Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cylixd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!cylixd!charli
From: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Sorry Dan, but I don't have my barfbags handy
Message-ID: <201@cylixd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 16:33:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: cylixd.201
Posted: Tue Aug 20 16:33:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 15:43:51 EDT
References: <244@ihnet.UUCP> <485@ihu1m.UUCP> <529@leadsv.UUCP> <93@uw-june>
Reply-To: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Organization: RCA Cylix Communications , Memphis, TN
Lines: 17
Summary: 

In article <93@uw-june> gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) writes:
>  Only a very small number of creationists are biologists.

I would suspect that "Only a very small number of creationists are
-fill in the blank with whatever career you have in mind-", as there
is a wide diversity of possible careers.  More to the point, what
number of biologists are creationists?  Most of them that I have known
are.  (Please note that this is based on personal observation, not 
statistical study.  I admit that the biologists I know may not 
represent a statistically valid sample, so I will not draw any universal
conclusions.)

(Of course, that depends on how you define "creationist".  If a
creationist is one who believes the universe was created in 
accordance with Bishop Usher's calculations, they aren't creationists.
But if a creationist is one who believes that "In the beginning, God 
created the heavens and the earth", they are.)