Re: [asa] observational vs. theoretical differences in scenarios; a direct question

From: Cameron Wybrow <>
Date: Tue Jun 30 2009 - 15:10:15 EDT


If Barr is willing to say explicitly and without fudging, "I assert that the evolutionary process is guided by God", then he can call evolution "Darwinian" if he wants, even though I would prefer another word, as would John West. If I were conversing with Barr and understood what he meant, I would try to persuade him to use my language, which I believe is the more historically conventional, but if he preferred not to go along with me, I would not quarrel about his words. Agreement in substance is more important than agreement in terminology.

The reason that I have made such an issue of "Darwinian = unguided" is that a number of people here, and a number of TEs elsewhere, have *not* been clear that they believe that evolutionary process is guided by God. Their language has been ambiguous, often seeming to say that evolution is guided and unguided simultaneously. They speak of "fully gifted nature" or say that "macroevolution may be entirely within the powers of creatures" or say all kinds of other things which would imply that no guidance is necessary, or that God might have guided evolution but probably in fact didn't, while *also* saying that ultimately God is behind it all. Following Darwin's original intent, such a confusion would be impossible, because he clearly was advocating an unguided process. But we have handy alternatives for "fully gifted nature" which, unlike Darwinian evolution, give a definable role to God, e.g., front-loaded versions of evolution such as Denton's. So why call divinely planned, fully-gifted naturalistic evolution "Darwinian", when we can call it front-loaded, fine-tuned, Dentonian, etc.? Why be unclear when we can be clear?

I suspect that many people here believe something like this: Darwinian processes -- variation and natural selection and so on -- plus other stochastic processes can explain a great deal of evolutionary change, but it is likely that God also did some steering or guiding, so that macroevolution is the resultant of the two vectors of "special divine action" and "general divine action" (the power which lies behind natural laws and processes). And that view is not incompatible with ID, or at least with some versions of ID. I am just trying to get people to say that this is what they believe, if it is in fact what they believe.

I like Don Winterstein's "garden" analogy today. It allows for evolution to have a very large naturalistic component, including some Darwinian mechanisms, yet makes plain that evolution includes some intelligent design, just as gardens (as opposed to wild tangles of plants) don't arise except out of intelligent design. So I think Don has given the clearest choice so far (#3), though I accept George Murphy and Terry Gray's #4 as a coherent answer as well. And I think that Don's answer, along with George's and Ted's and probably also Terry's (though I still find Terry's formulation confusing -- I never could grasp Calvin-speak), is at least in principle compatible with ID.

I don't know where David Campbell sits. He seems to think that guidance or steering (as I mean the term) is probably not necessary, and that God probably made no special interventions (using my sense of the word "special", not David's). So it seems that he should be choosing either #1 or #2. But if chooses #1, how does God control the process? And if he chooses #2, that's fine with me, but then he would be the first TE I've known to explicitly embrace #2. Part of the problem is that David and I are using "steering" and "guidance" differently; by steering or guidance I am talking about willed, specific, local interventions which divert the course of nature; his asteroid example appears to me to be an example not of steering or guidance but of front-loading. The asteroid is just following the path which the laws of nature, operative since the Big Bang, dictate. So maybe David is really a #2 kind of guy, but sounds like a #3 because of the way he uses the word "guidance".

Regarding your remark about the misunderstanding that would ensue if I were to deny Darwinian processes to "the average person", what sort of "average person" are we talking about? Someone who can barely grasp even the most basic abstract concepts, and has only the faintest clue what "evolution" means? Or someone with a decent enough education to follow a discussion of evolutionary terminology, and make appropriate distinctions? I generally have no trouble, with non-stubborn people who have a basic grasp of general science and a basic prior idea of evolution, in getting them to see the difference between (1) "evolution", meaning a process of change over time, and (2) various conflicting notions about the *causes* of evolution, including Darwinian notions. However, it is true that some ID Darwin-critics are not as clear as they could be about this, and I've mentioned previously one who attacks "evolution" when he means "Darwin's theory of evolution". I have tried to persuade him to change his vocabulary, but so far my persuasive powers have been inadequate. I mention this to indicate that it is not only on the TE front that I am working; I'm also trying to get ID people not to introduce unnecessary areas of conflict by employing language that implies that ID is "against evolution".


