| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Greg Myers
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 1210
|
 Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 7:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Gary, you are abstracting the idea of religion to a level where the word simply means what you want it to mean.
It is not a generalization to say there are hundreds of creation different stories - it is simply the case.
Creationism encompasses both Origins of Life and Evolution, so it is fair to say that "evolution simply supplies a non-theistic alternative to creationism that is at least as credible" as creationism. The Origins of Life part in science is just getting started (this is why you can still insert god into the gaps of our understanding), but I still find the idea of a natural process more credible than god scooping up some dirt and then blowing into the nostrils of the shape he had just formed, making it a living being (Genesis 2:6b "...the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.").
Note the clear order here - God made a shape from dirt (it was formed with nostrils, after all), and it did not become a living being until God breathed into it - at which point, it was a man. This is instant creation of man - not some sort of guided cellular evolution. You may not agree - but you can't claim that what your are proposing recapitulates the biblical story of creation - it clearly does not.
You seem surprised that Genesis says that creatures were made by hand - but you only have to read the text. In Genesis 2:7, it says that God formed the man. The Hebrew word clearly denotes making something with your hands - in this case, out of dirt - and yes, the word for ground means a field for planting or soil used as building materials - elsewhere in the bible, the same word here translated as "formed" is translated as "potter." In verse 19, the word is used of forming out of the ground the animals and birds. "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." The image here is not billions of years of evolution, but an afternoon's work of a craftsman, shaping lumps of dirt that he then animates with his breath of life. This is the Genesis 2 story.
So the original story features a god who can make people like a potter fashions clay, and has a way of blowing air into the guy's nostrils. Seems humanoid to me. Whatever it is you mean by cellular intelligence, this is not what this story is talking about. It is talking about real dirt, pushed into familiar shapes in real time, and then animated into animals, birds and people by god's breath.
You are of course welcome to make up a new religion, in which cells think and god is the collective intelligence of life that drives evolution. I am just not sure that this idea has much traction as actual religion or that some cellular intelligence is much of a creator. It certainly doesn't have much in common with the world's historical religions. My objection is not that you chose to believe such things - but that you claim that what you believe has anything at all to do with science, or historical religions like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or Christianity.
Earlier you made the point that new age religions, based on lines of power, on chi, on astrology, on quantum mechanics, on the power of light or sound abound, and have been around for a long time. I agree. Still, we are experiencing a resurgence of religious fundamentalism across the globe, in many traditions. You note that people stick with religion, even in the face of persecution. True - and yet in Denmark, people have more or less abandoned religion - perhaps because no one tried to take it away. It seems like a pretty sane, stable, prosperous country - where people just don't have much of a need for religion. This example at least suggests that there is no innate need for religion on the part of humans.
I view your beliefs as part of an ongoing re imagining of religion, based, at least in part, on the need to make religion compatible with the scientific revolution. Obviously, religion and science have both had dramatic impacts on culture, history and the ecology and economy of the world. It is only natural to want to reconcile these two powerful, and at time inimical forces. I'm not convinced that you are on the right path - to my way of thinking, it is neither religious enough to satisfy the religious, nor scientific enough to satisfy the scientific.
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aster
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 159
|
| Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Greg Myers"] | Aster wrote: | Greg Myers wrote:
Science is simply an approach to thinking about the natural world. Its conflict with religion comes via the way it challenges the comprehensive worldview religion offers. Theology used to be called "Queen of the sciences." Now you take pains to separate science from religion completely. This is some indication of how different religions are pre- and post- the scientific revolution. The challenge to religion is very basic - if religions claims about the natural world are wrong, what else has it got wrong? It invites us to use the same analytical tools that work so well in science in our understanding of religion.
Rather than accepting religious revelation as received Truth, we examine it as an artifact of human culture. This changes our relationship to the revelation, and transforms our experience of both god and the world. Religion is not something that must be simply taken on faith - it is a body of claims and assumptions that must be looked at, sifted thorough, interpreted - and one of the lenses through which it is examined is the body of scientific knowledge - and the assumptions we draw from that knowledge.
Of course, this examination is not dependent on science - we've had sects and denominations and splinter groups for as long as we've had religions - but science has given us tools to test claims and reach conclusions about the natural world that has resulted in a sea change in the way many of us understand religious claims. |
I looked up your website, read the 2008 articles in it, and must say that I don't know exactly what to think of what you say. Let me first explain that I am not passing a judgment on what you say, I just want to understand what you have in mind, what your message really is.
Personally, I don't have a stand on the subject of religion, I think each one is entitled to his own choices.
