Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

I use to believe so called "God Guided Evolution" but I don't think either biblical or scientific evidence supports that position. I personally think it is a "luke warm" position.

Perhaps it wasn't the Biblical God...

And, what about science would specifically go against that idea?

Hank Rearden wrote:

resedit wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

res, and anyone else genuinely interested in evolutionary creationism, please read:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

I use to believe so called "God Guided Evolution" but I don't think either biblical or scientific evidence supports that position. I personally think it is a "luke warm" position.

Did you read the essay?  You do realize that you're disputing, in a single throw-away sentence, a guy with three doctorates, with the relevant ones being in theology and biology.  And, a guy (if you take the time to listen to his lecture at http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/beyond.html) who is an evangelical Christian.

Wait, I thought we weren't supposed to listen to the experts, just decide for ourselves ....?

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Wait, I thought we weren't supposed to listen to the experts, just decide for ourselves ....?

Step 1:
Listen to the experts

Step 1.1:
Educate yourself, by listening

Step 2:
Think, think, think.

Step 2.1:
Attempt to think in a manner in which you are emotionally-removed from the topic

Step 3:
Develop conclusions

Step 4:
Continue to follow the expert's opinion and, if possible, continue your own work on the topic.

Step 5:
Be ready, always, to modify your opinion as new facts arise...either from the work of others or from your own work.

I dunno, man ... you seem to be qualifying.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I dunno, man ... you seem to be qualifying.

Nope. mostly just educating you a bit.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

If you say so, dude. You're lucky you're not resedit, or I'd really go after you on this.

Never have I said not to listen to experts.  You are the one that, on a certain issue, prefers soft media sources and doesn't actually read research papers on the topic.  On said issue (which I hate to have to contaminate this thread with) you know very well that my posts reference published research scientists and their actual publications in reputable journals.

In reality, on that little issue (which, as you also know, you and I actually agree on the basic need to keep the earth clean), you are the one that displays much of the "true believer" traits  that are also displayed by ID and YEC propoenents.

In any case, the two issues are quite different (other than the "true believer" aspect that I just mentioned).  That is, there is minimal to no support for YEC/ID in the scientific community, whereas the viewpoint expressed in my (and others') posts on the "other issue" do have backing.  In fact, there is an actual gradient of opinion in the "other issue" that encompasses what both of us argue.  There is no gradient to speak of on YEC, etc.

Jeepers, you must be getting pretty bored if you want to stir the pot like this.  I hope that the CBC thing gets resolved pretty soon, not just so that I will no longer be assaulted with lame-o Can-Con easy listening music, but also so that you have a bit less time on your hands.

Anyhow, if you want to discuss the "other issue", start a new thread.  I may participate if my doctor says that it won't affect my blood pressure too much.

Last edited by Hank Rearden (2005-09-14 4:15 pm)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I'm not interested in discussing that "other" issue ... I just think your argument on that issue, regarding experts, is untenable. It's not that I'm so bored I wish to stir the pot, it's just that your approach crops up every now and again, and I make note of it. But I'm not bored enough to start a thread on it.

It does appear that you refer to experts to bolster your opinion when it suits you, then heap scorn when others do the same. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's how it looks.

LIke I said, they are two different sort of issues.

It is hard to disuss YEC creationism in the context of expert opinion because:
a) there are no YEC experts who actually research and publish anything
b) it is a black and white issue.

On the other hand, on the "other issue":
a) there are experts who publish and think about the issue dfferently
b) it is a "gradient" issue in which there is actually a spectrum of opinion.

However the issues are the same in that:
c) There are extemists (on the "sides" in the Evo/Cre thihg, at the ends of the gradient on "the other issue" that have agendas that are unpalatable.  Most of us, though, (and that even goes for many in the Evo/Cre debate) just want the truth.  In the "other issue", most want the optimal result for the earth and, thus, for human properity.

To get back to the issue at hand, I think..no actually, I know... that res is completely wrong.  But I appreciate the fact that he is thinking about and debating these things.  That is a heck of a lot better than most of the world out there that doesn't give a rip about Truth, nor spends any time trying to approach it in their thinking and daily living.  His discussion points, no matter how little they correspond with biological/geological/cosmological reality prompt you and me to think about this issue and, hopefully, our responses help him.

While debate often (unfortunately) gets antagonistic, it is also good for helping everyone involved to think.  I hope that I do not "heap scorn" on others, but if you say that I do, then I will attempt to be better in the future.  I don't want to be one who engages in that sort of non-productive discussion, leading to undesirable antagonistic discussion, and I apologize if that's the way I appear.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Nah, it's cool. You're definitely low on the list of jerkfaces around here. Far lower than even a mellow sweetheart like me.

Well, they keep on banning so many of the upper level jerkfaces, that I often worry that I am moving up the line via attrition at the top.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Nah, it's cool. You're definitely low on the list of jerkfaces around here. Far lower than even a mellow sweetheart like me.

