Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Introduction

Expand Messages
  • Maurice
    Hello to all, As I am new to this group I just wish to introduce myself. I m approaching 60 years of age, have a philosophic bent and live in Swansea, UK. As
    Message 1 of 25 , Apr 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello to all,

      As I am new to this group I just wish to introduce myself. I'm
      approaching 60 years of age, have a philosophic bent and live in
      Swansea, UK. As regards the living world my views are Vitalist because I
      believe that through this I can reconcile religious believe to science -
      at least to my own satisfaction anyhow.

      Regards
      Maurice
    • Laurie Appleton
      ... From: Maurice To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Introduction Hello to all, As I am new to this
      Message 2 of 25 , Apr 6, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Maurice
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 1:20 AM
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Introduction



        Hello to all,

        As I am new to this group I just wish to introduce myself. I'm
        approaching 60 years of age, have a philosophic bent and live in
        Swansea, UK. As regards the living world my views are Vitalist because I
        believe that through this I can reconcile religious believe to science -
        at least to my own satisfaction anyhow.


        LA> Welcome to the group Maurice. The "Vitalist" view is certainly much more reasonable than the atheistic view. However it seems to be a view that is generally rejected by both the evolutonism that is taught in schools as well as the Creation science that has been credited by evolutionists as having "regularly routed" its evolutionary opponents in what was a decade of debates on the scientific questions! Are you aware of this? The following is an example of what one evolutionary authority had to say on this matter;

        -------------------------------

        "Creationists travel all over the United States,
        visiting college campuses and staging "debates" with
        biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
        creationists nearly always win."

        "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
        converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
        have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
        awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
        Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
        onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
        topics."

        "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
        relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
        geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
        the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
        intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
        their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
        than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
        bewildered state of incoherence."

        (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
        (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
        ================

        LA> If you are aware of such admissions, then would you like to some comments about it.



        LA> Best wishes.



        Laurie.

        "The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that
        lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
        (Newsweek, 3 November, 1980)




        No virus found in this message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2409/4917 - Release Date: 04/05/12


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Evarts
        Hi Maurice. That sounds interesting. Why do you feel that religioud beleifs need reconciled with science? The majority of Christian denominations and other
        Message 3 of 25 , Apr 6, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Maurice. That sounds interesting. Why do you feel that religioud beleifs need reconciled with science? The majority of Christian denominations and other faiths do not have a problem with evolution and other science. Most of us see it as the second book, the witness of Gods creation and use it to help correct our misreadings of scripture. :) In example, if the book of Genesis is read strictly literally it leads to some non-Christian and non-sensical dogmas, such as the idea that sine entered humans through their mouths, when they ate a fruit. These undermine the whole of scripture and defy meaning. Anyways, vitalism is an interesting branch of philosophy. Please tell us more, it sounds a bit like panentheism to me.


          ________________________________
          From: Maurice <maurice3mccarthy@...>
          To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Friday, April 6, 2012 8:20 AM
          Subject: [OriginsTalk] Introduction


           
          Hello to all,

          As I am new to this group I just wish to introduce myself. I'm
          approaching 60 years of age, have a philosophic bent and live in
          Swansea, UK. As regards the living world my views are Vitalist because I
          believe that through this I can reconcile religious believe to science -
          at least to my own satisfaction anyhow.

          Regards
          Maurice




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • VictorM
          ... Hello Maurice. Welcome to the OriginsTalk list. I respectfully disagree with some aspects of vitalism while commending others. Vitalism (1) admits that the
          Message 4 of 25 , Apr 6, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            > Hello to all,
            >
            > As I am new to this group I just wish to introduce myself. I'm
            > approaching 60 years of age, have a philosophic bent and live in
            > Swansea, UK. As regards the living world my views are Vitalist because I
            > believe that through this I can reconcile religious believe to science -
            > at least to my own satisfaction anyhow.
            >
            > Regards
            > Maurice
            >

            Hello Maurice. Welcome to the OriginsTalk list. I respectfully disagree with some aspects of vitalism while commending others.

            Vitalism (1) admits that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from biochemical reactions. (2) The processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining.

            1. All philosophy systems are based on elementary principles. The Bible specifically warns us about the elementary principles (stoicheia) of philosophy and the world. I went to western schools from kindergarten to adulthood, so I was raised on the elementary principles of philosophy, which has not been helpful in understanding the universe. The western system was built on principles first attempted by the pagan Greeks and later adjusted and dogmatized by medieval Catholic scholars. No creation scientists has successfully found a way to fit astronomical and geological evidences to the biblical record using the principles of philosophy (the western system).

            2. According to the Bible, God acted to create by commanding nature. For example He continued to command the ground to bring forth plants that reproduce themselves. He continued to command the waters to team with living things. HE continued to command the ground to bring forth living creatures that reproduced after their kinds. He also continues to act to sustain His creation. He is the vitallity of creation, its originator and sustainer. For example in Job 38 He mentions that the lion hunts prey because of His actions. During the garden of Eden phase, lions were vegetarians. A great many orderly changes need to occur in the physiology of lions to change them from herbivores to carnivores and God "done it - since creation." The Bible also mentions a passive curse on nature. All living and inanimate things deteriorate naturally. This is the opposite of vitalism. When I see changes in nature that are degenerative (such as virii becoming more virulent) I attribute that to passive (natural degeneration). When I see changes in nature that are for the benefit of the creature, I attribute that to the finger of God, His vital work. In either case change is a vital part of nature and all natural processes. THe Bible simply states that the creation is enslaved to change.

            3. I agree with some aspects of vitalism, that processes are emergent. Everywhere in nature we observe things interconnected by feedbacks, collective behaviors and symbiotic relations that cannot be describe by laws of physics or the decoding of DNA. For example, atoms have emergent properties. An electron is never an isolated thing, even when it is outside an atom. It is interacting with its environment in complex ways that involve light that shapes it and its environment. The properties of substances emerge from this complex interplay of things too complex to decode. Understanding the relational interconnected properties of all things is vital for giving us a little humility. We cannot decode the laws of nature or of life because they involve complex interconnections at every level.

            Victor
          • stewart8724
            ... Stewart: When you say more reasonable Laurie, Don t you mean more in line with your opinion? There is nothing at all unreasoned in the atheistic view,
            Message 5 of 25 , Apr 8, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: Maurice
              > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 1:20 AM
              > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Introduction
              >
              >
              >
              > Hello to all,
              >
              > As I am new to this group I just wish to introduce myself. I'm
              > approaching 60 years of age, have a philosophic bent and live in
              > Swansea, UK. As regards the living world my views are Vitalist because I
              > believe that through this I can reconcile religious believe to science -
              > at least to my own satisfaction anyhow.
              >
              >
              > LA> Welcome to the group Maurice. The "Vitalist" view is certainly much more reasonable than the atheistic view. However it seems to be a view that is generally rejected by both the evolutonism that is taught in schools as well as the Creation science that has been credited by evolutionists as having "regularly routed" its evolutionary opponents in what was a decade of debates on the scientific questions! Are you aware of this? The following is an example of what one evolutionary authority had to say on this matter;

              ----------------------
              Stewart:
              When you say "more reasonable" Laurie, Don't you mean 'more in line with your opinion?' There is nothing at all unreasoned in the atheistic view, it's just called thinking. You should try it at least once, it'll do you good.

              The campaigning rhetoric which followed is desperately patronising, unrealistic and overstated propaganda.
              > -------------------------------
              >
              > "Creationists travel all over the United States,
              > visiting college campuses and staging "debates" with
              > biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
              > creationists nearly always win."
              >
              > "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
              > converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
              > have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
              > awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
              > Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
              > onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
              > topics."
              >
              > "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
              > relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
              > geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
              > the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
              > intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
              > their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
              > than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
              > bewildered state of incoherence."
              >
              > (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
              > (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
              > ================
              >
              > LA> If you are aware of such admissions, then would you like to some comments about it.
              >
              >
              >
              > LA> Best wishes.
              >
              >
              >
              > Laurie.
              >
              > "The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that
              > lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
              > (Newsweek, 3 November, 1980)
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > No virus found in this message.
              > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              > Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2409/4917 - Release Date: 04/05/12
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • Laurie Appleton
              ... From: stewart8724 To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 9:35 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Introduction ... Stewart: When you say
              Message 6 of 25 , Apr 8, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: stewart8724
                To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 9:35 AM
                Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Introduction





                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: Maurice
                > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 1:20 AM
                > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Introduction
                >
                >
                >
                > Hello to all,
                >
                > As I am new to this group I just wish to introduce myself. I'm
                > approaching 60 years of age, have a philosophic bent and live in
                > Swansea, UK. As regards the living world my views are Vitalist because I
                > believe that through this I can reconcile religious believe to science -
                > at least to my own satisfaction anyhow.
                >
                >
                > LA> Welcome to the group Maurice. The "Vitalist" view is certainly much more reasonable than the atheistic view. However it seems to be a view that is generally rejected by both the evolutonism that is taught in schools as well as the Creation science that has been credited by evolutionists as having "regularly routed" its evolutionary opponents in what was a decade of debates on the scientific questions! Are you aware of this? The following is an example of what one evolutionary authority had to say on this matter;

                ----------------------
                Stewart:
                When you say "more reasonable" Laurie, Don't you mean 'more in line with your opinion?'



                LA> On the contrary. The "more reasonable view" is the one that is supported by the facts and evidence rather than the view based on the absurd view that everything just "made itself" from nothing for no reason reason at all.



                Stewart: There is nothing at all unreasoned in the atheistic view, it's just called thinking. You should try it at least once, it'll do you good.


                LA> Thus you are the one who is expressing what is just your "opinion". The atheist view gave the world Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and a host of "monsters" that caused the ghastly Twentieth Century!



                > Laurie.
                >
                > "The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that
                > lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
                > (Newsweek, 3 November, 1980)
                >



                No virus found in this message.
                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4923 - Release Date: 04/08/12


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Maurice McCarthy
                Thanks to all for the warmth of the replies. It is only in the last few years that I have really seriously began to think about the life sciences, so you may
                Message 7 of 25 , Apr 9, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks to all for the warmth of the replies. It is only in the last few years that I have really seriously began to think about the life sciences, so you may well find my knowledge and understanding rather wanting. I am here to learn through discussion and reflection.

                  David Evarts wrote :

                  << Hi Maurice. That sounds interesting. Why do you feel that religioud beleifs need reconciled with science? The majority of Christian denominations and other faiths do not have a problem with evolution and other science. Most of us see it as the second book, the witness of Gods creation and use it to help correct our misreadings of scripture. :) In example, if the book of Genesis is read strictly literally it leads to some non-Christian and non-sensical dogmas, such as the idea that sine entered humans through their mouths, when they ate a fruit. These undermine the whole of scripture and defy meaning. Anyways, vitalism is an interesting branch of philosophy. Please tell us more, it sounds a bit like panentheism to me. >>

                  Why _do I feel that religion and science need reconciling? I had not thought of that and on reflection I think they need reconciling for me personally. Taught evolution in school I grew up believing it. But my feelings slowly turned creationist until Steve Jones became something of a household name in Britain. At first it was not the arguments he made but because he was so obviously enthralled - in such a noble manner - that a certain dignity just shone from his eyes. Despite his atheism there was a sense of awe about him that felt religious to me. At the time he had a regular column in national newspaper here and I devoured every word he wrote.

                  Formally, science is the honest pursuit of truth but since its end is the refinement of human appetites into elevated levels then it enhances the value of human life for human beings. It is the wish to spell this out and understand this better that drives my efforts. Clearly, seen in this way science, cannot be rightly opposed to religion.

                  Darwin himself I agree with but neo-Darwinism is problematic to me. To my reading of the Origin of Species there are _two powers at work : the creative cause which he calls Variation and the determining constraint of Natural Selection. You cannot select before there is something to be selected. In the rancorous debate between fundamentalist creationism and the extreme neo-Darwinists one side places all emphasis and the first power and the other takes the second pole, minimising variation to the random mutations of copying gene sequences. At the beginning of chapter V Darwin writes,

                  "I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and multiform with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree with those under nature—were due to chance. This, of course is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation."

                  My feeling is that the neo-Darwinists are repeating the same ignorance in a different setting. I don't have the reference to hand, but I read that there was a recent experiment where lactose intolerant yeast demonstrated a statistical increase in the quantity of variation when only fed lactose. Variation returned to normal levels when given food they could digest. It is only one illustration but it seems to support my view that variation is not random. It responds to a selection pressure in an undirected or non-qualitative sense. Since the response is quantitative only then it is not design but a sort of sleep response, if I may put it so. Hence it is not pantheism but it does assimilate to both atheism and panentheism, as you point out.

                  I see the dynamics of life as occurring between two mutually interacting poles. For want of a another word I call the independent power of variation 'Vitality' and conceive of it as a single world-wide power. It is invisible like the principles of gravity or electricity or magnetism but whereas they are vectorial (can be resolved into one direction) vitality loops back upon itself, is alive or self-supporting. Now all life is linked by one and the same vitality just as matter is linked by gravity. Furthermore, it removes a contradiction at the root of neo-Darwinism. All life is now _always born from the living and first life-form does not have to be born from dead matter.

                  Observe what happens when vitality is crushed out of a living thing. It is then wholly determined by the external laws. The material world is seen to be a qualitative subset of the living. Death is explained as the removal of vitality whereas Jones, who says that "Life is chemistry plus time," does not explain to me how one and the same _vectorial chemistry can first promote life and then reverse direction, cause death and turn the body to dust.

                  At this point I think I'm trying to say too much too quickly.

                  Regards
                  Maurice
                • Maurice McCarthy
                  Hello VictorM Thank you for the welcome. My views are not biblical because I regard the Bible as spiritual truth rather than earthly. So I don t think I really
                  Message 8 of 25 , Apr 9, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello VictorM

                    Thank you for the welcome.

                    My views are not biblical because I regard the Bible as spiritual truth rather than earthly. So I don't think I really know what the words are refering to. Your last sentence, "We cannot decode the laws of nature or of life because they involve complex interconnections at every level." I cannot accept because I cannot conceive of any limit to knowledge. Every new perception and every new truth we conceive advances the limits of our consciousness.

                    I shall have to think more deeply about what you say with regard to God commanding what happens in the world. This assimilates to my view of spirituality as being of the nature of the will. I reject God as a designer. Design is a form of knowledge. Just as knowledge requires something to be known a designer needs a material to be designed. Now for God to create the world by design then matter would have to originally co-exist with God and I find this unacceptable. Creation has to be creation out of nothing. This precludes design an means that God creates as Absolute Ignorance. What is more even after the Creation He has to remain Ignorant. The second condition of knowledge is that the content to be known has to stimulate an activity to get to know it. The content has to be a mystery. There is no way that the result of putting forth his own being can be a mystery to God so He is beyond the need to know at all. (At least in any human sense.)

                    Everyone finds these statements repugnant until I point out that the only way He could become a knower is to become one of his own created. He would have to descend and become His Own Son in order to become a being of knowledge. He would have to suffer and overcome subjectivity in order to know.

                    None of this refutes design as such. But it does mean that if there are designers then they are all created beings. In Christian terms, there is no design unless angels exist and do the designing. Having no experience of angels I have to put down the subject there. They are beyond the scope of my knowledge.

                    The only way I can conceive of creation from nothing is that He wills forth His own being as the original substance of the world. He seems to do this in a way that simultaneously He withdraws from all manifestation to us, sacrifices His entire being for our sakes. In this way the ultimate substance of the world is Love. Clearly the being of Love is utterly self-sustaining whole. It is alive. What I call vitality I see as simply a lesser function of Love, a constituent principle of Love. Vitality is an ideal power which subsists in its own right as a quality of love. Life is a quality of the love of the Father. Actually, I could say Mother as God gave birth to the world, in a sense, in my view. To explain to a child I would personalise vitality as Mother Nature. Each living thing receives a portion of vitality, the water of life, an energy which slowly dwindles during the lifetime. I suspect it turns to seed.

                    VictorM wrote :

                    << Vitalism (1) admits that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from biochemical reactions. (2) The processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining. >>

                    Agreed.

                    << 1. All philosophy systems are based on elementary principles. The Bible specifically warns us about the elementary principles (stoicheia) of philosophy and the world. I went to western schools from kindergarten to adulthood, so I was raised on the elementary principles of philosophy, which has not been helpful in understanding the universe. The western system was built on principles first attempted by the pagan Greeks and later adjusted and dogmatized by medieval Catholic scholars. No creation scientists has successfully found a way to fit astronomical and geological evidences to the biblical record using the principles of philosophy (the western system). >>

                    So you don't agree that St. Thomas Aquinas adequately reconciled Greek Philosophy to reality of his own time? I envisage consciousness as always correponding to reality so that each age has to find its own truth. Truth is a pursuit during the development of spiritual consciousness.

                    << 2. ... He is the vitallity of creation, its originator and sustainer. ... >>

                    In my own fashion, I am exploring exactly that.

                    Regards
                    Maurice
                  • Maurice McCarthy
                    For some reason Laurie A s post never arrived in my inbox so I am grateful that Stewart made a response and I could see it. Welcome to the group
                    Message 9 of 25 , Apr 9, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      For some reason Laurie A's post never arrived in my inbox so I am grateful that Stewart made a response and I could see it.

                      << LA> Welcome to the group Maurice. The "Vitalist" view is certainly much more reasonable than the atheistic view. However it seems to be a view that is generally rejected by both the evolutonism that is taught in schools as well as the Creation science that has been credited by evolutionists as having "regularly routed" its evolutionary opponents in what was a decade of debates on the scientific questions! Are you aware of this? The following is an example of what one evolutionary authority had to say on this matter; >>

                      Laurie, thank you for the welcome.

                      To my knowledge vitalism has fallen right out of favour since the death of Hans Driesch in 1941. I've often wondered why his ideas did not find more interest. Perhaps it was the way he explained them.

                      I have witnessed Robert Winston fall flat on his face in a TV documentary when he confronted a creationist. His ideas on evolution had clearly fallen into routine habituation and he was ill-prepared. I am also impressed by Harun Yahya's attack on evolution. He picks holes in the science itself but he offers no good alternative explication of how living phenomena come to meet us in experience just there and so. (Not that I've read so far anyhow.) 

                      >
                      > Laurie.
                      >
                      > "The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that
                      > lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
                      > (Newsweek, 3 November, 1980)
                      >


                      First of all the obvious point that the fossil record cannot ever be complete because soft tissue does not fossilise easily. I am half way through Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" (2009) and in this he claims that the fossil record is now the best evidence of evolution because so much more fact has been discovered, even since 1980. Secondly, I think there is wide misunderstanding of the proper method of the life sciences. Ernst Mayr remarked that if the findings of molecular biology could not be assimilated to the naturalist method then he always rejected them. (Can't remember where he said this it may have been in "What evolution is".) I need to explain what I call the first law of knowledge. This will doubtless be difficult to appreciate.

                      To ask what knowledge is presupposes that we already have something we call knowledge and wish to clarify what it means. Whereas, at present, each science forms its own epistemology and then they cannot reconcile to each other is a major failing of the philosophers. Knowledge is one not many. So we have to work up an epistemology without presupposition. To do this you have to simply, think away everything you already know. What are the bare preconditions of knowledge and science?

                      a) that there is some content (as yet undefined) to be known
                      b) that there is a (necessarily indefinable) activity to gets to know this content

                      Note well the difference between undefined and indefinable. Christians call this activity the Light of the World. The activity of Christ inside each and every human being gives us the means of finding His true words which already exist out there in our experience. Yet, also, this activity allows us the freedom to make errors for it is our very own inner most substance. If b) does not exist then no knowledge of any kind can be known - no perception, no common sense and no science. Knowledge obtains when b unites with a. The activity directly seizes hold of the content. We stand here like an adult human capacity dropped directly into the world without any childhood experience. We stand before the advent of any logic - it has not yet been created by the activity. My words need to be taken with a certain good will as they can only point to what I mean and cannot be taken as definitions since this would incur presumption - and we wish to avoid presumption in
                      any form. Under what condition can knowledge happen? Now you either see this or you don't but unless there is a qualitative likeness between the activity and some part of the content then no real knowledge can ever be. The best you can ever get is a story running parallel to the content but never actually seizing it.

                      To flesh this out a little a) is experience in general. In science lets say phenomenal perception - for the function of science is to explain phenomena. b) is thinking. Unless thought-forms are present as content in experience then science fails ever to grasp the reality. Confusingly, we always add thoughts to percepts. So what I have just describes only ever happens at the very origin of all knowledge. Unless ideal forms are actually part of the world then we can never think them in truth. This is why Christ is the Logos, the Word. His creations are everywhere in experience - unperceivable except by act of thought.

                      Let the activity of knowledge be physical science and its objects material. Do you see the qualitative likeness between the law of causation by contact and the methods of logic? Physics is good, true science because the motions of bodies and methods of study are qualitatively similar. What of the life sciences? Now the logical method is inconsistent to the objects! Logic begins from a presumption and proceeds to a conclusion. The perceptible being of the physical cause must precede _in _time the perceived effect. A complete fossil record would the equivalent of a chain of causation by contact. But living things are not physical bodies. They are more or less stable forms in a _flow of matter. They are self-sustaining _wholes which strive to maintain their own existence. This self-causing nature means that the naturalist method is the correct one. So that when description is wide and deep enough that description is already the full explanation.

                      During the course of the 19th century something happened to the concept of cause. For the first time in human history cause had to precede effect. The cause was related to the effect by the real relation of contact. In an act of will the opposite is true. The effect precedes the cause by an ideal relation. A picture of the effect in the mind causes the actions which bring about the effect in reality. The Origin of Species was written at the height of the world view which we call mechanism. Little wonder then, in that atmosphere, that all emphasis was put on natural selection and common descent as opposed to creative variation linked by vitality.

                      All scientific ideas and theories have their proper range of application. When an idea is taken beyond this range, as I believe natural selection is when applied to psychology and social problems, then one-sidedness and error creep in. We lose our freedom subtly because the idea takes hold of the person rather than the person control the idea. The first law of knowledge, once appreciated, can lay down the rules whereby we don't let ideas run away with us.

                      In short, the proof of Christ is the existence of true science. Christ is not faith. Christ is knowledge. We only need faith in each other.

                      Regards
                      Maurice

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • stewart8724
                      ... Stewart: Is it the more reasonable view to contest that a God made its self from nothing for no reason at all, and then created everything else from
                      Message 10 of 25 , Apr 9, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: stewart8724
                        > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 9:35 AM
                        > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Introduction
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > From: Maurice
                        > > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 1:20 AM
                        > > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Introduction
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Hello to all,
                        > >
                        > > As I am new to this group I just wish to introduce myself. I'm
                        > > approaching 60 years of age, have a philosophic bent and live in
                        > > Swansea, UK. As regards the living world my views are Vitalist because I
                        > > believe that through this I can reconcile religious believe to science -
                        > > at least to my own satisfaction anyhow.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > LA> Welcome to the group Maurice. The "Vitalist" view is certainly much more reasonable than the atheistic view. However it seems to be a view that is generally rejected by both the evolutonism that is taught in schools as well as the Creation science that has been credited by evolutionists as having "regularly routed" its evolutionary opponents in what was a decade of debates on the scientific questions! Are you aware of this? The following is an example of what one evolutionary authority had to say on this matter;
                        >
                        > ----------------------
                        > Stewart:
                        > When you say "more reasonable" Laurie, Don't you mean 'more in line with your opinion?'
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > LA> On the contrary. The "more reasonable view" is the one that is supported by the facts and evidence rather than the view based on the absurd view that everything just "made itself" from nothing for no reason reason at all.

                        Stewart:
                        Is it the more reasonable view to contest that a God made its self from nothing for no reason at all, and then created everything else from nothing for no reason at all?
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Stewart: There is nothing at all unreasoned in the atheistic view, it's just called thinking. You should try it at least once, it'll do you good.
                        >
                        >
                        > LA> Thus you are the one who is expressing what is just your "opinion". The atheist view gave the world Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and a host of "monsters" that caused the ghastly Twentieth Century!

                        Stewart:
                        The Atheist view is a personal realisation it is not a promoted doctrine, it did not produce the individuals you mention.
                        On the other hand if you are looking for a list of historical characters and events, moulded by those who claim to represent your God, see below.

                        Constantine, Lucrezia Borgia, Pope Urban II (instigated the Crusades), The Spanish Inquisition, The Dark Ages, Witch trials, Adolph Hitler (Christian), Ku Klux Klan.

                        It's also worth remembering Laurie, that all the people on your list were (if your opinion is to be believed) created by your God. Just part of the divine plan do you think?
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > > Laurie.
                        > >
                        > > "The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that
                        > > lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
                        > > (Newsweek, 3 November, 1980)
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > No virus found in this message.
                        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                        > Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4923 - Release Date: 04/08/12
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • gluadys
                        ... Yes, we should not fall into the assumption that a person who does not believe in the Christian deity has no spiritual sense of wonder, awe and amazement
                        Message 11 of 25 , Apr 9, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy <maurice3mccarthy@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > Why _do I feel that religion and science need reconciling? I had not thought of that and on reflection I think they need reconciling for me personally. Taught evolution in school I grew up believing it. But my feelings slowly turned creationist until Steve Jones became something of a household name in Britain. At first it was not the arguments he made but because he was so obviously enthralled - in such a noble manner - that a certain dignity just shone from his eyes. Despite his atheism there was a sense of awe about him that felt religious to me. At the time he had a regular column in national newspaper here and I devoured every word he wrote.
                          >
                          >
                          >




                          Yes, we should not fall into the assumption that a person who does not believe in the Christian deity has no spiritual sense of wonder, awe and amazement in the face of creation. The grand history of the universe that science has made known to us is incredibly inspiring whatever one's faith. For myself, as a Christian, it fully justifies all the biblical material which praises the Creator and sees all of creation (trees, mountains, stars as well as all living creatures) joining in a grand hymn of praise.

                          As for evolution, Christians have been defending it since 1859. One might not know that if one has been cocooned in an evolution-denying enclave, but it is documented. If you are a reader, you can check out some of the early history of Christian (especially evangelical Christian) engagement with evolution in Darwin's Forgotten Defenders by David Livingstone.



                          >
                          > Formally, science is the honest pursuit of truth but since its end is the refinement of human appetites into elevated levels then it enhances the value of human life for human beings. It is the wish to spell this out and understand this better that drives my efforts. Clearly, seen in this way science, cannot be rightly opposed to religion.
                          >
                          >


                          That seems a rather mystical task for science, and I am not sure what I make of it. But I agree that where both science and religion are grounded in truth, they cannot be opposed.


                          >
                          > Darwin himself I agree with but neo-Darwinism is problematic to me.
                          >


                          I do wish more people would study the history of science. If anything, you should hold the reverse. Darwin made many errors and was ignorant of one of the bases of evolution: namely the genetic nature of inheritance. Neo-Darwinism makes a necessary correction to Darwin's original thesis by explaining both the origin of variation and how variation can persist through generations even when it is not expressed. Why would that be problematic?

                          OTOH, almost all the fierce religious opposition to Darwinism was not so much to the science as to what has become known as Social Darwinism. This was a social and political project that claimed the support of the theory of evolution. Being a Brit, you will understand its unpopularity since Social Darwinism is a viewpoint that justifies the privileges of the upper classes while excusing them from offering any assistance (such as tax-funded social programs) to the poor.

                          I checked out Steve Jones, whom I had not heard of before, on Wikipedia (I assume you mean the biologist, not the guitarist or the TV presenter) and see that he has not much good to say about classism or its institutions like private schools. He would also oppose Social Darwinism.

                          Social Darwinism gave Darwinism a very bad name. And it is still alive and well though it no longer claims "scientific" support nor identifies itself with Darwin. But it preceded the advent of neo-Darwinism, which is genuine science, not a self-justifying political ideology. So I don't think we should tarnish neo-Darwinism with the same well-deserved condemnation that has been heaped on Social Darwinism.



                          >
                          >To my reading of the Origin of Species there are _two powers at work : the creative cause which he calls Variation and the determining constraint of Natural Selection. You cannot select before there is something to be selected.
                          >
                          >

                          Actually, you have it backwards about. Darwin did not depict variation as creative. He accepted that variation exists. He had no understanding of why or how it exists (that is what neo-Darwinism supplied nearly a century later). He saw natural selection as the creative component.

                          I don't know where the idea has come from that selection cannot be creative. Darwin saw how dog and pigeon and other breeders could create new breeds through judicious artificial selection. But they certainly didn't simply let variation take its course. Or ask a sculptor. Does he not select which bits of marble to remove and which to let remain? And do we not consider that creative art? A painter has many shades of paint on his palette—that is variety. But it is his or her selection of which hues to place where that turns variety into creativity.


                          >
                          > "I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variationsâ€"so common and multiform with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree with those under natureâ€"were due to chance. This, of course is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation."
                          >
                          >


                          Darwin, in fact, is defining "chance" scientifically. "Chance" or "random" or "unpredictable" are the terms scientists use when they are ignorant of the cause of any particular. Very often, they can predict in the mass: statisically—but not each particular occurrence. (Think of how insurance works: very precise statistical projections of how many accidents or deaths there will be in each demographic over a defined time-frame---but no clue as to which individuals will be able to make a claim. Yet we would not say that accidents or deaths have no causes, even when the cause is unknown.) Same goes for variation and for the inheritable changes that give rise to them. "Chance" in such a context is a scientist's confession of ignorance. It means, in effect: "I don't know what causes this and I can make no prediction of when or under what circumstances it will happen again."

                          Of course, this scientific ignorance of particular causes of particular events does not imply that chance itself is a cause, much less that it displaces divine providence. After all, science cannot predict divine interaction with creation either, so any such interaction also gets labelled "chance" in scientific vocabulary.


                          >
                          > My feeling is that the neo-Darwinists are repeating the same ignorance in a different setting.
                          >


                          Of course. We do know, in general, what causes all sorts of inheritable changes. But what help is it to a scientist to know that if a cosmic ray passes through a germ cell, it may affect the DNA in such a way as to produce an inheritable variation when we have no way to know when and where this will happen? Nor can we trace back any detected change to that cause and there are several other possible causes, including the most common: miscopying of the DNA strand during reproduction. Then there is also chromosomal crossover during meiosis or viral infection (which can sometimes be traced after the fact, but not predicted).

                          So, yes, scientists are ignorant of the cause of particular inheritable changes; they cannot predict when or where or under what circumstances they will happen.

                          That doesn't mean there is no cause. It doesn't even exclude a possible divine cause in a particular case. It does mean that scientific knowledge is limited in respect of determining the cause of particular molecular events that have an impact on the constitution of DNA.


                          >
                          >
                          > I don't have the reference to hand, but I read that there was a recent experiment where lactose intolerant yeast demonstrated a statistical increase in the quantity of variation when only fed lactose. Variation returned to normal levels when given food they could digest. It is only one illustration but it seems to support my view that variation is not random.
                          >
                          >

                          I know the experiment. But what is there here to say the variation is not random? It is like saying that if one person buys a hundred lottery tickets per week while the average person buys only three, the big spender is more likely to win. But he still wins on a random draw. It has been amply demonstrated that bacteria, yeast and some other creatures do ramp up the speed at which mutations occur when they are under stress. This gives them a better chance of hitting on one that they can use. But whether any mutation will be helpful and what it will be and when it will occur is still anybody's guess. And that is what "random" means---that no one can predict the outcome.




                          >
                          > It responds to a selection pressure in an undirected or non-qualitative sense. Since the response is quantitative only then it is not design but a sort of sleep response, if I may put it so. Hence it is not pantheism but it does assimilate to both atheism and panentheism, as you point out.
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          Yes, that I can see. IOW, the actual inheritable changes that may occur under such a scenario do remain random. But this process of increasing one's chances of a good outcome through a quantitative response (like the purchaser of 100 tickets in the lottery) is itself a fascinating adaptation. And adaptation is not random. Adaptation is an outcome of natural selection.




                          >
                          > I see the dynamics of life as occurring between two mutually interacting poles. For want of a another word I call the independent power of variation 'Vitality' and conceive of it as a single world-wide power. It is invisible like the principles of gravity or electricity or magnetism but whereas they are vectorial (can be resolved into one direction) vitality loops back upon itself, is alive or self-supporting. Now all life is linked by one and the same vitality just as matter is linked by gravity. Furthermore, it removes a contradiction at the root of neo-Darwinism. All life is now _always born from the living and first life-form does not have to be born from dead matter.
                          >
                          >


                          This is another pet peeve of mine. Matter is not dead unless it was once alive. Anything dead once lived. If you are referring to non-biological matter, it is not dead even though it is not biologically alive either. So please don't call non-biological matter "dead".

                          Another problematic here is the whole question of what are the properties of matter. We have lived for nearly four centuries now with the mechanical view of the cosmos which views everything (including humans) as complex machines. You will have to read some of Kamran's posts—he is a great supporter of life as a machinery.

                          Modern science took root in this view and successfully exploited it to generate much new knowledge. But, for the last hundred years, science (particularly physics) has been finding the mechanistic model inadequate to express their observations of matter. Consider "space" for example. In the mechanistic model, space is simply the emptiness that intervenes between material objects. It is nothing in and of itself. But today's science tells us that space is an immensely energetic and dynamic field of quantum fluctuation which is a constant source of creative potentiality. And what is "matter"? Not, as we once thought, an impenetrable solidity of stuff, but swirls of energetic vortices in a continuous interactive dance with other such vortices. Matter is not stuff so much as it is pattern.

                          Have you heard of quantum entanglement and bilocality? One of the insights I recently came across is that in the early days of the universe when it was still incredibly small, every electron probably encountered every other electron in the whole universe, so they are still entangled with every other electron in the whole universe. This means the whole universe is a web of interconnected energy points at the most fundamental level of physical existence. It certainly does not merit the adjective "dead" even if it has not crossed a threshold into biological life.

                          One of the things that excites me is that this whole new world of physical cosmology, that most of us are just beginning to be aware of, is far more friendly to spiritual understanding than the old mechanistic model. And it becomes more and more clear that we can no longer claim spirituality as a uniquely human trait. I would call the Vitality you are speaking of Spirit---God's Spirit which brought the universe into being and in whom every existing thing is continually bathed. This, of course, takes us in the direction of panentheism. All is in God and God is in all. Creation and God are not the same thing, but they are inseparable for without God the Being of Creation disappears.



                          >
                          > Observe what happens when vitality is crushed out of a living thing. It is then wholly determined by the external laws. The material world is seen to be a qualitative subset of the living. Death is explained as the removal of vitality whereas Jones, who says that "Life is chemistry plus time," does not explain to me how one and the same _vectorial chemistry can first promote life and then reverse direction, cause death and turn the body to dust.
                          >
                          >

                          This is the other problem I see with the mechanistic model and the view of non-biological matter as "dead". In such a model there is no place for God except as an occasional tinkering intruder. How far this is from the biblical understanding of the relationship of God and creation. Christians once viewed "nature" as God's special field of action—the domain devoid of human action, but filled with God's activity. Think of how scripture speaks of God paying attention to the sparrow, feeding the lions and clothing the lilies of the field.

                          When we adopted the idea of the cosmos as machine, the God of the bible, ever-present to the natural world, became the absentee God of Deism, only checking in now and again to see if the machine needed a tune-up or repair. Even in the church, we have absorbed this idea so thoroughly that we now think of "nature" as the place where God does NOT dwell. Quite the reverse of the scriptural (or any spiritual) view. And so we have difficulty reconciling science and faith, because we think of the natural processes science describes as occurring in the absence of God, even as replacing God. We are left with two deficient models of God. Either the God who created the perfect natural mechanism which never needs any repair and is therefore superfluous to his creation, or the God who was unable to create a natural world without defects and so has to intervene to make up for its deficiences.

                          I reject both of these, and it excites me that science is also rejecting the mechanistic view. Now both faith and science can come together again as they once were and view God and nature as partners in a mutual dance of Being. Everything in nature reveals the hand of God because God is never absent.

                          Btw have you heard the term "evolutionary creation"? And, as you are in the UK, have you read or listened to either John Polkinghorne or Alister McGrath. Both have an impeccable background in science as well as being Christians and they certainly believe the science of evolution and Christian faith have no quarrel with each other.

                          On this side of the Atlantic some of the people promoting a friendlier view of evolution in the church are Francis Collins, Karl Giberson and Denis Lamoureux. Check out the web-site Biologos to get acquainted with this school of thought. There is also a blog, no longer active but still accessible called An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution.

                          In short, you have lots of company in your quest to reconcile science and faith. May God bless you along the way.
                        • Joe Martin
                          From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: April-06-12 5:03 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                          Message 12 of 25 , Apr 10, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                            Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
                            Sent: April-06-12 5:03 PM
                            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Introduction






                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Maurice
                            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 1:20 AM
                            Subject: [OriginsTalk] Introduction

                            Hello to all,

                            As I am new to this group I just wish to introduce myself. I'm
                            approaching 60 years of age, have a philosophic bent and live in
                            Swansea, UK. As regards the living world my views are Vitalist because I
                            believe that through this I can reconcile religious believe to science -
                            at least to my own satisfaction anyhow.

                            LA> Welcome to the group Maurice. The "Vitalist" view is certainly much more
                            reasonable than the atheistic view. However it seems to be a view that is
                            generally rejected by both the evolutonism that is taught in schools as well
                            as the Creation science that has been credited by evolutionists as having
                            "regularly routed" its evolutionary opponents in what was a decade of
                            debates on the scientific questions! Are you aware of this? The following is
                            an example of what one evolutionary authority had to say on this matter;

                            -------------------------------

                            "Creationists travel all over the United States,
                            visiting college campuses and staging "debates" with
                            biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
                            creationists nearly always win."

                            "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
                            converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
                            have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
                            awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
                            Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
                            onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
                            topics."

                            "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
                            relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
                            geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
                            the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
                            intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
                            their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
                            than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
                            bewildered state of incoherence."

                            (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
                            (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
                            ================





                            Maurice



                            This little snippet from our Mr. Appleton is misquoted AND very much Out of
                            Context with what Eldredge was saying. If you would like to see the full
                            context of the "quote" ( I use the term loosely) I would be happy to post it
                            for you. YECs have never won a Scientific debate with scientists because
                            they only stage their little debating games on terms that favour their dodge
                            and weave tactics. No Science is EVER presented by the YECs or at least any
                            science that would stand up to kindergarten scrutiny.



                            Joe

                            Maurice ...





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • VictorM
                            ... Victor: When I read your words I accept them for what they say. I do not imagine you are writing metaphors or spiritual mumbo jumbo - unless the context
                            Message 13 of 25 , Apr 10, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy <maurice3mccarthy@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Hello VictorM
                              >
                              > Thank you for the welcome.
                              >
                              > My views are not biblical because I regard the Bible as spiritual truth rather than earthly. So I don't think I really know what the words are refering to.

                              Victor: When I read your words I accept them for what they say. I do not imagine you are writing metaphors or spiritual mumbo jumbo - unless the context indicates so. The biblical words should be interpreted as any other words - literally, grammatically and in their historical context.

                              > Your last sentence, "We cannot decode the laws of nature or of life because they involve complex interconnections at every level." I cannot accept because I cannot conceive of any limit to knowledge. Every new perception and every new truth we conceive advances the limits of our consciousness.
                              >

                              Victor: The modern scientific structure was built on a mere assumption. People trained to think scientifically never question the foundational assumption, which they accept as self evident without discoursing about it or testing it in non circular ways. The Bible predicted that in the last days people would obfuscate the age and history of the plural heavens (ouranoi esan ekpalai - evidently the galaxies) with their notion that all things remain the same. Western science was constructed on that very idea - that today's matter is the same as yesterday's. Scientists obfuscate cosmic history with all sorts of ad hoc stories about undetectable things precisely because they their definitions, measuring units, methods and mathematical constructs were built on the notion that the properties of matter are not continually emerging relationally.


                              > I shall have to think more deeply about what you say with regard to God commanding what happens in the world. This assimilates to my view of spirituality as being of the nature of the will. I reject God as a designer. Design is a form of knowledge. Just as knowledge requires something to be known a designer needs a material to be designed. Now for God to create the world by design then matter would have to originally co-exist with God and I find this unacceptable. Creation has to be creation out of nothing. This precludes design an means that God creates as Absolute Ignorance. What is more even after the Creation He has to remain Ignorant. The second condition of knowledge is that the content to be known has to stimulate an activity to get to know it. The content has to be a mystery. There is no way that the result of putting forth his own being can be a mystery to God so He is beyond the need to know at all. (At least in any human sense.)
                              >
                              > Everyone finds these statements repugnant until I point out that the only way He could become a knower is to become one of his own created. He would have to descend and become His Own Son in order to become a being of knowledge. He would have to suffer and overcome subjectivity in order to know.
                              >

                              The word created is only used about three things in Genesis one. He created the plural heavens (evidently the galaxies) and the earth first. However, at first the earth had no form and it was dark. Then He continued to command light to continue to be. It was light that gave from to matter and continues to do so to this very day. Light reveals the truth and confounds error, according to the Bible, because everything that is visible esan phos - is light. Matter and light are a relationship - so there is one way one way to know the truth, not with mathematics or philosophy - but by observing the light. For example we can see that the continents only fit together on a tiny globe without major seas. The visible appearance of the earth and the sea floor shows that the Earth has continued to grow, exactly as the Bible so plainly states. Yet scientists cannot accept a growing earth because it is a violation of their basic creed. So they imagine that the sea floor dives back into the earth without venting lava or disturbing the sediments. There is not a shred of visible evidence for subduction. There is much evidence that new earth crust forms every year.

                              We can see the past back to the creation era. In billions of examples, every galaxy clocks different atomic frequencies than local atoms and the differences usually increase with distance (how far the light transited). We see how galaxies grew from tiny naked globs of primordial matter (tohu wa bohu in Hebrew) to huge, dusty, star filled, growth spirals exactly as described in the Hebrew text of Genesis. He formed the Sun, Moon and stars and placed them in the spreading place (Hebrew raqiya). Our ancestors recorded a smaller solar system a few millennia ago. When we compare galaxies at different ranges, we observe that the atomic clocks accelerate concurrently with the accelerating star streams as billions of galaxies intrinsically grew. The Biblical God claim this is evidence for His glory, what He does, His finger at work.

                              Scientists have filled the universe up with 99% magic to prevent what is visible from being so. They tell ad hoc stories about invisible matter, vacuum stretching space, light being stretched by the stretching vacuums, galaxies standing still relative to local vacuums as the intra galactic space expands and pushes them away at almost the speed of light. They imagine black holes from which jets of matter emerge - but light cannot, etc. etc.) Scientific earth histories depend on the notion that atoms are immutable and dither with perpetual motion. No wonder the Bible says God will make foolish the wisdom of this age.


                              >
                              > None of this refutes design as such. But it does mean that if there are designers then they are all created beings. In Christian terms, there is no design unless angels exist and do the designing. Having no experience of angels I have to put down the subject there. They are beyond the scope of my knowledge.
                              >
                              > The only way I can conceive of creation from nothing is that He wills forth His own being as the original substance of the world. He seems to do this in a way that simultaneously He withdraws from all manifestation to us, sacrifices His entire being for our sakes. In this way the ultimate substance of the world is Love. Clearly the being of Love is utterly self-sustaining whole. It is alive. What I call vitality I see as simply a lesser function of Love, a constituent principle of Love. Vitality is an ideal power which subsists in its own right as a quality of love. Life is a quality of the love of the Father. Actually, I could say Mother as God gave birth to the world, in a sense, in my view. To explain to a child I would personalise vitality as Mother Nature. Each living thing receives a portion of vitality, the water of life, an energy which slowly dwindles during the lifetime. I suspect it turns to seed.
                              >

                              What you believe is known as pantheism. Pantheists believe that the world is either identical with God or is an expression of his nature. Therefore, everything that exists is a unity - in some sense everything is divine. Solomon wrote that God made everything beautiful, comely, fair, appropriate (Hebrew yapheh) in its event time. When dinosaurs roamed the planet, the world was properly constituted to work for that event time. However, sin corrupted the world. Nature degenerated from its original pristine condition. Think of the heavy brows of our Neanderthal like ancestors. If we lived for geological ages (as they claimed) we would become Neanderthal as we aged. OUr skulls is the only part of our skeleton that keeps on growing and changing as we age. Evidently they lived for geological ages since their children did not have the thick brows.

