Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins,net.flame
Subject: Re: Creationists are stupid
Message-ID: <137@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Nov-84 19:16:20 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.137
Posted: Wed Nov 14 19:16:20 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Nov-84 03:46:52 EST
References: <447@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 41
Xref: sdcsvax net.origins:525 net.flame:6565

> > 
> > I have to agree. While I wouldn't actually consider myself a Christian,
> > I would say that a majority of the "Christians" I know have little
> > complaint with evolution. They consider the Bible an example, not a
> > rule, which seems to be a major problem with the way the bible is
> > translated these days.
> 
> Since you are not a Christian, and since you quote the "Christianity"
> of your acquaintances, it may be reasonable to assume that they are
> not Christians, either.  If that is true, then your statement about
> what Christians believe is not valid.  I *am* a Christian, and I
> know plenty of people who are Christians (without quotes); the
> overwhelming majority have plenty of "complaint with evolution".
> 

What is this: a Christian cannot have non-Christian friends?!?
Or if they can why is it "reasonable" to assume a non-Christian's
friends are non-Christian. However I *am* a Christian, and I
do not find any conflict between science and faith.  Because
I see them as answering *different* questions.
The Bible merely asserts that God created the World, not *how*
He did so; evolutionary science merely says that evolution has occured,
and does not say anything about God one way or the other.

> 
> If it were so obvious, I would agree that evolution is the best
> explanation.  Perhaps it is; but I don't think so.  Certainly if it
> *is* the best explanation, it is by no means obvious how it occurs.
> If it were, evolutionists wouldn't be at such pains to disagree
> with each other (that's not a slam at evolution, or science.  But
> it simply is not well understood how evolution occurs, if it occurs).

I *must* disagree here - disagreement about detail mechanisms
has *no* bearing on the general thesis of evolutionary theory.
The basic observational facts are not well explained by *any*
current theory except evolutionary theory.  Furthermore there
is more agreement among evolutionary scientists than you think
even on detail mechanisms.  The main disagreement is really only
about the relative importance of the various mechanisms.

Stanley Friesen