Honestly, it looks more like the new mascot for an expansion team.

I wouldn't make light of that sketch. I remember one night a bunch of us kids were camping in a farmer's pasture. About mid-night a creature like that came right up to the camp. Several of us saw it and....nevermind. You would have to have been there.

It looks like one of the Pokemon creatures my 7 year old draws. glad to see that Mr. Zanno still has a fertile imagination at his age and with his education.

Or maybe its a Bionicle.

It looks the the San Diego (nee KGB) Chicken designed by someone who's had a little too much mescaline, peyote, and tequila.

Ah stop beating this dead fish. God didn't make the world in six days with magic, deal with it.

Amos:

Ah, but that's not the question. And the failure to ask yourself the question answers the more important question, unquestionably.

Once upon a time... ... ...and that's how the Aztec Turkey got his scientist. Just so.

The End.

One of Terry Gilliam's greatest animations for Monty Python's Flying Circus went basically like this: At the end of the title sequence, the big foot came down with the usual raspberry. Then there was the sound of the winds of time blowing, as the foot gradually crumbled to bits, leaving only the big toe. It was slowly buried in sand. The toe was soon dug up and carried away to the British Museum, where the paleontologists did a careful reconstruction of what the creature looked like: a woolly mammoth with the toe in the place of its trunk.

Life imitates art.

Mr. Judd,

Pardon me for asking, but what is the question?

The minor question is whether we know anything about how life evolved beyond the fact that it did.

Mr. Judd,

We can identify certain mechanisms from observation and experiments, can't we? Gene mutation and such?

When you say "the minor question", does that mean that this is also not the question? Is there another, bigger question that is "the question" you meant in your reply to Amos above?

Mr. Kaiser:

Yes, we can mutate genes in a lab.

Yes, there's a bigger question than whether there's any evidence for the ideology of Darwinism.

Thank you very much for the information, Mr. Judd.

I'm afraid I'm still not quite clear on this: Could you tell me what "the question" is that you alluded to in your response to Amos above?

You make an excellent point about the ideology of Darwinism. Why should scientists indeed waste their time on procuring evidence for an ideology? I would much prefer that they examine the evidence and see where it leads.

Bingo! The big question is why Darwinists feel the need to cling to their ideology and deny Creation.

Mr. Judd,

a confounding question, to be sure. Yet denying Creation can't be all there is to it, as my parish seems to be filled with good and trustworthy Christians who also take on board Darwin's theory of evolution - do we still call it that today? I heard that it was some guy called Wallace who came up with it, and Darwin plagiarized it. Besides, Darwin wouldn't have known most of today's biology stuff, would he?

It seems to me these people are clearly not out to deny God, or to take up Darwinian atheism just so they can enter into heathenly hedonism. (Maybe one, no, two of them, but the point still stands.) They think that the evidence points there, to things that can be explained without God's direct involvement. I'm ashamed to admit that on occasion I find it difficult to find the words to argue against them. God did make nature, they say, so how can studying nature be wrong? I tell them it can be wrong if you do it without keeping God foremost in your thoughts at all times. One of them howled when I said that. I wasn't pleased.

Looking at your big question again, it occurs to me that the answer to that may be surprisingly easy: doesn't everyone cling to their ideology in some way? I mean most people. Some people are open-minded, I think.

An edifying conversation, Mr. Judd. I thank you.

Yet Darwinism is incompatible with Judeo-Christianity.

Mr. Judd,

But when you say Darwinism, you mean atheism or something, right? Because one of my fellow parishioners brought up what he called deistic or theistic evolutionism. And she said that was compatible with God (the Judeo-Christian one), just not with Him creating the world in six days.

I feel confident enough in my faith that I can reason that the six days may be about not six literal days, but some kind of general time passing. Like I don't know if God's going to be a stickler about Judgement Day taking 24 hours, you know?

That seemed to make sense to my friend Marie. At least she smiled and dropped the subject.

Best wishes -- Mr. Kaiser

Theisitic evolution is Creation. Darwinism maintains that evolution proceeds exclusively by random natural means.

Mr. Judd,

So theisitic evolution IS Creation! That's very good to know. It's like science plus God. Could anything make more sense?

I didn't mean to suggest that Marie was evil or a hedonist for talking about this stuff, by the way. She's very nice, believe me. And pretty.