John W. Burgeson (
Mon, 31 Mar 1997 17:48:02 -0500

Murphy wrote (about who cares about science/faith issues): "Not _that_
true. A new member of our congregation approached me after a sermon in
which I had given passing reference to evolution in a
positive way. She is an elderly woman who is intelligent but is not a
scientist. "I was so glad you said that," was her comment. "That other
way never made any sense to me!"

My comment, George, was about the majority -- a avst majority, IMO. Your
anecdotal reference to one "new member" does little to challenge that

You added: "And - the recent "Heaven's Gate" disaster is just 1 example of
intelligent people who deeply want a religion which has some connection
with the scientific picture of the world. The connection they made was
sad & bizarre, but that just means that we have to show people how it can
be done in a better way."

Somehow I find it difficult to understand how the case of 39 or so
"intelligent" (?) crazies has much to do with the issue either.

"And again - I don't think the Pope would have made his recent statement on
evolution if he didn't think that this was an important issue for the
future of the church."

You have a better case with this line of argument.

"Science & technology will become more, not less, important. The faith
will seem increasingly irrelevant & obstructunist to non-believers, & those
who grow up in the church & learn about science will continue to drift
away, if we don't address these issues. We may disagree on _how_ those
issues should be addressed, but we are deluding ourselves if we imagine
that they can safely be ignored. "

No disagreement from here, of course. But don't let us kid ourselves that
these are the most important issues. That they are the ones we all here
have passion for -- sure -- otherwise we wouldn't BE here. We'd be off
(maybe) on some other LISTSERV fighting & discussing other issues. Some of
which ARE more importantthan the ones we discuss here.