But, you seem to be talking within a Church, and it seems to me that what you say doesn't fit with what the Christian religion teaches on major points. I even get the impression that it would be difficult to reconcile the existence of God with your explanations.
Am I correct in my understanding? Can you rephrase your position on this subject in a few words?
_________________
think |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary S. Gaulin
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 718
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greg, Greg, Greg,,.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Gary, you are abstracting the idea of religion to a level where the word simply means what you want it to mean. |
Scientific theory is here able to help explain how science and religion works with each other, so we know how to use both more wisely.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | It is not a generalization to say there are hundreds of creation different stories - it is simply the case. |
What matters is what the average person anywhere on the planet believes right now. In both Islam and Christianity we have the Adam and Eve origin of life story. The main events are all there in both. Differences in the two accounts complement each other so core concepts still agree. Almost all in any religion knows the Adam and Eve story. So there you have it, there is now a creation story almost all now share in common. Welcome to "One Vision" again!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJvNvBYTsGw
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Creationism encompasses both Origins of Life and Evolution, so it is fair to say that "evolution simply supplies a non-theistic alternative to creationism that is at least as credible" as creationism. |
Then more precisely it should read: "evolution simply supplies a non-theistic alternative to half of what creationism covers that is at least as credible"
I know how science is annoyingly picky on the details. But that's the only way to see what you really have.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | The Origins of Life part in science is just getting started |
Even though new university level discoveries are rare, from self-assembly on up we are now more a part of that future than you think. Includes you too because you helped inspire great ideas along the way. I expect an organelle based origin story to be found like the theory now begins to explain, but that will be for future science to come.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | (this is why you can still insert god into the gaps of our understanding), |
In time a Creator finds their proper place, as I see happening as a result of what the theory is predicting towards. And a previous Adam and Eve in the gaps just got written in for good because science found that they were actually there, so what can I say?
| Greg Myers wrote: | | but I still find the idea of a natural process more credible than god scooping up some dirt and then blowing into the nostrils of the shape he had just formed, |
I seriously doubt that the average person sees it as simple as just "scooping up some dirt" in fact the proper words are "clay" also "dust" not "dirt" like you replaced the proper word with. That only shows you are not being factual.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | You seem surprised that Genesis says that creatures were made by hand - |
I studied Genesis far too well to be surprised by what it says. In previous topics I went into detail concerning dust/clay. I am only surprised by the amount of rewording you are doing to what is there.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | but you only have to read the text. In Genesis 2:7, it says that God formed the man. |
See. The word is "formed" now isn't it? And the word has meaning in science as in "the reaction formed CO2 gas".
| Greg Myers wrote: | | The Hebrew word clearly denotes making something with your hands - in this case, out of dirt - and yes, the word for ground means a field for planting or soil used as building materials - elsewhere in the bible, the same word here translated as "formed" is translated as "potter." |
That's nice. Without modern science to help show how things like cells "form" it is expected that you will not find it more precisely scientifically defined in the average dictionary of that age.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | In verse 19, the word is used of forming out of the ground the animals and birds. "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." The image here is not billions of years of evolution, but an afternoon's work of a craftsman, shaping lumps of dirt that he then animates with his breath of life. This is the Genesis 2 story. |
Then you found out that Genesis has us being "formed" the same way as other animals, which is good because that's what science indicates too but we get a Chromosomal Adam and Eve story added to ours so we're lucky.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | So the original story features a god who can make people like a potter fashions clay, and has a way of blowing air into the guy's nostrils. |
The funny thing about it is that after testing and testing and retesting of your theories it was found that Genesis is closer to the truth than the simplistic man from ape scenario you read into science. All the garbage about some long speciation process with no event is already becoming ancient history without my having to do anything at all. Can only accelerate it in a final course heading we can collectively somewhat control and here "we" includes ABO and Kathy and others who think for themselves.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Whatever it is you mean by cellular intelligence, this is not what this story is talking about. |
I honestly think you should stick to the science and leave interpretation of scripture up to those who are genuinely trying to reconcile the two for themselves. You're polarizing the issue in a way that makes a wedge to ram into religion.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | You are of course welcome to make up a new religion, |
There are already enough people doing that, thank you!
