Neil / Mark / religious content

Ron Gatrelle gatrelle at
Fri Apr 12 01:47:48 EDT 2002

I changed the subject line as I think that is proper when threads go
outside of the original topic.  Here we are way outside of it.  Neil
introduced a religious point (creation) and it is continued here.  So if
not interested - delete now.  Also, don't complain if you go ahead and read
it.  We will just have to agree to disagree.  Neil will likely want to post
one more on this ( for any clarification of his personal views) and then
that should be it.  We can state our positions but we should not argue (to
convince - or denigrate) on this one.  I state my view - and it is mine

Neil, I have a couple of questions.  Not trying to stirr anything up.
Just some expansion of your thoughts.  When you said

" _However_ the evidence from this list shows that there is often a
lamentable lack of logical and scientific thinking amongst certain
collectors. "

Is the reason you referred only to collectors (vs. say lepsters) simply
because you were talking to one, or does this reflect a view that
"collectors" in general don't utilize "scientific thinking"  while other
lepsters (in general) do?   I think you meant the former, but it would be
easy for (paranoid ;-) collectors who read that and perceive that this
indicates an overall prejudice on your part.  So please expand the thought
for clarification.

You also said:
 "You [Mark] believe in an obvious, hoax; a phony scam that seeks to
deprive the world of proper scientific thinking. The so called "creation
science". It has been _proven_ beyond the slightest glimmer of doubt to to
be utterly false.

" The bible _cannot_ be litterally true as you assert. It is full of things
that are plainly incorrect. This doesn't invalidate its morality but it
_cannot_ be litterally true."

"Mark. to be utterly frank. You may like to call yourself scientific but
until you drop your belief in this phony, crooked, tribal anti-science no
proper scientist will regard your beliefs as founded in science."

In saying this I get the impression you don't think that anyone who agrees
with the Divine Creation of the Universe and/or the literalness of
Scripture can be a proper scientist.  Is that correct?  If so, then you
realize you call to question people like Dr. Don Lafontaine who is the Lep.
Soc. president, a Canadian National Collection researcher,  systematist,
born-again, Pentecostal, Christian, and lay minister.  His theology and
mine are virtually the same, by the way.  We are both tongue talkin,
evangelical, fundamentalists.  I don't see that our "religion" or belief in
the God of the world's Jews, Moslems, and Christians as The Creator has
anything to do with our "science" in dealing with Lepidoptera.

If this is not what you meant to say please clarify.  In emails we do not
always get across what we really mean or think.  I would hate for you to be
misunderstood by those subscribed here who belong to the God-of-Abraham
faiths and as such are thus "creationists," and by virtue of that one
thing, think that you are saying they are all incapable of being "proper"

Ron Gatrelle

PS.  If that is your opinion, I will disagree, but allow you to have it
(not argue the point).   I just want to make sure that if that is how
broadly you view this issue (or not) that you are correctly understood by
all.  Now, the reason I have no problem with you holding that position is
that if there is no creation, just pure natural evolution, then you would
be totally correct.  This whole tread is way off leps as it is, but I will
add that if there is no creation then there is no God (in the
Jewish/Moslem/Christian tradition) for that is the central element that
makes Him such in those faiths.  Thus, in Christianity, anyone who does not
believe in God as creator can not truly be Christian.  They are just
religiously pseudochristians.  Millions of people are very good and moral
persons without being involved in a formal religion - so why belong to a
Christ Faith (God was incarnate) where there was/is no such thing?    (No
answer wanted or needed.)

PPS   I do understand that Neil is not agaist these "religions" or the
people in them  -  just creationism and a Divine Creator as fact.


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list