to worship!), but as a means to almost imagine Him in your mind's eye, and talk to Him.

Sorry that you are kinda being swamped for that statement you made WS. Wow, what just a few words can do to people!

In case anyone was interested:

quote:

---

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God...14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

---

Hey, Bugs, or maybe Jade, do you know of a reliable place to find out about the Catholic faith that you mentioned? I thought that praying to Saints and Mary was part of the Catholic faith. I guess I am mistaken.

Great history Ruski. It sounds pretty good to me. Could make a few comments about fine points and pet peeves, but it sounds good from here. One small thing is that I would prefer that you not group all Christian fatihs under one boat. Many denominations, like mine, have no government but a pastor who preaches, and a decon board who make the decisions. Just a pet peeve, though...

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

so my doodles of daisies on my note pad are going to send me to hell

---

Darn straight!

quote:

---

poi said:

Isn't God coveting the worship of other divinities and graven images ?

---

God is a jealous God. Jealous of what? His people worshiping other gods. If they are His people, who can He be coveting them? It is like a husband being jealous when his wife flirts with another man. The husband doesn't covet someone else's wife, he covets his own. That last commandment discusses a coveting of another's stuff.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gid, from a Catholic point of view asking Mary and saints to pray for you is no different than asking your friends or family to pray for you. The idea is that they are now closer to God, because they are in heaven, and they can intercede on your behalf. The rationale also assumes that someone like Mary carries a lot more weight with God than you or me.

I do not pray to departed loved ones for this kind of prayer because I don't believe it is proper to speak with the "dead". But the idea is really quite a simple one and in no way necessitates worship. Worship is reserved for God alone. Worshipping anyone or anything else than the one true God is strictly forbidden in our faith.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

I would certainly say that the majority of catholics behave in this way (from my
experience).

---

Actually, that has also been my experience

I'll have to think more about what you say about followers defining a religion. As I see the world's religions, I don't see any whose bulk of followers do a very good job of adhering to the teachings. Would I be correct in seeing your comment in the light of this sentiment from Mohondas Gandhi?

quote:

---

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Would I be correct in seeing your comment in the light of this sentiment from Mohondas Gandhi?

---

Bugs for me there is a problem.

SO little is know about the actual "Jesus" figure, so little of his teachings are actually written, and they are very basic concepts of common sense that have been repeated throughout the history even before "him". Entire christian philosophy is so much based on the interpretation of so called "apostles" yet scholars are in agreement that few of those selected books (NT) were actually written around 60 or so after their deaths.

And as DL conctantly metions, there is no even clearn idea of how factual those NT teachings are since there were so many different cults competing with different ideas of who "Jesus" is and who he isn't...

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

briggl, even if we determine that commandment to mean zero graven images, then you still have to understand it may have only applied to the nation of Israel and not necessarily to xians. If you need more explanation on why some of the commandments in the OT don't apply to us today, just let me know. We have covered that before in earlier threads too.

---

This question was again aimed at those who are proposing a strict interpretation of the Bible. If they are going to say that we must believe that the creation story is true exactly as written, then we must follow everyting else in both testaments of the Bible!

quote:

---

As I see the world's religions, I don't see any whose bulk of followers do a very good job of adhering to the teachings.

---

very true - but I didn't say anything about how well they adhere to anything. I said they define it.

It's the whole 'actions speak louder than words' thing.

The followers have defined christianity from the very beginning. Their own stories about Jesus tell of how little they understood him. The apostles themselves were at odds with each other and tell conflicting stories. The various gospels out there give different views of Jesus' teachings. The countless sects that existed from the start held such drastically different views of him and his purpose/origin/etc...
The followers took the bits they liked and defined a religion out of it. The religion mutated (and continues to mutate) at the will of the followers.

Why?

Because when any organization stops doing that it ceases to exist. Doctrine means nothing in the face of behavior.

The doctrines of christianity took hundreds of years to be formed into what we have come to know as christianity, in the form of the roman catholic church in the 4th century. Before that (and after that, of course) there were radically varied views of the nature of god, and the nature of christ.

Once a singular view was able take control, there were still constant alterations, reformations, external doctrination, etc etc etc etc. The protestant reformation in the 16th century was simply a 'final straw' situation. The presses for reform within the catholic church began almost immediately after it's formation, and never stopped. Pope after pope pushed for reform, church after church petitioned for reform...