| Greg Myers wrote: | | in which cells think and god is the collective intelligence of life that drives evolution. |
From what I can see you have warped science into a personal religion and are now unable to separate the two from each other. Thankfully future generations will not be burdened by the baggage of faulty science dogma that leads to illogical sentences like that one. Or I hope so anyway.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | I am just not sure that this idea has much traction as actual religion or that some cellular intelligence is much of a creator. |
Umm, "cellular intelligence" pertains to "science" as found in scientific theory, not a religion.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Earlier you made the point that new age religions, based on lines of power, on chi, on astrology, on quantum mechanics, on the power of light or sound abound, and have been around for a long time. I agree. |
I was not aware you read that into something I wrote, but yes science has long been a part of religion and other way around.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Still, we are experiencing a resurgence of religious fundamentalism across the globe, in many traditions. You note that people stick with religion, even in the face of persecution. True - and yet in Denmark, people have more or less abandoned religion - perhaps because no one tried to take it away. It seems like a pretty sane, stable, prosperous country - where people just don't have much of a need for religion. This example at least suggests that there is no innate need for religion on the part of humans. |
Here's something good to know:
| Quote: | From: http://www.hojskolerne.dk/what-to-know/good-to-know
Religion
More than 80% of the Danish population are members of the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran Church.
The majority of the members see themselves as Christian, but do not practice or act very much on the religion and its doctrines.
Many of these Danes go to church at Christmas, for weddings, funerals, baptisms and confirmation, but very seldom every Sunday.
Religion is regarded a private matter and usually you will not see explicit signs of people's religion in public.
You should be aware that some Folk High Schools are based on Christianity. You find both Lutheran and Pentecostal schools, and also schools not explicitly run Christian but still defining themselves as Christian.
If you are specifically interested in these schools - or if you wish a more secular school - you should make sure on what the schools of your interest is founded. Do not be afraid to ask the schools questions on this matter. |
It sounds like the culture I grew up in! The average person did not spend hours a week in ceremony, but I was in walking distance of a Methodist one that had many things for kids to do like scouting and preparing us to be religious leaders so it was a second home away from parents and their time not having me "in their hair". Many support local churches for what they provide for activities for both adults and kids, aside from the obligatory religious message of hope and such that is in addition to it to help us cope with a sometimes very cruel reality.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | I view your beliefs as part of an ongoing re imagining of religion, based, at least in part, on the need to make religion compatible with the scientific revolution. |
I'm not sure about the "ongoing re imagining of religion" part but it would be fair to exchange comparison to say that I am "making the scientific revolution compatible with religion". That is because I can write science tutorials, hypothesis and theory for the science classroom or anywhere but I do not write scripture or plan to write a scientific version of the Bible. The only thing I can do is help advance science, with what it says for or against religion dependant on what is later found to be the truth. I did not write the paper in PNAS describing "Chromosomal Speciation" that formed routine science that puts an end to the slow evolution thinking you thought was unarguable. I explained something already in science so that the average person knows what they are describing.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Obviously, religion and science have both had dramatic impacts on culture, history and the ecology and economy of the world. |
All indications are that it's having the most impact on your religion. About half of the time Creationists can say "I told you so!" and the other half that didn't lead to useful science does not matter anymore, like it would where they can never win in science while you can never lose. Which has us back to what useful purpose religion has for science, it helps keep the collective intelligence inference engine working on the origin of life problem. The way it annoys you to writing is here beneficial to the human search for answers to the big questions.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | It is only natural to want to reconcile these two powerful, and at time inimical forces. |
Well let's see:
| Quote: | inimical
Hostility (also called inimicality) is a form of angry internal rejection or denial in psychology. It is a part of personal construct psychology, developed by George Kelly. In everyday speech it is more commonly used as a synonym for anger and aggression.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inimical |
I guess that's true. And science and religion is sure a lot bigger than any one of us are and no matter how big has ways of inimically squashing any of us like a bug. Be safer to stay out of that human conflict, but here we are loving the challenge.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | I'm not convinced that you are on the right path - to my way of thinking, it is neither religious enough to satisfy the religious, nor scientific enough to satisfy the scientific. |
I do not tell anyone what to believe or how to interpret Genesis. Or even evolution, which is a word to describe a product of intelligence called "learning" even though your world view has a hard time seeing the simple thing that the genome is doing that explains the Cambrian curve and why our genome works so well.