Well, they keep on banning so many of the upper level jerkfaces, that I often worry that I am moving up the line via attrition at the top.

When I'm gone, then you can worry.

Bob Kaufmann wrote:

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Humanists in general have shown unwarranted mistrust of the people asking that Intelligent Design be taught as a scientific theory alongside of evolution in our schools.

I have just completed an intensive study of the subject, and not only think that Intelligent Design should be required study, but am insistent that we expand it.

Within the curriculum – scratch that – as an integral part of the curriculum, we must incorporate aliens or alien forces as a key element in the creation of human life as we know it.

The renowned scientist Francis Crick, of DNA fame, posited that life on this planet was seeded intentionally from other planets.  He discussed the possibility at least that we might have sprung from extra terrestrial garbage dumped here.

There is abundant evidence supporting this theory among those debating this issue, and, indeed, equally strong evidence arguing against evolution.

A good feature of the curriculum could be a study on the causal nature of the seeding (accidental vs intentional}, as well as the particular part of the universe from which the seeding came.

Here, students would have their learning visions expanded as they merged philosophy, science, mathematics, art and language in the larger civil discourse and exciting study of Intelligent Design.

www.bobkaufmann.com

Freakout Jackson wrote:

Crick, panspermia stuff

Crick's ideas are pretty well known among biology folks.

It is, of course, possible.  And such a thing is also, hypothetically, testable.  That is, if we find life with many of the same fundamental characteristics on other planets (e.g., the same stereochemistry of amino acids, the same DNA to RNA to protein central dogma, the same genetic code, etc.), then we have some pretty strong (though not definitive) evidence of such an event.

Note, though, that panspermia could have occured not by intelligent forces (e.g., aliens), but by comets or asteroids.

Note, also, two important philosophical points about panspermia:

1.  If life was planted on earth, it just changes the location of the ultimate "where did life come from" question (and, actually, makes it more difficult to study because we'd have no idea what the "initial conditions" were).

2.  Panspermia, even if it did happen, does not remove the fact of evolution by natural selection and other means as the mechanism that turned that initially-seeded life into what you see today.

However, as far as "teaching ID" goes, the guy has a point that, if it is to be taught, then you have to teach all possibilities, including God, Aliens, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

hah. The Raelians could kick their butts any day of the week.

Last edited by ShnickyShnack (2005-09-14 7:59 pm)

more or less wrote:

they may also serve as evidence of res' de-evolution theory...

You sure? Their approach to sex sounds pretty bang-on:

Rael, a 56-year-old man who affects white Captain Kirk-style suits and a topknot, who boasts: "My wife, she likes sex only once a month, but I like it more often," before bursting into a big smile, "sank-you, sank-you, Raelian girls."

Hank Rearden wrote:

res, and anyone else genuinely interested in evolutionary creationism, please read:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

Interesting article, but except for the concept that a creator created using evolution as part of the plan, it is no different than any other fundamentalist view of god and creation. it maintains that Christian/Judeo scripture is the revealed word of god concerning god and mankind.

Further, it continues formulating a highly romantic view of god and the creation. I don't see that. The beauty in a nova is still the result of an act of violence. What ever caused the extinction of the dinosaurs is an act of violence. The existence of all 'life' itself is fraught with violence in order to live and reproduce. Does that suggest that the model for creation is violence in one form or another? The OT is awash in violence. Only the gospels condemn violence.

Then there is the notion of mankind's sin. What is sin? Is it a part of the plan? If so, why?

Sin suggests that mankind is imperfect. If so, does that mean that the rest of all creation may be imperfect and if so, that god then is also imperfect either in creating or intellectual design. Is what we know as reality simply an experiment by a super human entity who is learning to create by trial and error just as science experiments until a successful solution is found? Evolution, itself, would suggest that is a possibility.

Who or what god is is a mystery. Personally, I think of god as a force, meaning an energy, but without intelligence. Does this 'force' have an intimate relationship with creation? Only in the sense that it is part and parcel of it -- it is creation revealed! That sounds very Hindu, but if god is energy, it makes sense.

But, of course, then the question must arise, who or how did the energy come to be? It's a mystery. Will mankind find the answer? I think so, given the time, the will and the resources. It is the core element of science fiction to seek the prophecy.

It makes sense to me to suggest that mankind has 'created' god in mankind's image and endows that image with all the attributes mankind construes as ideal: Plato's philosophy makes as much sense, perhaps more, as any other since. It is simple, romantic and powerful.

Mankind also formulates the notion of sin and what constitutes atonement and punishment. Nature seems to see nothing as sinful. Violence is as natural as birth and death and reproduction. Simple, romantic and powerful. The only goal for life is simple: survive. Evolution is in charge of the past and the future.