                              God sustains the world, even as it is deteriorating. No one lives for geological ages today. Jesus is the Savior who saves us from sin and will someday save the world ecologically and politically. Someday people will again live lifetimes like a tree, according to the biblical promises.

                              Victor
                            • Laurie Appleton
                              ... From: stewart8724 To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:12 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Introduction Stewart: Is it the more
                              Message 14 of 25 , Apr 10, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: stewart8724
                                To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:12 AM
                                Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Introduction





                                Stewart:
                                Is it the more reasonable view to contest that a God made its self from nothing for no reason at all, and then created everything else from nothing for no reason at all?


                                LA> The famous scientist Albert Einstein stated what seems to be the "reasonable view" when he wrote the following;

                                ------------------------------------

                                "The scientist's religious feeling takes the form of
                                rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which
                                reveals an intelligence of such superiority that,
                                compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting
                                of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
                                (The World As I See It, p.29)

                                =====================

                                LA> So does that mean that you are in strong disagreement with Einstein and would wish to argue with him about "where did this great INTELLIGENCE come from?



                                Laurie.

                                ". . . .scientists, contrary to the myth that they themselves publicly promulgate, are
                                emotional human beings who carry a generous does of subjectivity with them into the
                                supposedly "objective search for truth." (Roger Lewin, noted evolutionist, "Bones of Contention, 1987, p.18)




                                No virus found in this message.
                                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4927 - Release Date: 04/10/12


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • lucaspa1
                                ... selection and ... much as ... Divine. ... because ... because ... to our ... capacity cannot ... Darwinism and ... intelligent design ... explored by ...
                                Message 15 of 25 , Apr 11, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, hucklebird@... wrote:

                                  > Pure Darwinism = Evolution is completely described by natural
                                  selection and
                                  > random mutation.
                                  >
                                  > Pure creationism = Creation is by Divine intervention, and this is as
                                  much as
                                  > can be said leaving behind the anthropomorphic descriptions of the
                                  Divine.
                                  >
                                  > My view is that both accounts are wrong. Pure Darwinism is wrong NOT
                                  because
                                  > natural selection and random mutation are inactive in evolution, but
                                  because
                                  > such an account is not complete. There is something else that relates
                                  to our
                                  > innate capacity to feel and find meaning in the world, and this
                                  capacity cannot
                                  > be separated from life, a non-passive quality.
                                  >
                                  > That is, I am proposing a new theory of evolution that unifies
                                  Darwinism and
                                  > intelligent design. Darwinism can be described as content driven,
                                  intelligent design
                                  > is driven by context. Meaning is, therefore, the union of content and
                                  > context, but the middle term escapes all formalism. The middle term is
                                  explored by
                                  > direct experience with the Divine.

                                  Intelligent Design says that parts of living things are directly made by
                                  God and did not evolve from previous structures. For instance, Behe
                                  claims that the human blood clotting system is an example: it had to be
                                  made by God complete and in one piece.

                                  So, if I follow you, you are saying that our (human) "innate capability
                                  to feel and find meaning in the world" had to be manufactured by the
                                  divine. But if this capacity cannot be separated from life itself,
                                  then our particular capability came from earlier life, right? Unless,
                                  of course, you think humans themselves were separately created in their
                                  entirety and did not evolve from a previous species.

                                  What we also need for you to do is be much more specific about what
                                  "meaning" is. You say it is a "union of content and context", but that
                                  says absolutely nothing. What is "meaning"?
                                • Maurice McCarthy
                                  gluadys wrote :
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Apr 11, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    gluadys wrote :

                                    << ... If you are a reader, you can check out some of the early history of Christian (especially evangelical Christian) engagement with evolution in Darwin's Forgotten Defenders by David Livingstone. >>

                                    Thanks, I shall look this up. I am quite an avid reader and in the middle of Gerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True at the moment. The book before that was Conor Cunningham's Darwin's Pious Idea which I found enormously difficult to follow. It got easier for me in the later chapters but still took over 8 months in total. Indeed I had to read whole other works two or three times before I could arrange my mind to receive what he was saying. Though I am still unclear of much he said, it was this experience which I think led me to seek out a discussion group on evolution.

                                    >
                                    > Darwin himself I agree with but neo-Darwinism is problematic to me.
                                    >

                                    gluadys :
                                    << I do wish more people would study the history of science. If anything, you should hold the reverse. Darwin made many errors and was ignorant of one of the bases of evolution: namely the genetic nature of inheritance. Neo-Darwinism makes a necessary correction to Darwin's original thesis by explaining both the origin of variation and how variation can persist through generations even when it is not expressed. Why would that be problematic? >>

                                    What I don't get is that particles in motion can _originate variation. To me it just feels wrong. To my vitalist view the water of life is not  particles in motion. The particles or genes are rather a physical constraint upon the water of life or  "vitality", as I call it.

                                    gluadys :
                                    << OTOH, almost all the fierce religious opposition to Darwinism was not so much to the science as to what has become known as Social Darwinism. ... Steve Jones ... So I don't think we should tarnish neo-Darwinism with the same well-deserved condemnation that has been heaped on Social Darwinism.>>

                                    Yes, I agree and you do have the right Steve Jones who studied snails for many years. I think Social Darwinism is a case of an idea (biological evolution) being applied where it is entirely inappropriate. Evolution is an unconscious process whereas social processes are more or less conscious ones.

                                    >
                                    >To my reading of the Origin of Species there are _two powers at work : the creative cause which he calls Variation and the determining constraint of Natural Selection. You cannot select before there is something to be selected.
                                    >

                                    << Actually, you have it backwards about. Darwin did not depict variation as creative. He accepted that variation exists. He had no understanding of why or how it exists (that is what neo-Darwinism supplied nearly a century later). He saw natural selection as the creative component. >>

                                    I agree Darwin did not _depict variation as creative, rather I read the text as presupposing a creative principle. I guess my reasons are near poetic. Firstly, it is a philosophic observation that a dual polarity produces _lively phenomena. A strong economy, for example, always has such a feature - for example, Western technology and the huge Chinese workforce make China's economy highly expansive. Another economic example would be British industry and the resources of India as the great wealth engine of the empire. In the Critique of Judgment Kant points out that poetic metaphor and analogy are the same kind of thinking which naturalists use to study the living world, and that is comparative methods. What I'm driving at is that comparison of living forms leads to the intellectual grasp of an inner principle separate to the physical ones.

                                    gluadys :
                                    << I don't know where the idea has come from that selection cannot be creative. Darwin saw how dog and pigeon and other breeders could create new breeds through judicious artificial selection. But they certainly didn't simply let variation take its course. Or ask a sculptor. Does he not select which bits of marble to remove and which to let remain? And do we not consider that creative art? A painter has many shades of paint on his palette—that is variety. But it is his or her selection of which hues to place where that turns variety into creativity. >>

                                    I am sorry but I cannot quite agree. From the beginning of Chapter IV of the Origin of Species :

                                    " But the variability, which we almost universally meet with in our domestic productions is not directly produced, as Hooker and Asa Gray have well remarked, by man; he can neither originate varieties nor prevent their occurrence; he can only preserve and accumulate such as do occur. Unintentionally he exposes organic beings to new and changing conditions of life, and variability ensues; but similar changes of conditions might and do occur under nature. "

                                    There is my point. Selection, whether natural or human, does not create but merely preserves that which has already been created. Once selected that selection becomes a constraint upon the further operation of creative variation prior to another selection. Physical water takes the shape of its container but living water alters its own containers by varying their forms. The poles of a living duality interact. And that is why the inner effort to understand life-forms as opposed to physical motions is so much greater.

                                    >
                                    > "I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations" so common and multiform with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree with those under nature" were due to chance. This, of course is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation."
                                    >
                                    >

                                    gluadys :
                                    << Darwin, in fact, is defining "chance" scientifically. "Chance" or "random" or "unpredictable" are the terms scientists use when they are ignorant of the cause of any particular. Very often, they can predict in the mass: statisically—but not each particular occurrence. (Think of how insurance works: very precise statistical projections of how many accidents or deaths there will be in each demographic over a defined time-frame---but no clue as to which individuals will be able to make a claim. Yet we would not say that accidents or deaths have no causes, even when the cause is unknown.) Same goes for variation and for the inheritable changes that give rise to them. "Chance" in such a context is a scientist's confession of ignorance. It means, in effect: "I don't know what causes this and I can make no prediction of when or under what circumstances it will happen again." >>

                                    << Of course, this scientific ignorance of particular causes of particular events does not imply that chance itself is a cause, much less that it displaces divine providence. After all, science cannot predict divine interaction with creation either, so any such interaction also gets labelled "chance" in scientific vocabulary. >>

                                    Thank you for the explication. This was enlightening for me and I shall digest it further.

