Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew
From: lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Dave said it
Message-ID: <1065@ihuxr.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-May-84 13:23:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.1065
Posted: Fri May  4 13:23:05 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 5-May-84 02:14:35 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 20

My purpose in congratulating Dave Norris for his statement, "... it is
impossible for me to see how man could have evolved from chance," was not
to agree with the apparent sentiment being expressed. Please note the wording
that Dave chose, in particular the phrase " ... impossible for me to see ..."
I was congratulating him for the perhaps unintentioned accuracy of his
statement. The point is that this impossibilty may lie in Dave's emotional
commitment to his beliefs, rather than in any intrinsic difficulties of the
the theory of evolution.

Regarding the phrase "from chance", I think we can take this to mean
"by chance". However, the abandonment of an explicit teleology required
by the theory of evolution doesn't entail the view that humanity is an
entirely haphazard development.  Consider the title of Jaques Monod's
book, CHANCE AND NECESSITY, meaning chance isn't the whole story. The search
for meaning in evolution is difficult, but this shouldn't be surprising.
I find irony in the accusation that evolutionists "think they have all
the answers", when it is precisely the lack of answers that these accusers
are really frightened of.

	Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew