I disagree totally, although the "origin of the universe" is a pretty broad
statement. The Big Bang (which many say is bunk anyway)--evolution
or creation? Does it matter?
>If more and more people are rejecting evolution it would follow that they
>are accepting creation.
Can't let that stand, grmorton. please accept it as a tribute to the
general
quality of your posts that I nitpick on this one point. If I see problems
with
evolution as a theory, does that mean I'm going to turn to the
prescientific
book of Genesis for answers? As my kids say, "Not!"
If by creation you mean something more metaphysical and slippery
than seven days, sun and moon made same day, etc. than I'll give
you a break.
>If they aren't, what are they accepting?
If myself is any guide, "uncertainty" would be the answer. Two others
suggest
themselves. "Panspermia" is one. More fundamentally, classical philosophy
seems to hold room for an argument for "devolution," i.e. descent from an
ecological golden age. Not my choice, but no less scientific than Genesis.
Brendan Frost, Washington, D.C.