                                    >
                                    > My feeling is that the neo-Darwinists are repeating the same ignorance in a different setting.
                                    >

                                    gluadys :
                                    << Of course. ... Nor can we trace back any detected change to that cause and there are several other possible causes, including the most common: miscopying of the DNA strand during reproduction. ... So, yes, scientists are ignorant of the cause of particular inheritable changes; they cannot predict when or where or under what circumstances they will happen. >>

                                    << That doesn't mean there is no cause. It doesn't even exclude a possible divine cause in a particular case. It does mean that scientific knowledge is limited in respect of determining the cause of particular molecular events that have an impact on the constitution of DNA. >>

                                    Here, I believe you have just encapsulated the reason why I came to propose the independent principle of vitality. I am entitled to propose an independent cause from purely phenomenal observation. Suppose I see i) a body fall, ii) iron filings on a paper form patterns when a magnet is moved underneath the paper and iii) a spark jump from a nylon shirt on to my finger. Surely just because they look different then I ought to assign separate causes unless they are shown to be caused by one and the same force by further investigation. This holds even further if those causes already commonly acknowledged are _not sufficient to explain the observed phenomena. If molecular biology comes out with a random cause of variation then I should posit an independent cause and seek to further elaborate it what its nature might be.

                                    Surely this must be the reason why Newton proposed gravity or action at a distance, even though he had to overcome his own resistance to the fact that gravity contradicts the notion that all actions were by contact or impulse inherited from the Schoolmen and Descartes. Cause by contact _only is arguably implied in the First Law of Motion where "impressed forces" are deemed the cause of changes in motion. 

                                    >
                                    > I don't have the reference to hand, but I read that there was a recent experiment where lactose intolerant yeast demonstrated a statistical increase in the quantity of variation when only fed lactose. Variation returned to normal levels when given food they could digest. It is only one illustration but it seems to support my view that variation is not random.
                                    >
                                    >

                                    gluadys :
                                    << I know the experiment. But what is there here to say the variation is not random? It is like saying that if one person buys a hundred lottery tickets per week while the average person buys only three, the big spender is more likely to win. But he still wins on a random draw. It has been amply demonstrated that bacteria, yeast and some other creatures do ramp up the speed at which mutations occur when they are under stress. This gives them a better chance of hitting on one that they can use. But whether any mutation will be helpful and what it will be and when it will occur is still anybody's guess. And that is what "random" means---that no one can predict the outcome. >>

                                    Your point is well taken. A quantitative response can still be random so I was in error. Rather my point ought to be that I cannot see how mere chemicals or genes could react in this way. I might be wrong and cybernetics applied to biological chemistry might come up with an answer. But I'm ignorant of the cybernetic field.

                                    >
                                    > It responds to a selection pressure in an undirected or non-qualitative sense. Since the response is quantitative only then it is not design but a sort of sleep response, if I may put it so. Hence it is not pantheism but it does assimilate to both atheism and panentheism, as you point out.
                                    >

                                    gluadys :
                                    << Yes, that I can see. IOW, the actual inheritable changes that may occur under such a scenario do remain random. But this process of increasing one's chances of a good outcome through a quantitative response (like the purchaser of 100 tickets in the lottery) is itself a fascinating adaptation. And adaptation is not random. Adaptation is an outcome of natural selection. >>

                                    In my view I would alter the conclusion slightly. The adaptation is caused by variation (a response by an ideal cause) but preserved or made more manifest as an outcome of natural selection. I use the word 'ideal' to signify something which for our knowledge is of the nature of a thought-form rather than a perceptible form.

                                    >
                                    > ... first life-form does not have to be born from dead matter.
                                    >

                                    gluadys :
                                    << This is another pet peeve of mine. Matter is not dead unless it was once alive. Anything dead once lived. If you are referring to non-biological matter, it is not dead even though it is not biologically alive either. So please don't call non-biological matter "dead". >>

                                    OK, no problem. I shall choose my words to respect this.

                                    gluadys :
                                    << Another problematic here is the whole question of what are the properties of matter. We have lived for nearly four centuries now with the mechanical view of the cosmos which views everything (including humans) as complex machines. You will have to read some of Kamran's posts—he is a great supporter of life as a machinery. >>

                                    Thanks I shall do that.

                                    gluadys :
                                    << Modern science took root in this view and successfully exploited it to generate much new knowledge. But, for the last hundred years, science (particularly physics) has been finding the mechanistic model inadequate to express their observations of matter. Consider "space" for example. In the mechanistic model, space is simply the emptiness that intervenes between material objects. It is nothing in and of itself. But today's science tells us that space is an immensely energetic and dynamic field of quantum fluctuation which is a constant source of creative potentiality. And what is "matter"? Not, as we once thought, an impenetrable solidity of stuff, but swirls of energetic vortices in a continuous interactive dance with other such vortices. Matter is not stuff so much as it is pattern. >>

                                    Yes, I find it all exciting, personally. For the concept of space in classical physics I have a rather Leibnizian view that space is a relation between existents rather than that of an empty container. I have no difficulty imagining an equilibrium, perpetual creation/destruction of matter. As an aside at this point, it seems to me that creationism tries to extend the notion of independent existents applicable to the bodies of classical physics into the living realm. As I see it the living world is a single whole in which each manifestation is obliged to accomodate itself into totality of the other manifestations.

                                    gluadys :
                                    << Have you heard of quantum entanglement and bilocality? One of the insights I recently came across is that in the early days of the universe when it was still incredibly small, every electron probably encountered every other electron in the whole universe, so they are still entangled with every other electron in the whole universe. This means the whole universe is a web of interconnected energy points at the most fundamental level of physical existence. It certainly does not merit the adjective "dead" even if it has not crossed a threshold into biological life. >>

                                    I've never heard of bilocality but I guess it is related to quantum entanglement which I think is one electron, say, appearing in one place and another particle(?) with exactly opposite properties appearing on the other side of the cosmos to keep the whole in balance.

                                    gluadys :
                                    << One of the things that excites me is that this whole new world of physical cosmology, that most of us are just beginning to be aware of, is far more friendly to spiritual understanding than the old mechanistic model. And it becomes more and more clear that we can no longer claim spirituality as a uniquely human trait. I would call the Vitality you are speaking of Spirit---God's Spirit which brought the universe into being and in whom every existing thing is continually bathed. This, of course, takes us in the direction of panentheism. All is in God and God is in all. Creation and God are not the same thing, but they are inseparable for without God the Being of Creation disappears. >>

                                    Totally agree and you seem to understand me very well. As I tried to explain to VictorM I speculate that the act of creation is God willing forth His entire being while He Himself withdraws from any manifestation. It is a giving birth, a re-assertion of the feminine principle; the Mother sacrificing Herself entirely for Her creation. The ultimate substance of the universe is Love. The Being of the Creator has to be utterly self-supporting (which means alive as it maintains its own existence) and it is this self-supporting nature abstracted from the other qualities of the creative forth-putting that I think of as Vitality. However, I believe that an atheist can dispense with the metaphysical speculations and simply take on board the principle of vitalism as something inherent in the world.

                                    I know the above sounds wild but there is a human activity which works in exactly the same way as I imagine creation. Thinking totally concentrates on its object. You cannot think about your own thought processes while thinking about any object. To consider your own thinking process you have to make a second act of thought which renders the first into an object. For this reason I call thinking The Light of World - and I do mean the Being of Christ Himself inside each and every human being no matter what their own persuasion might be. "Not I, but Christ in me." I am not an I who thinks, rather it is by the grace of thinking that I exist all. As Descartes should have said, "I think, therefore I am absolutely certain that thinking exists in as much as I bring it forth." Would anyone try to claim that they did not understand their own thinking or that it did not exist? Even when we think in error we still know what we meant!!

                                    gluadys :
                                    << When we adopted the idea of the cosmos as machine, the God of the bible, ever-present to the natural world, became the absentee God of Deism, only checking in now and again to see if the machine needed a tune-up or repair. Even in the church, we have absorbed this idea so thoroughly that we now think of "nature" as the place where God does NOT dwell. Quite the reverse of the scriptural (or any spiritual) view. And so we have difficulty reconciling science and faith, because we think of the natural processes science describes as occurring in the absence of God, even as replacing God. We are left with two deficient models of God. Either the God who created the perfect natural mechanism which never needs any repair and is therefore superfluous to his creation, or the God who was unable to create a natural world without defects and so has to intervene to make up for its deficiences. >>

                                    << I reject both of these, and it excites me that science is also rejecting the mechanistic view. Now both faith and science can come together again as they once were and view God and nature as partners in a mutual dance of Being. Everything in nature reveals the hand of God because God is never absent. >>

                                    Whole-heartedly agree. We seem to have reached a take-off point. Our conception of God needs to move upwards with our own spiritual achievements - of which I count science as one. Since humanity has now conquered intelligence then how else could it continue to make its image of God as the best it can envision in itself? Surely, our image of God is the ultimate object toward which we are capable of directing our own striving. We have to move the goal posts further back. (Aside - Is organised sport the best thing produced by evolution? It is after all the re-enactment of the survival of the fittest repeated ad infinitum. Personally I find it intellectually tedious - but then it can rise to artistic heights.)

