evolution (Re: Disproving theory)

[Guest guest]

>

Excellent response, point-by-point, in your other post.

> The female representation makes more sense, given that female is the

> primary gender (male is a mutated version of female),

I don't think this is true. The first sexual reproduction

consisted of cells sharing DNA with each other before

dividing. In that case, it didn't matter which gave and

which received (or perhaps, each did both). Eventually

some species developed a system where some individuals were

always donors (male) and other always receivers (female).

I believe it's true that human embryos start out as more

female in appearance. But in genetics it's pre-determined

which gender a given embryo will become. Just like it's

pre-determined (barring developmental problems, birth

defects, and the like) that we'll end up with certain

features that we don't possess in the first month or two

after conception. Early on it looks like a fish (or at

least a fish embryo); humans are definitely much more than " mutated fish " .

> and that " female "

> is more associated with birth and creation than male. The Wiccan

> Goddess, the creative power, countered by Pan, the opposite of the

> Goddess, the male, who is horned and represented by the inverted

> pentagram, is the representation of destruction. But he's not evil;

More specifically, the Goddess represents the continuance

of nature, its eternal aspects. The God represents the

yearly cycles, which involve much creation as well as

destruction (in the western European / eastern North

American climate where the religion developed).

> Wicca is definitely a gynocentric belief system, and that makes more

> sense than a paternalistic deity.

To me (a Pagan, but not Wiccan or, really, any other

well-established flavor thereof), it doesn't make a great

deal of sense to attach human / mammalian gender identities

to any aspect of nature. Sex (normal male / female, as

we think of it) is how a *fraction* of the living beings on

*one planet* reproduces. That's all we know. If there are

beings on the second planet of Alpha Centauri B, who's to

say how they do it -- three genders, hermaphrodites,

something I'm not capable of thinking of? And what does

this have to do with the tremendous fraction of the

universe that does not consist of living organisms?

The most egregious example of my challenging Pagan gender

division ideas came on a newsgroup once, where a woman said

that the universe is divided along gender lines " down to

the molecular level " . I challenged her to explain the

exact difference between a little boy water molecule and a

little girl water molecule; I didn't get a reply.

The cycles of the universe are there; I believe that they

are beautiful and sacred. Any analogies with our human

gender divisions are at best forced and imperfect.

Doug