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Schwarzwald
  Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] observational vs. theoretical differences in scenarios; a direct question

  Heya Cameron,

  One thing that never fails to trip me up when you address this topic is that you talk about "Darwinian processes" or "Darwinian mechanisms", but - since you willingly admit that a guided process or mechanism can look stochastic - the observed and (sans-metaphysics) theorized processes and mechanisms don't really seem to be an issue. A lot of people, even TEs, hear "Darwinian processes/mechanisms" and think mutations, neutral drift, exaptation, etc. If they're fans of Margulis and others, maybe even symbiosis and so on. But you're not questioning these things, as near as I can tell. You're questioning if they're guided either via direct intervention or front-loading or possibly other ways.

  I know this may seem so pedantic, but again, take a good look at John West v Stephen Barr. Barr did not mince words - he believes in guidance, and a form of guidance that's so strong that I'm sure plenty of ID proponents would blink at the prospect. But he's still going to defend Darwinism and Darwinian processes/mechanisms, at least in name, because he has a certain idea of what those words effectively mean. What's more, he implicitly argues that most people take those words to mean mutations, selection, etc, regardless of whether or not they're guided. I can tell you from personal experience, if you deny "Darwinian processes" to the average person, they will take you as questioning those fundamentals, guided or not. If you argue with an opportunist NA, they will do their damndest to leave people with the impression that you are questioning those fundamentals.

  I agree with a lot of your TE criticisms and your general direction on these topics. But one criticism of ID proponents I'd throw back at you - there is this habit of demanding TEs, even TEs like Barr who are refreshingly blunt in their acceptance of guidance, condemn and deny Darwinism or "Darwinian [processes, mechanisms, theory, etc]". I can see where they're coming from on this, but all told it's not necessarily the best move to make. Sure, I'm speaking pragmatically, but ID proponents are no strangers to pragmatism (hence that big tent).

  On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Cameron Wybrow <> wrote:


    1. I *can* imagine a guided process that looks like a stochastic process. You can consider it a sub-type of #3 if you wish, or you can call it #4 if you want, but your #4 is really just a special version of #3 -- #3 with the specification that it must be a #3 that looks like a #1. (I was trying to keep it simple, and guided is guided, whether it looks guided or not, just as a foreign agent is a foreign agent, whether he appears to be a loyal citizen or not.)

    In fact, I have said repeatedly that this (your #4, my #3) seems to be the position of Ted Davis, George Murphy, and Robert Russell, and I've said that this position is at least potentially compatible with ID. After all, neither Behe nor Dembski demands that the individual mutations be knowable as divine special actions; it is only the overall pattern of mutations where they expect or hope to find a detectable pattern. If your position is close to that of the above-named TE gentlemen, then your view is potentially harmonizable with some versions of ID as well. (I say potentially, because there are other considerations.)

    2. The point is that Darwin did not envision your special #3-that-looks-like-#1. When he said #1, he meant it, with no ifs, ands, or buts. That is why his letters about God and chance and so on reveal tension as he wrestles with the implications of #1 for religion.

    I of course agree with you that #1 seems atheistic, or at best deistic. That is my whole point -- that Darwinism (as opposed to simply "evolution"), being inherently either atheistic or deistic -- read Darwin if you doubt it -- cannot be compatible with orthodox theology. That is what ID people have been trying to say to certain TEs for years now, and it isn't getting through. TEs insist on sanitizing Darwinism for Christian use, while retaining the name Darwinism as if nothing important had been altered. (See John West's comparison with "Christian Marxism", which is a perfect analogy. "Christian Marxism" is nonsense, though "Christian socialism" is not. Similarly, "Theistic Darwinism" is nonsense, though "theistic evolution" is not.)

    3. You say that Collins and Lamoureux would deny #1. Well, Lamoureux recently in a letter to Coyne indignantly denied that he had ever spoken of "guidance" and scorned the notion as "tinkering" (or words to that effect). He did not specify that the tinkering was OK if it was done below the quantum level so that evolution would merely *look* stochastic. He rejected guidance as tinkering, period, without qualification. I am sure he has his reasons, and I hope that in his books he will explain his position. But as far as I can tell, he agrees with #1, while somehow maintaining that it does not imply atheism or deism.