Our direction is not random, our direction is in a sense well thought ahead of time by the genome that has in it a memory of each ancestor we had along the way and those here who will have predecessors will be in the future human genome memory. Things like that are not from religion, it's simply what science indicates is the truth. I don't need to be religious about it. Or have to tell anyone how to religiously interpret anything. Only thing I have to do is explain the truth that is in science exactly the way it is. The "religious" that you see me having to satisfy is in Kansas represented by Kathy Martin who probably won't mind me mentioning that she sees each generation having to find God/Creator for itself. Hers did, and I can see how mine that grew up with "Jesus Christ Superstar" then "Tommy" has to in time do the same thing for itself. She wants that to go well for us, not for her. She's already blessed with a healthy fulfilled life and no matter what you say about her giving this Theory Of Intelligent Design a fair hearing was not all that bad of an idea, so she's all set in life and beyond. What is most important is what the theory and everything else does for you and I and who she was elected to represent, not her. So with all considered it looks like we're doing a great job on all things most important for all of us to learn on our own, and you're being well challenged by it shows that we're still making good progress.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Myers
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 1210
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it is illustrative that both you and ABO persistently mis-interpret Genesis in order to justify your beliefs. Where do you get the idea that "dust" and "clay" are the "right" words? Because that is how the translators of the King James wrote it? You have to look at the words in context - and in context, as I laid out from the text, what it says is that god made a person-shaped things from the ground, complete with nostrils, then made it a living being by blowing into its nose. No evolution, no cell-based intelligence, no millions of years, no transitional forms. From blob of dirt to Adam, literally in the time it takes to breathe.
That you have to revert to what "everyone knows" of Genesis makes my point that your attempts at a religion-science synthesis involves inaccurate abstractions of both faith and science. But don't take my word for it - just ask ABO if silicon-based cellular intelligence driving molecular self-assembly and billions of years of evolution satisfies his reading of Genesis.
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary S. Gaulin
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 718
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Myers wrote: | | I think it is illustrative that both you and ABO persistently mis-interpret Genesis in order to justify your beliefs. |
You were just caught rewording it to something that no existing version of the story even says.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Where do you get the idea that "dust" and "clay" are the "right" words? Because that is how the translators of the King James wrote it? |
The word in Eastern religion's Genesis story is "clay" which compliments "dust" in identification of an abundant substance that existed in that form when life began. Here are some of its amazing properties:
[11] X.V. Zhang, S.P. Ellery, C.M. Friend, H.D. Holland, F.M. Michel, M.A.A. Schoonen, and S.T. Martin, "Photodriven Reduction and Oxidation Reactions on Colloidal Semiconductor Particles: Implications for Prebiotic Synthesis," Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 2006, 185, 301-311.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environmental-chemistry/publications/XZ_JPP_2007.pdf
[12] FROM: Driving Parts of Krebs Cycle in Reverse through Mineral Photochemistry
Xiang V. Zhang and, Scot T. Martin
Journal of the American Chemical Society 2006 128 (50), 16032-16033
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environmental-chemistry/publications/XZ_JACS_2006.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/jacsat/asap/pdf/ja066103k.pdf
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environmental-chemistry/
[13] Clays May Have Aided Formation of Primordial Cells
http://www.hhmi.org/news/szostak3.html
| Greg Myers wrote: | | You have to look at the words in context - and in context, as I laid out from the text, |
Thanks for offering your retranslation but what was written down in our cultures is what people are trying to interpret.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | what it says is that god made a person-shaped things from the ground, complete with nostrils, then made it a living being by blowing into its nose. |
There was breath of life. Not what you made sound like blowing their nose for them. Yuck.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | No evolution, no cell-based intelligence, no millions of years, no transitional forms. From blob of dirt to Adam, literally in the time it takes to breathe. |
Chromosomal Speciation accomplishes that. And there is no "evolution" to even speak of. Or even natural selection or transitional forms. We were relatively all of a sudden there.
Our particular genome reached a point in its development where a fusion was required to develop past the intelligence of a zoo animal, and from a theory I read on telomeres the ends would have become sticky so fusion was genome induced, not accidental like the telomeres didn't do what they were supposed to do. It is too early for me to state all that in the theory of ID blog but that's where the science is now going.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | That you have to revert to what "everyone knows" of Genesis makes my point that your attempts at a religion-science synthesis involves inaccurate abstractions of both faith and science. |
That bully-interpretation is irrelevant. The only interpretation that matters is how the rest of the planet knows from what was written that they likely read too.
If you have better sources of science to explain the genetics of human speciation then show me. According to the most modern science when and where did the "human" species begin? Do you have anything but an excuse for not having a conclusive answer? You have so far avoided presenting anything at all by taking issue with who I help with their science.
