Posted by: Trackman 2000 Date: Thursday, March 11, 2010, at 7:43 p.m. IP Address: p4fd8aecd.dip.t-dialin.net
Now Playing: Quigley Down Under
I confess I find it somewhat amusing that the original controversy surrounding 'On the Origin of the Species' was in fact around the idea that mankind could have possibly come from an animal (rather than a deity, as the differentiation was seen at the time), yet had nothing at all to do with a conflict with the 'literal interpretation of creation as read in Genesis' that seems to be the big thing today. What most modern funamentalist Christians fail to realize is that literal interpretations of Genesis are actually quite new, having first appeared during the Protestant reformation in the 1500s and not gaining traction until the past couple of centuries. Even during Darwin's time, the idea that the Genesis story was meant to be taken literally rather than allegorically would likely have been scoffed in most circles, even those that actively condemmed him.
Eh, so it's a rather long-winded bit of amusing detail. But still, the irony tends to sit rather deep. Jews during the time of Christ, without any scientific evidence to support them, still believed the earth to be unfathomably old... yet today, the magic number is 6000 years. Is this progress or what?