The followers have always defined the religion. Because the "founder" never really did...


.

And yes, that quote has always been one of my favorites, and one of the defining points of my view of christianity.

Though I think that historically, there was a man that is known to us now as Jesus (whatever his real name was, will probably never be known), I hardly consider him to be the physical representation of God. The Jews don't think so either.

The Xians may believe this, but still - we KNOW that God looks different than Jesus - because of the "burning bush" incident. So now Jesus (and this image on the Cross - who made it? It certainly is NOT an accurate representation of the original man we call Jesus, as there are no survivng replicas of him).

So, I am now being told, that the figure on the Cross, this "jesus", this false image of the man, which is now supposed to be = to a burning bush, is really God?

This has less to do with the "tri-unity", than to do with what is hanging in most Churches. This is the difference that I am pointing out.

So, you all believe, that worshiping this image, on the Cross, is really God?

Wow.

And I thought some of the stories from my Ancestors were pretty sketchy.

I think you're going way off on a minor tangent but applying it to a major point, with that one WS.

Whether or not the carved figure actually looks like jesus is irrelevant. It's a symbolic representation. It's not the facial features that makes it important...

I would also say your interpretation of the 'burning bush' incident is a bit odd...

Unless I'm really out of touch, I don't think it is ever suggested that god looks like a burning bush....??

So no - nobody is saying that any one person's version of a carved jesus on a cross is an accurate physical representation of god.
And there's no reason it needs to be....
It's a very obvious symbol, and the symbol stands for jesus, who according to christian view *is* god.

and that's really the bottom line in that regard...

Well, it goes back to the "graven image" thing, doesn't it? If these things (the Cross, the figure on the Cross) are not representative of Jesus, God, or both (though how one binds both the figure on the Cross with God, is beyond me. I understand how spiritually a tri-unity could be considered, but a figure that is not accurate, hanging on a Cross, is supposted to represent God?) then why are they being prayed to and worshiped? And if they are supposed to be representative of God, then they are certainly false Idols (because the likeness of Jesus on the Cross is not accurate).

The "burning bush" is a reference to Moses meeting God on the Mountain and getting the Ten Commandments. He isn't described as looking exactly like Jesus in that meeting. In fact, he isn't described as looking ANYTHING like a human.

Now, I do understand that Xians consider The Holy spirit, God, and Jesus to be one being. But I just don't see it. Everything actually points to the opposite.

And I never saw the point of hanging a Cross in a church, nor the point of portraiting a figure on it.

They *are* representitive of jesus, who is god.

I don't get what you're saying, unless you're holding that in order for the "graven image" to be a representation of something, it *must* be completely physcially accurate....?

That just seems silly, honestly.

It is a carved figure, and it is representative, through the concept of the trinity, of god.

Seems pretty straightforward in that regard.

Of course god is not described as "looking like jesus". The concept od jesus "being" god is not that straightforward. The concept of the trinity is an obvious "hack" to ensure that the concept of one god could stay intact, while making jesus the focal point. It is not meant to insinuate that jesus and god ar the same physical being. This may be the part that's tripping you up.
Jesus is jesus, and god is god, and the holy ghost is the holy ghost, but they're all the same spiritual being we call god.

I undersant very well about the burning bush and moses. What I'm saying is that it is not said that "god is a burning bush"

If we are accepting the concept of god (for the sake of argument), then we must be able to accept that god could appear to moses "in the form of" a burning bush without thinking that god "looks like" a burning bush.

FWIW

WS, I don't really see why the actual depiction of Christ in statues has any bearing on this either. It's representative and not meant to be absolutely accurate of how Jesus actually looked. Jesus' physical appearance is really quite irrelevant to the xian faith. If there are xians who place importance on it, I can only shake my head in dismay.

The word "trinity" is never mentioned in the bible. What is mentioned is three separate and distinct individuals who are all ascribed the status of "God". That is the trinity in a nutshell.