I'm showing Creationists or anyone how to search for Adam and Eve in our genome. The data is online for them to use too:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=genomeprj&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Overview&list_uids=9558
You can say all you want, but you're clearly not getting any science done. While I'm sure all anthropologists would rush to see a well researched genetic reconstruction, regardless of who helped it along. It would give them something new to look for in what they have for evidence, where there is no transitional at all. It's all very contrary to your world-view so I can understand your persistence in discrediting it but you are now up against science itself. The only thing you can do is adapt to the next self-correction science is now making your Y branching off apes junk totally obsolete. We now have a lineage that began with a 46 chromosome man and woman, and regardless of what that infers teaching anything else is simply wrong and dishonest.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | But don't take my word for it - just ask ABO if silicon-based cellular intelligence driving molecular self-assembly and billions of years of evolution satisfies his reading of Genesis. |
That would not even satisfy my reading of Genesis. And you're the one talking about "evolution" all the time because that's your personal explain-all. I talk about university researched backed "Poof!" and it's there chromosomal speciation and prebiotic dust/clay powered metabolism papers and such, while you talk about Genesis talking about dirt?
Science will be changed by those who study the theory and papers in references (or at least try) not those who think they are above all that so they brush it off as unimportant. It doesn't matter to me whether Creationists are primarily the ones to pioneer the new fields of science that just opened up for them, in fact I'm thrilled to see something for them happen like this. No better example of how science does not care about religion than things going their way for a change.
I'm clear and precise in my K-12 level wording where in the theory it states "Chromosomal Adam and Eve" along with PNAS paper in references on "Chromosomal Speciation" that has more info than any needed along with every definition of speciation there probably ever was in science followed by all the known so far details. It's all good science, and you sure have none better. Go ahead and prove me right again by not addressing the science that ABO and others fully understand in science is found to be a chromosomal event. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Myers
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 1210
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gary, you are a hoot- first of all, I quoted a mainstream English translation of the Bible. Here is the verse (Genesis 2:7) again, from the NIV.
"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
And here it is from the King James:
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
As you can see, I am not making this up. Nor am I making up what these words mean.
But I have to pause a minute to savor your argument. You are actually arguing that the meaning of a biblical passage is whatever the cultural consensus is! This is just like saying that since most people say they believe in special creation and a young earth, that makes their opinion good science. If you don't believe that popular consensus determines a valid scientific conclusion, why would you think that biblical interpretation is any different?
So here is information (in English) that addresses what the word "ground" means (the word used in both old and new English translations, as noted above).
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament is a standard scholarly reference. This is from page 10.
"The ASV and RSV reflect the difficulties in deciding which of the English words to use in translation. Originally this word signified the red arable soil. From this it came to mean any cultivated, plantable ground and/or landed property"
and from page 11
"The Bible makes much of the relationship between man (adam) and the ground (adama). That this might be vivid in the mind of the reader, we will transliterate the words in the following discussion. Initially, God made adam out of the adama to till the adama (Gen 3:23, to bring forth life?)..."
You are ignoring the explicit means of creation noted in even the English versions of the story - god making a person-shaped lump of soil, and breathing up its nose, causing it to come to life. Again, to refresh your memory, Genesis 2:7, with the Hebrew transliteration: "And the LORD God formed adam of the dust of the adama, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and adam became a living soul."
That you actually argue that the hazy memories of biblically illiterate Americans justify your claim that cellular intelligence satisfies the Adam and Eve story is pretty hilarious.
In any event, your view is not supported by English translations of Genesis, let alone the Hebrew original.
That you claim that the existence of a chromosomal "Adam and Eve," (only named such because of the PR value of a well-known literary allusion) separated by 10s of thousands of years from one another, has any relationship at all to the Genesis story further compounds the problem. That you claim that you make clear that there is no actual relationship to the biblical story in the fine print is no help - because you explicitly claim that your notions validate the religious story of Adam and Eve, when in fact they do no such thing.
Likewise, your claim that the adam's creation from the "dust of the adama" validates your notion of silicates being a prerequisite for intelligence is also fundamentally dishonest - because Genesis 2:7 supports no such interpretation - as even a cursory reading of the verse demonstrates.
