CHARLIE DARWIN, SHOVE THAT BANANA WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE

[ED CONRAD]

< CRIME IN RHYME
Evolutionists, their interests so vested
And Poor Truth, for too long molested.
Their deceit and deception
Near the point of perfection
If it were my call, they'd ALL be arrested
<
< DISCOVERED BETWEEN COAL VEINS
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/FINGERSx.jpg
<
< ==============
<
WHAT CHARLES DARWIN REALLY SAID ABOUT THE EYE
<
As we all know, there's currently a heated debate
on Fox News and in the sci news groups about what
Charles Darwin REALLY said about the evolution
of the eye.
<
It's time this matter is cleared up -- simply and
concisely -- once and for all.
<
(Actually, I thought I had ended all the confusion back
on Saturday, May 11, 1996, when a pseudo-scientist
named Michael Clark accused me of misquoting Darwin.
He had the balls to say I used only a portion of Charlie's
direct quotation about the "evolution" of the eye.)
<
< =========================
<
Here's what I said Darwin said:
<
"To suppose that the eye (with so many parts all
working together) . . . could have been formed by
natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd
in the highest degree."
<
< =========================
<
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/uploads/human-eye.jpg
<
Here's what Charles Darwin REALLY said:
<
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable
contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
distances, for admitting different amounts of light,
for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,
could have been formed by natural selection, SEEMS,
I FREELY CONFESS, ABSURD IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE.
When it was first said that the sun stood still and
the world turned round, the common sense of mankind
declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox
populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be
trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous
gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one
complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade
being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case;
if further, the eye ever varies and the variations
be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and
if such variations should be useful to any animal under
changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of
believing that a perfect and complex eye could be
formed by natural selection, though insuperable by
our imagination, should not be considered as subversive
of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive
to light, hardly concerns us more than how life
itself originated; but I may remark that, as some
of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be
detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does
not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements
in their bar code should become aggregated and
developed into nerves, endowed with this special
sensibility."
> -- Charles Darwin, 1859, "Origin of Species"
<
< (EDITOR'S NOTE: WOW! Now THAT was a mouthful!)
<
< =======================
<
I thought I said what Darwin said but David Iain
Greig said what I said wasn't what Darwin really said
because he said Darwin said more than what I said
he said, then Steve Vickers of the UK butts in and
says HE knows what Darwin really said, claiming
what I said he said wasn't what Darwin really said,
so I said, 'Okay, I'll say what they said Charlie
REALLY said, since I suppose that this is what I
guess he said, even though I really don't know
for sure if he said it.
>
==================================
<
Nice little song and dance, there, Zippy. Can you
balance a ball on your nose? -- Michael Clark
<
UP YOUR'S, Bumble Brain!
<
< (Folks, please excuse the interruption!)
<
==============================
<
Actually, it really doesn't matter what Darwin
said or what these fellas said he said -- or what
they say I said or didn't say -- since what I said,
whether Charlie said it or not, isn't something
that really had to be said. Perhaps he said what
he said because he felt he had to say it -- he
certainly was entitled to say what he wanted
to say. But by saying what they say he had said,
he actually said more than he needed to say, so
maybe he really didn't have to say what he said.
Of course, IF Darwin DID SAY what these fellas
said he had said, critics could later say he had
nothing to say, even though he had said it.

Ed Conrad
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Dartboard.jpg
<
==================
<
MAN AS OLD AS COAL
http://www.edconrad.com
<
PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
http://www.edconrad.org