On 12-15-97 Mark Bloss wrote to Day Brown... 
 MB>  If evolution takes place, then that does not discount a creative 
 MB> force 
 MB>  bringing it into existence.  And if evolution does NOT happen - does 
 MB> not  
 MB>  _force_ a creative scenario either.  They are separate - and 
 MB> completely  unrelated to each other. 
 Egggszactly!  What I see of the universe is that it *appears* to 
be 15 billion, or whatever years old.  Whether it *is* or not, is 
not relevant.  My problem with creationism is not that it says the 
universe is 6000 years old, but that when I examine the effects of 
stuff like radio-active decay, erosion, rock strata, earthquakes, 
volcanos, etc. it is easier for me to understand the mechanisms 
as they appear to be going on now, if I assume evolutionary views 
are correct. 
 
Likewise, when I read ancient authors, I do not know that the work 
was composed by a creature like myself, but assuming that, I reach 
an understanding of the nature of mankind of consistency.  I read 
Herodutus, who tells me of statues that shed her tears and blood, 
surrounded by throngs of believers, only her name is Demeter, not 
Mary, who would not be born for another 500 years.  And, when he 
goes out of his way to examine the statue, it is not doing that 
right now.  Miracles then are as they are now, mysterious, but of 
no more proof of divinity than fossils of evolution. 
 
'bringing it into existence.' A line from the ancient Bagavad Gita 
if I ever saw one. That is what God does, he is still doing it; we 
all live on a holodeck. 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.58 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------