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary S. Gaulin
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 718
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Greg, you are failing to see that your interpretation of scripture or even mine matters to science where right now in addition to getting the wording of the theory just right I'm also busy with fruit-flies using jars with tubes through the covers they can wander around or go outside through. You did not even address the Islamic Prophet Adam and Lady Eve so you're a far way from even knowing what people believe. Besides I already explained how to someone like Kathy it's not how these things change what they believe, it's how well it helps our generations find the God/Creator she says we have to find on our own in our own way and I believe her. That's what she see's happening with the rediscovery of Tommy metaphors that my generation grew up with. With all said it's not the scriptural details like you're dwelling on that even seem to least bit matter to her either. From what she has said to me it is that it has us searching in the right direction, which is all I need to know. Kathy is at times my guide and in this case she communicated something very teacherly sounding to begin with so that's where we shall continue to go regardless of how many science-stoppers you put in the way. We must kinda keep on dancing in science with the Kansas preacher looking guy a preaching and penguins and golden (suggestion) crabs running from the pirate's treasure chest of science, because that's what science is kinda made of. Here's the Grates - Science Is Golden to help motivate you again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecuC8Iumd2A
That was all I could think of to maybe help you get over what's happening in the science world. Even the "Mitochondrial Eve" poser is falling to "Chromosomal Adam and Eve" but that's great right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Myers
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 1210
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary S. Gaulin wrote: | Greg, you are failing to see that your interpretation of scripture or even mine matters to science where right now in addition to getting the wording of the theory just right I'm also busy with fruit-flies using jars with tubes through the covers they can wander around or go outside through. You did not even address the Islamic Prophet Adam and Lady Eve so you're a far way from even knowing what people believe. Besides I already explained how to someone like Kathy it's not how these things change what they believe, it's how well it helps our generations find the God/Creator she says we have to find on our own in our own way and I believe her. That's what she see's happening with the rediscovery of Tommy metaphors that my generation grew up with. With all said it's not the scriptural details like you're dwelling on that even seem to least bit matter to her either. From what she has said to me it is that it has us searching in the right direction, which is all I need to know. Kathy is at times my guide and in this case she communicated something very teacherly sounding to begin with so that's where we shall continue to go regardless of how many science-stoppers you put in the way. We must kinda keep on dancing in science with the Kansas preacher looking guy a preaching and penguins and golden (suggestion) crabs running from the pirate's treasure chest of science, because that's what science is kinda made of. Here's the Grates - Science Is Golden to help motivate you again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecuC8Iumd2A
That was all I could think of to maybe help you get over what's happening in the science world. Even the "Mitochondrial Eve" poser is falling to "Chromosomal Adam and Eve" but that's great right? |
So its whatever spiritual concepts people have (unless they are based on a specific religious tradition) plus whatever ordinary folks will accept as science over a beer (unless they are caught up by actual facts and devising theories that account for those facts).
Good luck with that. Just don't claim it has anything to do with science as it is practiced, or religion as it has been handed down. Tommy is a movie - not a revelation, and ID is about defending biblical literalism, not about cellular intelligence.
So just say that you have some ideas inspired by the spirituality of the 60s, and "living creation" ideas like the Gaia hypothesis. That's cool, and people who are interested can take a look. It is simply misleading to say it has anything to do with Christianity or Islam, or Intelligent Design or Evolutionary theory.
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary S. Gaulin
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 718
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
That was certainly a low-blow way of ducking out of science so you can instead preach from your religious throne.
You could not scientifically explain "Intelligence" with any existing theory, and they do exist in "science". You do not present a coherent origin of life theory that deserves to be taught even though a number of them exist in science while some are no big deal anymore. You twisted the truth of my looking in culture for what the theory predicts we should find in common themes (which was there) into the theory being "some ideas inspired by the spirituality of the 60s" and other nonsense. You have still not accounted for the Cambrian Explosion and instead make it seem like science doesn't care. You cannot explain human speciation in fact there has been no science paper from you at all just a link that bashes religion. Do you see a pattern here that is completely contrary to science?
You're only fooling yourself by thinking that a scientist or anyone that deep-down genuinely cares about the future of science is anything other than shocked by all of that being so obvious. It is clear that you are way on the opposite side of the religious spectrum representing a now obsolete religious world view based on Evolutionary Theory. It is expected that you are happy with numerous science-stoppers in place because you think everyone is better off staying back where you are to help throw stones at all who do not conform to your self-styled science.
Teachers have a responsibility to keep up with science and tell the truth to their students. So in this thread I reference a National Academy of Sciences paper on Chromosomal Speciation and university level discussion so they have all they need to be up to date in that area too. The only thing you did is talk about scripture and now changed tactic to giving another political "statement" from authority that mixes me in your false reality in a way others might believe you instead of the "scientific community" that published what you're then arguing against.
Long ago Kathy in her words described something like this harming science then it slowly became visible. That was another time she acted as my guide in this case towards a real problem needing to be solved. So I'm hoping that what I and others have been up against now shows up really good. Your self-styled science is scientifically unethical even unconstitutional in the US to teach. It's a world-view that discredits science papers on religious grounds and where convenient gives lectures on all we don't know in place of what is now known.