If you want to find the most vivid demonstration of this in the actual text then reference Jesus' baptism.

quote:

---

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ?This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.?
--Matthew 3:16-17

---

Here you see the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all present. To emphasize how difficult it is to comprehend the trinity just substitute the words a bit... as soon as God was baptized... God saw God descending on God... and God said, 'this is Me, I love Me, and I am pretty pleased with Myself'

Personally, I prefer to liken the trinity to water. Ice is water, steam is water, and liquid water is... water; one substance in three distinct forms.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugimus:

quote:

---

just substitute the words a bit... as soon as God was baptized... God saw God descending on God... and God said, 'this is Me, I love Me, and I am pretty pleased with Myself'

---

Or better: "bork Bork, Bork bork Bork , bork Bork bork bork bork bork Bork"

Sorry couldn't resist

Let us be very clear here, then. If it is just a Cross (though why that is even necessary, is beyond me), ok, I don't think that is really representing an actual person, creature, or being (i.e. it is not God). But depicting a figure on it then seems to violate the "graven image..." thing.

I still do not see the God and Jesus are the same thing. They clearly are seperate beings. God is supposed to be free of sin, and perfect. I hardly doubt that Jesus was perfect, especially as a child. In fact, his childhood is not mentioned at all. Most of Jesus's life is not mentioned, come to think of it. Only the end. Certainly the Jews that knew him and grew up with him didn't think he was God.

I know that Xians seem to beleive that Jesus was perfect - but there is no evidence really supporting that.

But whatever.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

As you say WS, it is there myth, let them intepret any way they need to. Hell even among the various sects of this cult they can't agree on interpretation.

Southern Baptists are horrified at the suggestion xist had dark skin, which is far more likely than not.

The very fact we have anglicans, baptists, united etc, is proof they simply can't agree on their own common religion.

BTW, some priest somwhere in the states has his cassock in a flap over the fact somenody is selling chocolate crosses to commemorate the myth of easter.

From the ridiculous to the even more ridiculous.

Once again, the adoption and celebration of a pagan ritual, not a xian one

http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

If we're going to get into a discussion of the trinity, that's whole different story and would require its own thread.

But for its involvment in this issue, it is clearly enough to say "jesus is god" and leave it at that.

Yes, this concept certainly violates the "no graven image thing"

But apparently so does any other painting/draing/photograph/statue/etc...



Yeah, I've talked about the pagan origins of many of the christian holidays quite a few times in the past. I still shake my head whenever I see the flyers advertising the "real" meaning of easter...

Well, let us then examine the real start of the Jewish belief, and the person behind it - Moses. We do see that the "church" (the place where God's essence was, and the ten commandments were kept in the Ark of the Covenant) didn't have any other feature. Obviously, Moses was a strict adherer to the ten commandments. Since nothing has changed since then (the ten commandments are still in effect), that would place all Xian churches that do portray a figure on a Cross as breaking the ten commandments.

Another interesting thing, is the belief in one Deity, and exactly where Moses got this idea from. There is an Egyptian Pharaoh who introduced this idea with the Sun God - and got rid of the other deities. This new religion didn't last long, however, and after the Pharaoh's death, Egypt reverted back. There is speculation that Moses was either influenced by this, or may have been a priest of this Sun God.

There is also some very fascinating heiroglyphics with some pre-hebrew writings on a stone cliff on the half-island where Moses fled to, that seem to depict Moses himself.

Also, new reconstruction of the route that Moses took shows that most probably, they did not go across the Red Sea, but along the coast of the Mediterranean instead on the old king's road, going above the Red Sea. This would be a very real bit of Archeological work, that contradicts the bible, if true.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Well sure, we could also debate the origins of a great many things - and I'd llove to.

But I would very mucn like to hear some answers to the question of the commandment in question.

In all of the translations that I have found, it clearly states that man shall not make any image or likeness of anything on heaven or earth.

then it says, completely seperately, that man shall not worship any such image.

The question at hand requires a belief in the truth and value of the bible, and so the answer must as well.

There is obviously no regard for the first part of this commandment in modern christianity - can anyone please explain this?

