Tom, in a very young Richard Dawkins video, "The Royal Institution Lectures for Children: Growing up in the Universe", he explained to children how the nerve cell evolved that was sensitive to light and how it changed over time within and between animal groups. This was an evolutionary advantage. I agree with what you say. I am not sure how "I see because I have eyes" is different than what I said, but I do understand what you say. My point is, each organ evolved over eons of time and produced natural effects that give an advantage to species. I meant to imply that seeing is not dirty, nor is sexuality.
Thanks, Joan, I don't remember where I first heard of a one-cell mutation that evolved to eyes. It might have been in a comment about Dawkins' explanation.
I don't know who once said, evolution is wasteful. It is; for every mutation that benefited an organism, there had to have been maybe hundreds that fatally harmed organisms.
While I'm dealing with exacting uses of language, many academic folk refer to influential ideas as "seminal". That seems like a good place for a word developed from female processes, maybe "fallopian". Any thoughts?
More. Warning! Metaphors Ahead!
I'm not picking on you, Joan. During twelve years in Catholic schools, nuns and priests had poured so much "concrete" around what they'd planted that the first fractures required a traumatic event. The big pieces fell of their own weight; with broom and dustpan I'm still sweeping away sand-grain-size pieces.
I don't recall hearing anything opposed to evolution, but when I got to the University of Florida I visited the museum and for the first time saw the skeletal structure similarities. Forelimbs, even wings, having the same number of bones and similar connections to nearby bones, etc. "How can humans and animals not be related?" I asked myself.
Catholicism itself went next; agnosticism replaced it. Its bizarre teachings about sex took a marriage to a never-was-a-Catholic woman to sweep away the big pieces. I was still clearing away pebble-sized pieces when I joined the SF Sex Information community (www.sfsi.org). Many there had also quit Catholicism and I saw SFSI as a wonderful remedy for my twelve years in C. schools.
I don't have a particle of belief in a life after death but I joke about a next life in which I'm a part-time lawyer, part-time massage therapist.
I read every SCOTUS ruling about church and state and many are about attempts to put the genesis delusion into public schools. I'm wary of words that suggest design, and so I did as you do: I spoke my truth.
Oh, I see what you are saying. Writing, as I did, implied design. Oh my goodness, NO! That is not what I meant. Thank you for catching this. The very last thing I want to convey is a design by a designer. Thank you!
"Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design like to point to what they call the "irreducible complexity" of the eye as proof of the existence of a designer/creator. In other words, they like to say that complex components of our physiology like the eye could not have come about through a process of evolution because they are not of any use until everything is in place and working. In this excerpt from his lecture "Growing Up In The Universe: Climbing Mount Improbable", Professor Dawkins demonstrates how something complex like the eye can indeed evolve."
See all five "Growing Up In The Universe" lectures by Richard Dawkins in their entirety here: