Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!hao!ward
From: ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Origin of life
Message-ID: <1392@hao.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 17:14:18 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1392
Posted: Mon Mar 11 17:14:18 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 05:26:54 EST
References: <14600002@hpfcrs.UUCP> <1074@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 21

> Few people would claim that the action
> of gravity is due to a constant divine intervention in the workings of the
> universe.  Rather, it is generally understood that gravity is a natural law
> and the religious among us see God as its author.  Why then is the natural
> origin of life and its subsequent evolution seen as an atheistic hypothesis?

Genesis does not have anything to say about gravity,  so there
can be no conflict.  Genesis has too much to say about the origin
of life.  If any theory of evolution is correct, then Genesis
is wrong.  This means that the Bible is wrong.  If the Bible
cannot be wrong then either science is wrong, or evolution is
not science, and/or the Biblical account of creation is science.

This is a kind of dilemma I hope I never have to resolve.
-- 

Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO  80307