I'll look into the "no graven images" thing and get back to you. Without digging deeper, I have to say the commandment was intended to be taken in the context in which it was given. It is linked to the worship of false gods made from wood and stone.

quote:

---

3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
--Exodus 20:3-5

---

WS, were you aware that there were two images of angels on the ark? This would support the idea that the prohibition was limited to worshiping graven images as opposed to making any at all.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

As far as I know, Bugs, the Ark was not worshiped, so I don't think that the two "angels" on the Ark represent an idol (or idols).

quote:

---

I have to say the commandment was intended to be taken in the context in which it was given. It is linked to the worship of false gods made from wood and stone.

---

I tend to agree with you, Bugimus, but my question was aimed at people like Gideon who insist on a strict interpretation of the Bible as absolutely true. I'd like to hear how they rationalize this. Just out of curiosity sake, because I don't think they have a reasonable explanation.

quote:

---

As far as I know, Bugs, the Ark was not worshiped, so I don't think that the two "angels" on the Ark represent an idol (or idols).

---

It doesn't matter if it was worshipped or not, if there were representations of angels on it, it violated the commandment.

For a good laugh; http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/ark.html. these faithful sor some reason don't eveb spell out the words lord or god. Must be some other superstition. I recall reading that at one time it was forbidden to write the letters JVH as that was the 'three letter name of god' an a abreviation for jawveh. (sp?)

More info, perhaps addressing he graveb question at least in this case.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01721a.htm

some interesting speculation
http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/ark/ark.html

A depiction: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ark.html

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Well, here is some interesting information I found while digging around after the "graven image" stuff

Easter History

quote:

---

The cross, as first used in Christian art, generally did not show the body of Jesus, not only because the early church still followed the Jewish prohibition of images as idolatrous, but also because the empty cross symbolized Jesus' resurrection rather than his death. As a result, Christ was sometimes symbolized by a lamb or a bust of a youth above the cross. By the 7th century, however, it had become customary to represent the whole figure of Jesus, alive and robed, as the triumphant Christ, in front of the cross but not attached to it. Gradually, as the church put more emphasis on his suffering and death, Christ was portrayed naturalistically in a loincloth and crown of thorns, nailed to the cross. The wound in his side was visible. Thereafter, most three-dimensional crosses in the Roman Catholic church were crucifixes, and scenes of the crucifixion became popular themes of medieval and Renaissance painting and sculpture . Most non-Lutheran Protestant churches, which tend to follow early church traditions, use the cross alone.

---

Note that the blocks are mine.

So, it is a Jewish prohibition of images - is this then linked to the ten commandments? If so, then aren't the two angels on the Ark indeed prohibited?

This is becoming more intriguing. I think I'll do some more digging.

Ok, I found what I was looking for here Impulse to Idolatry

quote:

---

Note that there are two separate prohibitions here. The first is against the making of an image to represent Yahweh, and specifically against that image being taken from the created world; while the second warns against the worship of any such image in the place of Yahweh.

It is important for our purposes tonight that we note the ways in which the theologians and priests of Israel interpreted these injunctions after the fact. First, it is very clear that Israel did not feel constrained to ban every image of God. If that were the case, then they would never have made the Ark of the Covenant, a rectangle box of acacia and gold, with angelic beings moulded into its uppermost surface. The biblical record speaks of the Ark as the ritual place where Yahweh is most intensely real, a kind of throne for the divine presence. Moses listens to the Ark as if to God himself (Ex 25. 22). It is placed in the inner sanctuary of tabernacle and temple, a place which is so full of God?s presence that not even a priest may enter, except by the blood of atonement, and then only once each year (Lev 16). In later years, the Ark was carried into battle. When the soldiers could see the ark, it stood for them as a sign that God was with them. But when the Ark fell, it seemed to them that God had abandoned them (Joshua 6.4; 1 Sam 4). It is clear from these accounts that the Ark became for Israel what the pillars of cloud and fire were for them in the exodus: a tangible sign and image of God?s presence and protection.

A second point follows from this, that the general prohibition of images in fact makes a distinction between those chosen by Yahweh to represent himself, and those chosen by the will and inclination of human beings alone. The biblical texts make it clear that the Ark, the stone tablets of the Covenant, and indeed the whole liturgical cult of Israel, were chosen and instituted by God. What the prophets rail against, on the other hand, is the making of images for a worship instituted not by God, but by human beings. And the essence and goal of this false worship is said to be the illusion that human beings can manufacture their own wholeness or salvation, apart from the independent and free initiative of God. The classic statement is that of 2nd Isaiah, in the 44th chapter.

