Creationists cannot be put into one camp any more than can evolutionists.
Some creationists accept the Theory of Evolution, but that it was guided by
the Creator.  At the other extreme are those that believe in a literal six
day creation in which all animal/plant groups (Phylums) were created
separately.  There are also different variations between these tow extremes.
Evolutionists also vary in their beliefs.  There are those who accept only
the microevolution processes and those who buy into the entire evolution
concept.  Our own beloved friend and mentor, the late Dr. R. Tucker Abbott
struggled with these questions himself.  He was a self-avowed evolutionist,
but he also believed the process was guided by a Divine Being.  He and I had
numerous discussions on this topic in the last five years before his death.
The bottom line is that all of us are seeking some concept of the truth
whether we hold to creation or evolution, but the real truth of the matter
(pardon the pun) is that if the line were to be drawn in the sand, I
seriously doubt all of us could be placed in the creationist camp or the
evolutionist camp.  There are many variations of belief and at least as many
reasons why we espouse our beliefs.
    I can only speak for myself, but the question raised takes the discussion
from the realm of science and places it in the realm of religion.  For me
that is no problem.  I see no conflicts between my religion and the
scientific discipline I practice.  It has been said in this thread that both
creationists and evolutionists stand in awe of nature.  I believe this to be
true.  As others have stated, I see no evidence that I evolved from anything
other than an ancient humanoid (no I am not accepting ape ancestry), but
should imperical evidence be discovered I would not be shaken in my beliefs.
We all deal in that which is known (knowledge) and that which is not known
(faith).
    My opinion is that both evolutionists and creationists make too big a
deal over concepts that may never be proven or disproven.  Each group holds
to their beliefs
with the tenacity of a religious zealot.  If you do not believe me, review
the current thread.

Doug Shelton
Mobile, Alabama


In a message dated 8/18/99 3:17:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> Question to Creationists who believe in "microevolution"
>  If differentiating micro and macroevolution (as Paul asks, whatever that
is)
> is
>  a way to reconcile the fact that changes in species  does occur with the
>  existence of a divine creator, then how would such a creationist consider
> man?
>  The bible says God put us here in his own image, but then would that
> creationist
>  admit that he put us here as an "amoeba" or a primitive mammal and then
let
> us
>  evolve or is man an exception and we were put here just as we are?
>  (Or as the Archbishop of Canterbury's wife (?) exclaimed after reading
> Darwin's
>  claims - "Man descended from apes!  Let us pray it is not true, or at
least
> that
>  it not become widely known!")
>