The light of science does not shine on the invisible but I think others can see what I'm illuminating for them. It was once easy to brush off what Kathy was trying to say about some things but here I'm challenging your knowledge of modern science not your interpretation of scripture and opinion of others. And I grew up studying robotics models and theory you still don't even seem to care to know which is fine but you have to stay out of science you don't understand or the scientists there will just laugh at your ignorance of the field. I describe intelligence like I do because that's what has long been taught in books and such that still apply and are still as useful today maybe more-so. With there being a boatload of knowledge pertaining to the phenomena of intelligence and even intelligent cause it was best to place it into the existing framework of the Theory Of Intelligent Design, but so what? That's very appropriate to do in science, in fact the way it's supposed to be done when a theory already exists to explain that phenomena. I do the necessary things by the letter, while you have not done a single one of the necessary things and have instead been talking religion and from authority you don't even have to speak for scientists.
Watching the Theory Of Intelligent Design paint you into your own corner is actually rather sporting because of how science thrives on a lively exchange of ideas and new theories. And you should know I realize how the Theory Of Intelligent Design is the kind of theory that's weird to have to take seriously but that's not my fault either so you'll just have to get over it being that way, like I had to. I'm also the one here with their name on the one that's going to last probably forever so how do you think I feel having no choice but going from there? It was like euphoric agony. But I got over it, and think that in time you will too just can't be sure of that.
I think I said enough about the theory and all that. So for the sake of those who need to know what teachers should be teaching in the classroom where is your explanation of human speciation and demonstratable model of intelligence to get us on the same page with that and Cambrian Explosion curves and everything else presented in the theory along with papers and teaching material to back it all up? You are complaining about what I'm explaining well where's the problem? You should have all that you expect be said about these things handy like I do:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chr.clad.prim.pdf
Are you saying the above cladogram they show is incorrect? Or are you saying that the fusion was not an origin of species event like explained below?
[17] Francisco J. Ayala and Mario Coluzzi
Colloquium Paper: Systematics and the Origin of Species: Chromosome speciation: Humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes
PNAS 2005 102:6535-6542; published online before print April 25, 2005, doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl.1/6535.full
With there being so many political "statements" saying different things about the theory what should a teacher who knows about this one tell a student who asks whether there is one with science in it? Are they doing right by science to shield them from the truth or should they at least give them the url for the theoryofid blog so they can try figuring all that out? Maybe I'm wrong and you can correct me but it seems that in the first case nothing at all is learned. In the case of the truth even grade school students would be experimenting with autonomous robotic self-learning and all sorts of other things. Maybe it's just me, but there here looks like only one ethical thing for a science teacher to do. Correct?
The world needs answers. Where's yours? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xiphactinus
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 56
Location: St. Louis
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gary -
<<Blinking incredulously>> Are you seriously proposing that a science teacher should have an ethical obligation to provide the url to your wacky blog?!? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norm Smith
Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 62
Location: Lincoln NE
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gary Gaulin wrote:
| Quote: | | Watching the Theory Of Intelligent Design paint you into your own corner is actually rather sporting because of how science thrives on a lively exchange of ideas and new theories. And you should know I realize how the Theory Of Intelligent Design is the kind of theory that's weird to have to take seriously but that's not my fault either so you'll just have to get over it being that way, like I had to. I'm also the one here with their name on the one that's going to last probably forever so how do you think I feel having no choice but going from there? It was like euphoric agony. |
Gary, there's a simple and time-honored procedure for having your theory looked at seriously--- get it published in a mainstream peer-reviewed science journal. Period. Until that happens, you can pretty well expect to be ignored by people who are knowledgeable in science or serious enough about the subject to explore it beyond the superficial. As of now, it's not weird to have to take your theory seriously because no one does, or so it seems, and that would include competent science teachers. Science indeed does thrive on lively exchanges of ideas and new theories as long as they are credible, well-researched, and based on extant knowledge. These features that are not abundantly obvious in the online version of your theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary S. Gaulin
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 718
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Norm Smith wrote: | | Gary, there's a simple and time-honored procedure for having your theory looked at seriously--- get it published in a mainstream peer-reviewed science journal. Period. Until that happens, you can pretty well expect to be ignored by people who are knowledgeable in science or serious enough about the subject to explore it beyond the superficial. As of now, it's not weird to have to take your theory seriously because no one does, or so it seems, and that would include competent science teachers. Science indeed does thrive on lively exchanges of ideas and new theories as long as they are credible, well-researched, and based on extant knowledge. These features that are not abundantly obvious in the online version of your theory. |
I know that I eventually need to do something about publishing. It has especially been on my mind for the past few days. When I think where to publish I keep coming back to NSTA like the self-assembly experiment where it would make an interesting series.