    As for Collins, I tried to find an explicit statement regarding guidance in his book, and couldn't find one. If he indicated that he believe that God was guiding the process, he did it very ambiguously, and in such a qualified way that it was hard to tell if he meant yes or no. I would certainly deny the propriety of using the word "guidance", if it does not refer to an action of God that actually makes a difference to the outcome. If "guidance" is just a pious theological gloss meaning nothing more than that God is ultimately responsible for everything, it is a meaningless word and should not be used in the context I am discussing. I had the strong impression that "guidance", if Collins ever even uses the word, is just such an empty theological gloss, explanatorily redundant because Darwinian mechanisms are fully adequate.

    Miller denies guidance on even days, and asserts it in some vague way on odd days. In his Darwinian moods, he asserts #1 without qualification. (He said he was 100% Darwinist and 100% Catholic simultaneously, remember.)

    Ayala is simply vague, a bad theologian (must have gone to a crumby Catholic seminary), but from his statements the only reasonable inference is #1.

    4. Your objection here:

      I object to the phrase *what it otherwise would never have produced*. (In my view nature doesn't produce anything apart from God's guiding hand.)

    -- is continually made by people here, and is most irritating, as it shows an apparent failure to acknowledge a very basic distinction held by both Catholic and Protestant theology, regarding the difference between God's normal action and God's special action. Aquinas and Calvin would agree with you that God sustains all, including the laws of nature which give us sun and rain and life with great regularity. But they would *also* agree that God sometimes acts extraordinarily. The point is that God does not have to act extraordinarily to make the sun rise every morning -- his normal action is enough. But if God wants to make the sun stop for a few hours (just for fun, taking the Joshua passage literally, though it was probably meant to be a poetic overstatement), he can do so by an extraordinary action.

    There is nothing complicated about this, but for some reason TEs like to make it more complicated, I think so that they can avoid the direct question about evolution, a direct question which everyone on earth -- except TEs -- fully understands. The direct question is *whether God needs to do anything beyond the ordinary action by which he sustains nature (gravity, friction, the laws of chemistry, etc.) in order to make the macroevolutionary process happen*. I hear some TEs saying a firm yes, some TEs saying a firm no, and others saying a firm maybe. Normally, I cannot tell, without intense and exhaustive probing, if the answer is yes, no, or maybe, which says something about TEs' communications skills in comparison with those of atheist Darwinists and ID people, both of whom I understand easily and instantly. That is why I set up the scenario, to force a clear answer, though I knew that some would try to question the question and thus would not give a satisfying answer.

    The question is, I repeat: *Does God need to do anything other than his ordinary divine action (which sustains nature) in order for macroevolution to occur?* If your answer is "No", you should be picking #1 or #2. If your answer is "Yes", you should be picking #3. I think you are answering "Yes", because you have picked #3 (or #4 if you will), but I am not sure. So maybe in addition to saying #4, you could also answer the above question for me.

    5. I agree with you that there is no such thing as a stochastic process from God's perspective. But if you follow through on the logic of that, you will see that it makes no sense for God to "use" a Darwinian process to create species, including man, because the whole point of Darwinism is to be stochastic. If God has arranged the chains of causation so that the result which we observe is inevitable, then he has in effect front-loaded evolution, and then Denton's description of nature is correct and Darwin's description of nature is wrong, and TEs should not pussyfoot around trying to salvage Darwin, but should say that he was in error in a fundamental way. If "Darwinian process" is to mean anything other than a verbal deception, it means an open-ended process, which can guarantee no result. (See Gould's famous remark about rewinding the tape.) If God wanted to gamble on whether or not man would appear, he would have used a purely Darwinian process. If God wasn't in the mood to gamble, he never would have used a (purely) Darwinian process. He would have simply created what he wanted directly, or used a front-loaded evolutionary process, or would have interfered frequently with a Darwinian process, thus rendering it no longer a pure Darwinian process. So, did God want to gamble? No need to speculate: the Bible and the tradition tell us no. Therefore, he would not have used a pure Darwinian process. The logic seems to me inescapable.