---

It would seem that God can make images of himself (and thus, that explains the Ark and the angels on it). But Mankind is not allowed to do this (thus, the Cross with Jesus on it is breaking God's rules).

Interesting.

(Edited by WebShaman on 03-28-2005 08:38)

potentiality leads to propension. you can suppose so. but you can't observe, either for itself or for its effects. there is no proof. having no proof...

~this is not a signature~

It is all chaff in the wind.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

<non-divine-intervention>
507 posts
13 pages
and counting....

This thread is going to break all records, the longest thread on this site, me might as well call those guys from "the guiness book of records" and ask them if they know any longer threads...
And while we ar at it we could ask them for a couple off pints as well

</non-divine-intervention>

------------------------------
Support Justice for Pat Richard

Ain't it cool?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Could a new popular thread icon be in order?

[guiness_break] One web-experts.com there was a thread about hiding the HTML/JS source code from the client, that lasted during 2,000+ posts!! But in the end, it was still clear that it is impossible to hide the source [/guiness_break]

there are threads at sijun.com and conceptart.org that regularly go dozens, even scores of pages.

Not to mention, if you add the various "part 2, part 3, part 4", etc of some of the older threads here that used to get closed and a new one started, there would be at least a few that went this long...

New Battle over Evolution erupts in nation's schools

quote:

---

Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, yet many teachers face disapproval and even anger for teaching it, more so than for any other lesson plan. Nearly one-third of science teachers say they feel pressured to teach creationism or other nonscience-based alternatives along with evolution in their classrooms, according to a new study by the National Science Teachers Association.

---

The battle is now, in a school near you.

quote:

---

But students often enter the classroom with powerful misconceptions about evolution - that Charles Darwin said that man comes from monkeys, or that evolution is a pitch to deny God, says Jones.

---

Sounds like some opinions that were raised in this thread. I wonder where this dis-information is coming from? Where are students getting the idea, that "man comes from monkeys" or that Evolution "disproves god"?

Well, could be deliberate mis-information from their 'religious instructor".

I am pleased to advise you we do not suffer the same degree of interference with our schools curricula.

Though, recently a slightly deranged woman, who had unfortunately been elected to a school board, spent a million bucks fighting a book on same-sex parenting.

This book taught only tolerance for differences.

But she, good xian that she is, decided this was teaching homosexuality.

She lost in supreme court and a million dollars in badly needed education funding went down the drain and all because she is a bigot.

Sadly, she is running in our next provincial election, but I don't give her much hope.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Saying that "man comes from monkeys" or that Evolution "disproves god" are some shortcuts. Like any shortcut they do not depict the reality. The theory of evolution does not say that man comes from monkeys, but that we are cousins. It does not disprove god, nor does it prove it either, and actually it's not its purpose.

That sort of shortcuts are made by people will little comprehension of Darwin's theory ( and science in general ) trying to depict the essence of it ... but failling miserably by introducing confusion where there is only facts and logic.

Evolution Update :

Odd fly uncovers evolution secret

quote:

---

A unique fly from the Canary Islands has helped shed light on one driving force behind the birth of new species, Nature magazine reports this week

---

And

Scientists 'see new species born'

quote:

---

Scientists at the University of Arizona may have witnessed the birth of a new species.

---

Pretty interesting stuff, and a fascinating look at some of the advances that being able to decode DNA has brought us. These articles will help anyone understand how a species diverses into two (or more) species.

Interesting indeed and both within a relatively short period of time, though widely seperated.

This sort of simultaneity in seperated parts of the world also helps provide credence to the theory.

I wonder if the faithful though will merely see it as their god making a joke and creating these bugs just to tease science?

Taking the theory seriously though, one might speculate the catholics are working on their own version of 'speciation'.

With the large number of adherants in third world countries (in more developed countries, caholics largely ignore the structure against birth control) being urged to multiply like rodents even though there is little food, they may be trying to force a genetic developement and breed a species of human which will eat almost everything, need very little of it and produce a new catholic every 28 days.

Except for those catholics slowly killing themselves off with aids because the vatican says condoms are naughty. But that is another kind of evolution.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)