A slight segue here: One of the weird complications in religion discussions is that we frequently tend to say Christian when we mean godly or whatever. I'm sure we have all known people whom we would term godly, when we know nothing at all of their beliefs as far as Jesus, the Christ, is concerned.

I am in awe of godliness- in the sense of love, wholeness, openness, clarity, wide-views, acceptance, (put in your own awes here)wherever I find it but I really am not speaking of Jesus when I say that. I suspect I'm not alone in this. And surely Jews and Moslems don't say that. So why do we?

One thing that occurs to me is that in my experience, fundamentalists, per se, tend to view the ecumenical movement as one of the greatest threats to christianity (that word again!)And I suppose the pope may feel the same way about the pick and choose approach that many modern Catholics use these days.

Back to the sujbect: I agree with those who suspect the truth is a combination of both creation and evolution and I don't perceive a conflict between them. On the one hand, it doesn't seem that in nature, things get better by themselves- a scrap of a thing left in the rain tends to rust or rot, not metamorphose into a car or a racehorse- but on the other hand, physical laws clearly govern life- and that information is repeatable.

On the third hand, (Don't you think human beings should have three hands? Two to hold something and the third to do the work?) it seems to me to take a greater leap of faith to believe that life itself just happened from materials already there (Question: Where did those materials come from? Answer: They were always there. Seems like that's a statement that could come from the creationist side.)than it is to believe in the hand of a Creator that set everything else in motion. (Maybe we are somebody's ant farm? One goldfish to another: Of course, there is a god. Who do you suppose changes our water?)

Ebbie