I certainly agree that "Darwinism" itself is treated in a context not unlike a
religion.  For me it is the context that I use to put things in perpective. One
could say it is my "Faith". It 'rings true" for me as other religions "ring true"
for others.  And acceptance of things we cannot prove plays a role in both (I
won't argue the extent).
Oh, and I hope no-one thinks I am trying to pick a quarrel.  I don't wish to
debate something no one can prove.  I am just honestly curious about how those
among us on this List who also believe in a Divine Creator view man's particular
path and origins on this earth.

[log in to unmask] wrote:

> 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!")
> >