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