----- Original Message -----
From: John & Christy Horton <[log in to unmask]>

> I looked at the url given below in a BEE-L post.It is fairly
> sarcastic..Itstarts out with this statement:
>
> "Some people seriously . . . "

Paghat is known in various internet circles for having a spirited way
with words.  you are not the first one she may have irritated, nor will
you be the last.

> The learned author of the above statement about God/faith/science
> might be
> suprised to know that most of the founders of the modern scientific
> diciplines were Bible-believing scientists.

I guess one has to ask, since many of those folks grew up in religeous
communities (as many communities were and are), how should that surprise
anyone?  And how does that invalidate the concepts of life evolving?
People cannot be correct on all counts, they are, after all, only human.

>the name Werhner Von Braun has some meaning to me.
> He was a
> staunch creationist and promoted the teaching of creationism in
> school.

He was a rocket scientist, not a biolgist or a paleantologist.  That is
like saying that I should be invited to critique some fo the recent
advances in rocket science.  Well, this is America, I can critique it,
but who in their right, or left mind, listen?

>How many tries in the evolutionary history of the
> honeybee did it take to
> create these behaviors and wonderful characteristics of the honeybees
> physiology?

And this statement illustrates the fact that many people simply do not
understand modern concepts of evolution.  Nothing was "trying" to become
a bee.  Pick up some Gould or Dawkins, or preferable both - their
interactions with each other are at least entertaining.  But it might
give you a better idea abo0ut how evolution is supposed to work.  This
nonesense about things trying to be other things, evolution working
towads more complex life forms is passe to say the least, and simple
inaccurate.

> Where is this evidence in the fossil record?  (The aforementioned
> authorsays
> that creationists believe that "the devil made fossils to fool us",

I have heard that very argument.

> Also remember that the bees were having
> to adapt
> to the flowering plants that are
> alleged to have evolved "fairly recently" (supposedly a few million
> yearsago).

Actually it is a heck of a lot longer than that, angiosperms have been
around since at least the cretaceous.  And many peleobotonists now
beleive that it was the expansion of the hymenoptera that lead to the
ascention of the angiosperms.  Lets keep our dates and theories and
facts strait.  Don't give false info and then debunk it.  Put the straw
men away with the thanksgiving/halloween deocrations we are onto
Christmas and Chanuka now.

> The evolution of my  unbelief in evolution may have religious
> implications,but is not predicated on "religious" suppositions.

Interesting - so how did life come to be?  Aside from evolution, is
there another secular argument?

I don't care to argue about this, but I would
> like to
> make
> my view known, as others have had the opportunity to do so here.

I agree, no point to arguing, but this is a discussion forum, so there
is no reason we cannot discuss it, and at the end of the day, either
learn something (hopefully) or at least have had a lively entertaining
exchange.  Barring that we can agree to disagree and have an eggnog.  I
like a little extra cinnamon on mine.

Regards,

Keith

"If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to
evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative
to biological reproduction."

 Judith Hayes

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---