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.)