    6. My primary interest here is in *what TEs think is really happening in nature*, not in the epistemological question about how #1 could be distinguished from #3-that-looks-like-#1, which is why I bracketed that question out in my preamble. I don't deny that that question must be dealt with, but past experience has shown that trying to deal with that first generates only conflict between ID and TE. The only way that I can see of overcoming *unnecessary* conflict between ID and TE is for both sides to drop all the academic caveats and feints and anticipatory moves, and simply and directly say what they actually think is happening in nature. Not "what science can determine" but "what is actually happening". Verbal fencing about how or whether we can scientifically distinguish #1 from #3-which-looks-like-#1 can come later. For now I just want to know whether TEs think the reality of nature is #3 or #1.

    If both ID and TE people in fact believe that evolution is a *guided* process, and that it would not happen under the "ordinary" action of God, without some extraordinary prompting, then it is important to establish that. Once that area of agreement is established, areas of disagreement can be dealt with later, for example, whether or not design can be detected, and if so, how. If there were a consensus regarding guidance, such disagreements could be conducted amicably. But TEs seem to want to prevent the common ground from being found first. They seem to want to tackle the differences first. The result is that many ID people have come to the conclusion that TEs do not believe that God guides evolution. If they believed that God guides evolution, why on earth would they make such difficulty when ID people ask about it? Why would they go into detailed tricky arguments about scientific epistemology, when all the ID people are asking is whether they believe that God steered the process?

    Suppose that someone asked you if you believed in God. Would you go into a long disquisition about how it is scientifically impossible to distinguish between a universe created by God and a universe which arose by unguided chance and natural laws, and that the question of God is a question of metaphysics not science, yada yada yada, and leave the person wondering whether or not you believed in God? I don't think you would. I think you would say: "I believe in God." Yet when ID people ask TEs whether or not they believe that God guides the evolutionary process, TEs give exactly this sort of roundabout, evasive answer, and they leave ID people unsure whether TE people actually believe that evolution is divinely guided. So never mind the epistemology of it; do you believe that God guides evolution, i.e., actually *makes a difference* in what happens by doing something *above and beyond* his normal sustenance of natural laws? So that if he did *not* do this extra bit of guidance (whatever it is, however it is conceived, detectable or indetectable, hidden in quantum this or chaos that or whatever), *man would not be here*, and we might well have just crude life forms swimming around in the seas, or possibly no life at all? Or do you believe that God created nature with sufficient creative tendencies that no special intervention on his part was necessary? (If so, you should have picked #1 or #2).

    I constructed the questionnaire to give TEs the opportunity to state what they believe in their hearts, without all the defensive academic and theological apparatus that has accumulated in these debates. If they could drop their defenses and do that, they might be surprised at how many ID people would suddenly warm up to them. The cautious defensiveness, the withholding of one's ultimate position, has caused ID people to distrust TE people, to be unsure of their theological beliefs or motives. I distrusted George Murphy until he finally said that he personally believed that some special guidance was involved. Prior to that, I heard what seemed to me to be mostly debating tactics, the words of a theologian circling his foe, looking for points of weakness while guarding his own vulnerable flank. After that, I felt I was hearing a person.

    I think that TEs are so afraid that what they say will be misused by ID or YEC people that they have developed the habit of showing only the tip of the iceberg, and keeping the rest well below water. But this very strategy backfires, because now neither ID nor YEC people trust TEs, and, based on Jerry Coyne's latest attacks, neither do the atheist Darwinists. I think TEs now have to reverse strategy, raise the entire iceberg above water, and practice self-disclosure, complete self-disclosure, regarding the adequacy of the Darwinian mechanisms, the role of God, etc. And they need to speak without fear of being ridiculed by their fellow scientists if they happen to believe -- as I think some of them do -- that Darwinian mechanisms are not enough, and need to be "topped up" by special divine action. It would not be a betrayal of science to believe this. And it would not destroy the fabric of American science education for a professor to *say* that he believed this. It would merely offend the hard-core ultra-naturalists. Big deal.


    ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry M. Gray" <>
    To: "ASA" <>
    Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 11:41 PM
    Subject: Re: [asa] observational vs. theoretical differences in scenarios; a direct question


      At the risk of falling into the category of learned evasion, I will offer the following.

      Of the three choices that you have given, #3 is the only view I would even come close to accepting. #1 seems atheistic, #2, as I've said before, seems to border on deism. However, I don't like #3, and I think that you have not delineated all the possible choices. Thus, it's not a fair question. Hence, I would like to offer a #4 that I think many on the list here will endorse. I suspect David Campbell will like my #4 much more than your #1 or your #3. I really can't imagine him endorsing #1 as you suggest. (Ditto for Collins and Lamoureux.)

