Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!brl-vgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-vgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: creation/evolution followups - (nf)
Message-ID: <2434@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 12-Mar-84 14:28:55 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.2434
Posted: Mon Mar 12 14:28:55 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Mar-84 08:58:56 EST
References: <6099@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 36

It seems to me that the following argument could be used to support
either creationism or evolution; has it ever been so used in the
literature on the subject? If so, in which way? If not, which of
the positions that follow the contention is right? (If either...)

***Given that:
At least half, and probably more, of the things human beings do
would be easier, faster, more accurate, and generally better if
we had more than two hands. At least three hands are needed to
manipulate most inanimate objects into the positions we want them
to be in. Survival would be enhanced if we had 3 or more hands.
***End postulate***

Pro-creationism: This proves that human beings were created, not
evolved -- if we had evolved, this obvious need would have been
filled by evolutionary mutations and two-handed humans would have
been supplanted by multi-handed mutants, who would by now be
in ascendance.   Since we have been placed here by God to suffer, due
to Original Sin, we only have two hands because more would make
life too easy.

Pro-evolution: If humans had been created by God, He would have
had the sense (being omniscient by definition) to create them
with more hands, as He also created the environment where more
than two hands are useful and sometimes necessary. Since we only
have two hands, we only have what evolution provided via the
path from proto-hominids, who only had the internal structure
to support four limbs, so any mutant with more limbs was
mal-adapted and died un-reproduced.

**********
I think there's something wrong with the arguments above, but I'm
not sure that there isn't something worthwhile in this sort of 
approach...

Will Martin