Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cbscd5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!we13!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscd5!pmd
From: pmd@cbscd5.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.misc
Subject: Re: Faith in Evolution.
Message-ID: <245@cbscd5.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Jul-83 15:36:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscd5.245
Posted: Tue Jul  5 15:36:14 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Jul-83 17:58:48 EDT
References: <220@cbscd5.UUCP>, <113@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs , Columbus
Lines: 45


	random processes are the driving force for spontaneous
	generation. Natural selection is only applicable to living systems.

    Not so.  See reference below.

	no complete chemical process is known. (If on knows of detailed
	molecular arguments of the self organization of matter starting
	from Miller's amino acid soup to a simple bacteria, please at the
	very least cite the references.)

    John Holland.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems.
    University of Michigan Press. 1977.

What page(s)?
As far as I can see Holland's book does not even mention spontaneous
generation.  His book is a mathematical analysis of the adaptation process.
He makes applications to Biology (genetics, i.e. living systems), but these
applications are based on current evolutionary assumptions.
The author of the original article requested arguments for the self
organization of inanimate matter (Miller as gotten as far as producing amino
acids, although his method has been brought into question) into a living,
reproducing, simple bacteria.  If random processes are not the driving
force for spontaneous generation, what is?   Some kind of intelligence?
Please, when you cite a reference, at least give the page numbers and a
brief description of how the reference applies.  No one likes being sent
on a wild goose chase.

	...They seem to consider both sides of the issue in an objective manner.
	Both evolutionists and creationist are encouraged to contribute
	articles and letters.  The organization seems to have won the respect
	of both evolutionists and creationists.

    You've got to be kidding.  This sample was so slanted I couldn't
    walk straight for a week.

It depends on your point of reference, doesn't it?  One could also say that
you may have been walking at a slant all along and the correction felt funny
to you.  Seriously, I think you ought to consider the publication as a
whole before you make such a judgement.  The article I selected is only
a sample to illustrate the point that belief in evolution requires a fair
amount of faith, as does belief in creation.

Paul Dubuc