Then again it would be nice to describe in Nature. To keep it simple I would write a page or so on where it came from and such then show what's currently there. Or remove the preliminary experiments and other things more for K-12 level, going straight for the coherent explaining of an "intelligent cause" to satisfy the premise of the theory of ID so that scientists know what that means as far as the theory having been possible or not. With the novel way of explaining the Cambrian Explosion and other things there is no doubt it's useful. So I have the right stuff for Nature but some things need to be made more obvious. Not require rewriting the whole thing just maybe add more sizzle to the introduction saying what the theory will account for as being a product of intelligence.
What do you think I should do, direction wise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary S. Gaulin
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 718
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Xiphactinus! Glad to see you're still putting up a good struggle!
| xiphactinus wrote: | Gary -
<<Blinking incredulously>> Are you seriously proposing that a science teacher should have an ethical obligation to provide the url to your wacky blog?!? |
I know it might all sound incredulously illogical but it also has to do with who pays teachers which in public schools are the "taxpayers" and in private schools the parents and guardians who pay tuition, which in turn makes the student the first person in the chain of people they answer directly to. Top administrators are regularly hired and fired even whole schools closed down by unhappy tuition payers.
Where a student asks a direct question in regards to something like the current scientific status of the Theory Of Intelligent Design there is a chance that a parent is coaxing them. Teachers always have to beware of that. Even where the parents might have been expecting something more along the lines of Discovery Institute or ARN trying to argue for a theory from religion it's still faith-friendly and science teacherly so they are no longer stuck between a rock and a hard place with no good answer at all.
I seriously don't see teachers having a problem with this sort of thing. The stats I found on teachers and ID indicates they are unusually open minded to even what the DI described having scientific value. Likely still much more discussion of ID in the classroom than we are aware of. But with all considered science teachers don't work for the busy-bodies with no students in their classroom so it makes sense that we should probably not stick our nose in their classroom business. They only need better answers, not more dictators.
You were presented with a coherent theory that explains all the way to what deserves to be called "intelligent cause" which in science is perfectly fair to do. And in science when you have a problem with something you have an ethical obligation to present coherent evidence to the contrary, not one liners. So as wacky as it seems teachers have an ethical obligation to state the facts as they know them to meet expectations of the student-parent- that employs them.
And in case anyone has thoughts of her planning some world takeover it's a good time to add that Kathy Martin teaches the elementary level and has no need for the theory in class, or has any reason I know of to get political about it. She takes seriously her responsibility to who she was elected to represent not you or I or Discovery Institute or even Ivory Tower. So her ethical obligation likewise begins with the student on up to parents and taxpayers/voters. Her proving to me that she had that priority straight long ago impressed me.
Science teachers very much have an ethical obligation to help the student find what they are looking for, regardless of the opinion of even prehistoric fish towards what they are asking for. None of us can change that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Myers
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 1210
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
So Gary, I read this as appeasement. This is no doubt why you wrap your ideas up with ID and Adam and Eve language - to appeal to religious conservatives. They will not be happy when they learn that your theories have nothing to do with ID (creationism stripped of God talk), and that your "Adam and Eve" were never together, let alone in the garden.
The problem is not that taxpayers need science watered down to fit their prejudices (and I am not calling religion prejudice - I am calling their attitude toward science prejudice, based on the lies and distortions of the religious right)- it is that extremists are fomenting an anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-secularism movement. Note how ABO does not decry Dr. Tiller's murder, he just calls people in the pro-choice movement terrorists, justifying Dr. Tiler's death.
You think through appeasement you will find a compromise - but as Pakistan learned in the Swat valley, this is not how it works. Once they have evolution stripped out of the curriculum, then they go after cosmology, geology - anything that contradicts their reading of the bible. Intellectuals in general, in fact, are suspect. This is not conjecture - it is what you see in this forum, and what you can read on thousands of conservative sites.
Evolution is a target simply because it is a high-profile area where science has come into conflict with biblical literalism. So no, parents do not have a right to insist that public education be censored to fit their preconceptions.
Rather than appeasement, we ought to be insisting that children be given a comprehensive, accurate education.
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
les
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 276
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
The OP: Does the theory of evolution disprove the existence of God?
No. SASQ.
Surprised it took 4 pages to get here.
_________________
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