      Using your wording:

      4. God steered the alterations of the genomes of reptiles until they became mammals in a way that is indistinguishable from it occurring via purely stochastic processes.

      I object to the phrase *what it otherwise would never have produced*. (In my view nature doesn't produce anything apart from God's guiding hand.)
      I believe that all stochastic and deterministic processes are guided by God. (Thus, your #1 is not possible).
      I am not in the slightest degree embarrassed to use the word "guidance". (However, such guidance may not be detectable or distinguishable from stochastic processes.)
      #1 and #4 are identical with respect to the scientific descriptions-- hence the reason many of us have no problem with "Darwinian processes". And hence why many of us think the issue IS metaphysical. The only difference is what is "meta" to the describable process-- God's action or an autonomous nature.

      My apologies for the hiatus in our previous discussion, but we seem to be at the same impasse. You can't seem to imagine a guided process that looks like a stochastic process. I continue to argue that there is no such thing as a stochastic process from God's perspective. Obviously, there are stochastic processes from the creature's perspective. Just because we arrive at an explanation for something (chance, necessity, free agency), doesn't mean that God's not involved (and by involved I mean more than "just" in the sustaining the laws of nature sort of way--I mean purposeful governance).


      On Jun 28, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Cameron Wybrow wrote:

        In trying to elicit the opinion of various people here regarding the capability of Darwinian processes, I have frequently run into the objection that it is impossible to tell the difference observationally between Darwinian processes, front-loaded processes, and guided processes, and that therefore this is a "metaphysical" rather than a scientific question. I would like to address this in a couple of ways.

        First, "metaphysical" doesn't follow from "can't tell the difference observationally". For example, in examining a body, a coroner may be trying to determine whether or not a person died from natural causes (chance, natural laws) or was murdered (design). He may be unable to tell the difference in some cases, e.g., a certain kind of poison may become undetectable in the body more than X hours after death, and its symptoms may look like those of a heart attack. It does not follow that the question whether or not the person was murdered is a "metaphysical" rather than a "scientific" question. Rather, it remains a perfectly scientific question, but one without (given current forensic technology) an available scientific answer. A year down the road, someone may find a new, perhaps indirect, way of detecting the existence or non-existence of the poison in the body, and a scientific answer (regarding the role of design or chance in the person's death) would then be forthcoming.

        By analogy, something similar may apply to intelligent design, chance, and front-loaded scenarios in evolutionary speculation. It may well be that information or techniques will become available, for example, which could establish design, or rule out purely Darwinian explanations.

        Second, and more important, macroevolution is not an observed phenomenon but an inferred one. We do not see it happening. And given the time scale of macroevolution, we never will. So the scientist is never in the position to be able to say: "I see this horse turning into a zebra, but I can't tell whether the molecular changes involved are Darwinian, front-loaded, or guided." For an evolutionary biologist to pretend to be in the position of the cool observational scientist, resolved not to resort to design or chance explanations because he doesn't have scientific data to settle the question, is comical. In evolutionary biology, not only is speculation unavoidable; it is the essential scientific activity of the whole enterprise. Evolutionary biologists speculate about what happened in the past, and they assign causes to past hypothetical events. So, for example, they speculate that a single wolf-like mammal eventually became the whole order of whales (past hypothetical event), and they invoke random mutations, drift, natural selection, etc. to explain this past hypothetical event.

        Let us take a look at three broad speculative explanations (note that I deliberately avoid the word "scientific") for the reptile- mammal transition:

        1. Reptiles became mammals by purely stochastic processes; there was no design in the appearance of any mutation, and God did not lift a pinky (other than to sustain the laws of nature) during the whole process.
        2. Reptiles became mammals by a deterministic, front-loaded process; there was inbuilt design regarding at least the main thrust of the process, but beyond inserting that inbuilt design (at the beginning of life, or perhaps even at the beginning of the universe), God did not lift a pinky (other than to sustain the laws of nature) during the whole process.
        3. God (or space aliens, if you prefer) steered the alterations of the genomes of reptiles until they became mammals, actually causing nature to produce *what it otherwise would never have produced*. (Note that this answer does not entirely exclude elements of stochastic and deterministic processes, but subordinates them to, or coordinates them with, a guiding hand, and is not in the slightest degree embarrassed to use the word "guidance".)

