Article 24657 of talk.origins: From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Ron Dippold) Subject: Scientific Storkism Message-ID:
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:42:54 GMT Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Lines: 45 This hasn't been on for a while... Ovulation versus cretinism Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school. In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught. Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following: 1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist. 2. The alledged human foetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain. 3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn. 4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child. 5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing. 6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork. (Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Stork Science, University of Helsinki --- English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research, University of Alberta) -- If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
Back to Evolutionary Humor
Back to Evolution vs. SciCre page
Back to Evolutionary Biology page
Back to Online Zoologists home page