Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site oliveb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!oliveb!long
From: long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Why Creation?
Message-ID: <388@oliveb.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Apr-85 18:55:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliveb.388
Posted: Sat Apr 27 18:55:50 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 3-May-85 03:26:52 EDT
Reply-To: long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern)
Organization: the Sprawl
Lines: 21

cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer's wife) writes:
| happen to produce.  Thus, evolution could be viewed as a natural law, 

    I wasn't aware that evolution is a natural law, I thought it is a symptom
    of natural processes.

| C's in such opposite corners.  Science (the knowledge of the design
| and how it works) and creationism (the belief in a a loving Creator) 

    Your belief in a loving creator is fine with me, but it seems that most of
the C's in the far corner over there are more interested in revealing to us
heathen how Genesis is the literal (or not *so* literal) truth of how this
universe came to be than in showing to us E's why the belief in their creator
and his method of creating works as a better model of the surface characteris-
tics of natural processes than the theories on which the concept of evolution
is based.
						Dave Long
-- 
	gnoL evaD						Beware of
{msoft,allegra,gsgvax,fortune,hplabs,idi,ios,			Black ICE
 nwuxd,ihnp4,tolrnt,tty3b,vlsvax1,zehntel}!oliveb!long