        Darwin affirmed #1.

        Dawkins, Coyne, Gould and most of the other famous evolutionary biologists have affirmed #1.

        Denton affirms #2.

        ID people are split, some affirming #2 and some affirming #3.

        Now I am going to ask people here (as many as are willing to participate, anyway) to answer: which of the three scenarios above is the one that -- in your own personal view -- *actually happened*?

        In order to avoid a repetition of earlier debates, let me emphasize what I am looking for. I am *not* asking for an epistemological or methodological discussion about how science could or could not tell the difference between these scenarios if they were to occur in front of our eyes. And I am *not* asking people to speak specifically *as scientists* (as opposed to philosophers, theologians, simple believers, or just sensible individuals). I am asking what each person here, thinking as a non-schizophrenic "whole person", with a single intellectual conclusion (however arrived at, whether by science, philosophy, faith, or some combination thereof), *What, in your view, actually happened?* - #1, #2, or #3. Not *what could have happened*, but what you think *did in fact happen*.

        Here is my *perception* of what various people who call themselves TEs (or are classed as TEs by others) have said or would say:

        David Campbell has (I think) affirmed #1, but with some shufflings and hesitations.

        George Murphy has affirmed #3 as his personal view, though he doesn't rule out #1 as a possibility.

        Ted Davis has an overall attitude similar to George Murphy's. I don't know if he has said (as directly as George said to me) that he thinks the process was in fact guided, but I will put him down for a #3 as well.

        That's the sum total of my knowledge of the positions of TE people here regarding *what actually happened*.

        Now, for other TEs:

        Robert Russell goes for #3. (Of course he makes clear that the guidance is quantum-concealed and observationally indetectable, but he unambiguously affirms #3.)

        I am told privately, but have not confirmed by personal inquiry, that Owen Gingerich and Loren Haarsma and possibly John Polkinghorne would endorse #3.

        Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala and Denis Lamoureux (as far as I can tell based on their public comments, which are not always clear to me) all have directly stated or strongly implied #1, though in the case of at least Miller and Collins, obfuscatory qualifications are sometimes added which make it hard to tell whether they are trying to build in an "escape clause" from #1, for theological reasons.

        Now it wouldn't be fair for me to ask people this question without stating my own view, so here it is:

        My own position is clear. I don't believe that #1 is scientifically credible, and even if it were scientifically credible, I don't think it could be squared with any orthodox Jewish, Christian or Muslim theology. So (a) I don't think it happened that way, and (b) if I did think that it happened that way, I would cease to believe in any traditional theistic religion. (Reasons given in my discussion with Mike Gene.) I opt for #2 or #3. Number 2 is of course the tidiest and the most "naturalistic", but the evidence for it is as yet quite sketchy; also its compatibility with traditional religion still needs to be explored. Number 3 does not require the acceptance of the staggeringly complex front-loading that is required by Number 2, and is clearly compatible with any major theistic religion.

        Why do I want to know what people think about what actually happened? Because my goal is to find out how much common ground there is between ID people and TE people. If TE insists on #1, no rapprochement will be possible, because ID's whole raison d'etre is to oppose #1, just as Darwinism's whole raison d'etre is to affirm #1. But TEs who endorse #2 or #3 could be closer to an ID position than they think.

        It is interesting, however, that no TE known to me has endorsed position #2, despite the fact that it is both wholly evolutionary and wholly naturalistic, two things which very much seem to matter to TEs. Does anyone here have any idea why #2, which would seem to have so much going for it from a TE point of view, just draws blank stares from TEs, and no response of any kind?

        In any case, I expect that the greatest hope for rapprochement will be built around #3. But I am prepared to be surprised.

        Any answers will be gratefully accepted. But methodological disquisitions that avoid answering the question: "What do you personally think actually happened?" are not pertinent, and should be held back for another occasion. I'd rather receive 7 clear answers than 25 learned evasions.


      Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
      Computer Support Scientist
      Chemistry Department
      Colorado State University
      Fort Collins, CO 80523
      (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

      To unsubscribe, send a message to with
      "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

    To unsubscribe, send a message to with
    "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 30 15:11:11 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 30 2009 - 15:11:11 EDT