Ron Gatrelle gatrelle at
Thu Jan 10 15:08:28 EST 2002

----- Original Message -----
From: "John R. Grehan" <jrg13 at>
To: <Leps-l at>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: THE LIST - FINAL

> see Leps-L as any _practical_ forum for such a debate.   The sum of this
>that just because we "creationist" are silent here it does not mean (and
>should not be taken) as acquiescing to pure Darwinism
>Ron Gatrelle
> I hope this is not intended to imply that 'Darwinism' is the entire
> preserve of evolution. There are non-Darwinian research programs in
> evolutionary theory - of which panbiogeography is at least one.
> John Grehan
> Frost Entomological Museum
> Pennsylvania State University
> Department of Entomology
> 501 ASI Building
> University Park, PA 16802. USA.

John - Good post. This again illustrates why follow-up "clarification"
posts are needed and not knee-jerk assumption posts.  The difference is
talking with someone rather that _at_ someone.  So I am glad you posted a
thought that many others probably have too (or should have had).  Which
gives me the opportunity to redirect any misconstrument on the part of
others, or inadequate and thus misdirectional communication on my part.
(Which is why we post to group not individuals.)

So, I will expand my remarks.  Evolution is an enormous and complex field
as it is so multifaceted as John correctly points out (something I think we
creationists need to be more aware of which is that while Darwinianism =
evolution, evolution does not = Darwinianism).   My use of Darwinian slime
(=primeval ooze) based evolution was from one broad oversimplified
thought -- the base area of disagreement of those who hold to a Creator vs.
those who hold there was/is no Creator. This micro conflict encompasses the
singular issue counterpoints of:  A)  The soup was all naturally produced
and the resultant life was all spontaneous and thus without any "intellect
driven force"   vs.  B)  That be it at the point of soup or much later in a
material/biological state, it was all by "intellect driven force" that the
ingredients were determined, the right temperature set, and the stirring of
the soup that brought about the life (living things).

To everyone.  This is not a creation/evolution debate.  "We" have already
agreed to disagree.  These posts so far by 3 of us have just expressed
individual perspectives and thoughts.  If there comes a "yah, but you are
wrong"  -- then there is subjective debate (argument).  Which for leps-l is
not the place for it.   BUT, that does not change the fact that there are
two basic groups subscribed here -- those who think/believe the "Divine"
made butterflies and those that think/believe "Nature" made them.  Of
course if we were to ask the butterflies, they would say we were both
wrong.  It was their drunk on fermenting sap and flower pollen fornicating
parents that made them.  Of course the real egotistical among them might
say that ala Bill Gates style - they made themselves.  You know, fighting
off all those larval predators, then the entomologists, and such.

Oh how I yearn for a Larson cartoon of  leps on The Far Side.

Ron Gatrelle


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list