Neil / Mark / religious content

Stan Gorodenski stanlep at
Fri Apr 12 20:50:25 EDT 2002

Thanks for the warning. I went no further and deleted all threads to
this message.


Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> 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
> alone.
> _______________________
> 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"
> scientists.
> 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:


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list