                                    gluadys :
                                    << Btw have you heard the term "evolutionary creation"? And, as you are in the UK, have you read or listened to either John Polkinghorne or Alister McGrath. Both have an impeccable background in science as well as being Christians and they certainly believe the science of evolution and Christian faith have no quarrel with each other. >>

                                    I actually have a book by Polkinghorne which I've never read. I think it is the Work of Love about kenotics or something, whatever that means. McGrath I've never heard of but thanks again for the tip.

                                    << On this side of the Atlantic some of the people promoting a friendlier view of evolution in the church are Francis Collins, Karl Giberson and Denis Lamoureux. Check out the web-site Biologos to get acquainted with this school of thought. There is also a blog, no longer active but still accessible called An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution. >>

                                    << In short, you have lots of company in your quest to reconcile science and faith. May God bless you along the way. >>

                                    I have been on the Biologos site to  read the review of Cunningham's book so it looks like I've got good reason to return.

                                    And your closing sentiments are returned.
                                    Maurice

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • stewart8724
                                    ... Stewart: Einstein was a religious man, he is (in this statement) expressing an emotional truth. I would have no reason to argue with Einstein on his
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Apr 11, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > From: stewart8724
                                      > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                      > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:12 AM
                                      > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Introduction
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Stewart:
                                      > Is it the more reasonable view to contest that a God made its self from nothing for no reason at all, and then created everything else from nothing for no reason at all?
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > LA> The famous scientist Albert Einstein stated what seems to be the "reasonable view" when he wrote the following;
                                      >
                                      > ------------------------------------
                                      >
                                      > "The scientist's religious feeling takes the form of
                                      > rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which
                                      > reveals an intelligence of such superiority that,
                                      > compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting
                                      > of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
                                      > (The World As I See It, p.29)
                                      >
                                      > =====================
                                      >
                                      > LA> So does that mean that you are in strong disagreement with Einstein and would wish to argue with him about "where did this great INTELLIGENCE come from?


                                      Stewart:
                                      Einstein was a religious man, he is (in this statement) expressing an emotional truth. I would have no reason to argue with Einstein on his religious convictions as long as he did not promote them as scientific theories.
                                      As I have stated before I am a great admirer of Einstein, disagreeing with him on religious matters doesn't lessen my opinion of him in any way.
                                      What point were you trying to make?
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Laurie.
                                      >
                                      > ". . . .scientists, contrary to the myth that they themselves publicly promulgate, are
                                      > emotional human beings who carry a generous does of subjectivity with them into the
                                      > supposedly "objective search for truth." (Roger Lewin, noted evolutionist, "Bones of Contention, 1987, p.18)
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > No virus found in this message.
                                      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                      > Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4927 - Release Date: 04/10/12
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                    • Laurie Appleton
                                      ... From: stewart8724 To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:56 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Introduction ... Stewart: Einstein was
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Apr 11, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: stewart8724
                                        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:56 AM
                                        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Introduction





                                        > Stewart:
                                        > Is it the more reasonable view to contest that a God made its self from nothing for no reason at all, and then created everything else from nothing for no reason at all?
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > LA> The famous scientist Albert Einstein stated what seems to be the "reasonable view" when he wrote the following;
                                        >
                                        > ------------------------------------
                                        >
                                        > "The scientist's religious feeling takes the form of
                                        > rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which
                                        > reveals an intelligence of such superiority that,
                                        > compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting
                                        > of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
                                        > (The World As I See It, p.29)
                                        >
                                        > =====================
                                        >
                                        > LA> So does that mean that you are in strong disagreement with Einstein and would wish to argue with him about "where did this great INTELLIGENCE come from?

                                        Stewart:
                                        Einstein was a religious man, he is (in this statement) expressing an emotional truth.



                                        LA> On the contrary. It should be obvious that Einstein's emotions are the RESULT of his scientific understanding and NOT because he is or was "religious". Perhaps you should reconsider this matter.



                                        Laurie.

                                        ". . . .scientists, contrary to the myth that they themselves publicly promulgate, are
                                        emotional human beings who carry a generous does of subjectivity with them into the
                                        supposedly "objective search for truth." (Roger Lewin, noted evolutionist, "Bones of Contention, 1987, p.18)




                                        No virus found in this message.
                                        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                        Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4928 - Release Date: 04/11/12


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Maurice McCarthy
                                        Victor: The modern scientific structure was built on a mere assumption. ... Maurice: The principal presumption of physics is that inertial motion is straight
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Apr 12, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Victor: The modern scientific structure was built on a mere assumption. ...

                                          Maurice: The principal presumption of physics is that inertial motion is straight line motion. This leads directly to realism - i.e. that each material object could exist in a vacuum on its own without the rest of the universe. So gravity might simply be a conceptual error. If the fundamental law of motion is a conservation of angular momentum across the universe as a whole then there is no need for gravity to exist - because inertia would be curved motion, not linear. The consequences would be that Relativity is another error correcting straight line inertia. So the Big Bang would never have happened, if this is correct.

                                          But physics, as it is now, is worse than mere assumption. Relativity actually reversed the meaning of what reality means. For classical physics a body was judged real if it could be located in time and space. For relativity the co-ordinates of time  and space (which are entirely ideal structures, that is thought structures) become real if there is an object to relate to. Thus relativity turned reality into ideality. So it was entirely predictable that they would have to come out with the notion of the multiverse, the mere possibility of all perceived realities.

                                          In this manner they have entirely lost all grip on certainty in knowledge. They no longer know what knowledge is - but the fault surely lies with the philosophers for failing the sciences. It is often said that philosophy cannot answer any real questions but only clarify what the sciences produce. This is a patent failure to grasp the most important reality of all. What is knowledge? That is the one question which philosophy must answer - because no single science is capable of it.

                                          Victor: The word created is only used about three things in Genesis one. He created the plural heavens (evidently the galaxies) and the earth first. However, at first the earth had no form and it was dark. Then He continued to command light to continue to be. It was light that gave from to matter and continues to do so to this very day. Light reveals the truth and confounds error, according to the Bible, because everything that is visible esan phos - is light. Matter and light are a relationship - so there is one way one way to know the truth, not with mathematics or philosophy - but by observing the light. ...

                                          Maurice: I suspect we part here in that I view the light as being not only the outer light by which we see but also the inner light by which we think. Or rather which actually _is thinking. Outer light simply happens but inner light is our own innermost activity.

                                          Victor: We can see the past back to the creation era. In billions of examples, every galaxy clocks different atomic frequencies than local atoms and the differences usually increase with distance (how far the light transited). ...

                                          Maurice: One point I really don't get is why it is imagined that radioactivity has existed for the whole life of the universe. All chemistry would work the same without it. It is not needed. So how did it come to be there at all?

                                          Victor: Scientists have filled the universe up with 99% magic to prevent what is visible from being so.

                                          Maurice: Again if gravity does not exist then dark matter is a fiction. It would not exist at all.

                                          >
                                          > Maurice, previously: The only way I can conceive of creation from nothing is that He wills forth His own being as the original substance of the world. ...
                                          >

                                          Victor: What you believe is known as pantheism. ...

                                          Maurice: Panentheism would be more exact. Everything exists in God but this does not imply that all things are acting consciously.

                                          Regards
                                          Maurice

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Maurice McCarthy
                                          gualdys! I could shower you with gold coins. You wrote on 10 April 2012 :
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Apr 12, 2012
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            gualdys! I could shower you with gold coins. You wrote on 10 April 2012 :

                                            << I don't know where the idea has come from that selection cannot be creative. Darwin saw how dog and pigeon and other breeders could create new breeds through judicious artificial selection. But they certainly didn't simply let variation take its course. Or ask a sculptor. Does he not select which bits of marble to remove and which to let remain? And do we not consider that creative art? A painter has many shades of paint on his palette—that is variety. But it is his or her selection of which hues to place where that turns variety into creativity. >>

                                            The penny dropped today (12 April) after my reply to you yesterday. "Ask a sculptor" is brilliant! The sculptor can only produce the form because it already exists in the stone (Aristotle). Now if vitality is the total of livng forms which have ever been produced plus those of all that will ever live, then it is the ideal material life. Natural selection then "sculpts" out - according to the physical, genetic and ecological conditions - most every living thing. This means that vitality is the actually living concept of all living forms. From this we can, a little, more clearly delineate what the form of vitality itself is.

                                            The core of a human is the I-being, the spirit. The I is the ability to form any concept whatsoever, a reflexive form, the concept of the concept. This is utterly consonant with vitality. In other words the form of vitality is the form of the spiritual human being! Now then if Vitality, as life as such, exists to manifest and reproduce its own form then that form is human! The perceptual proof of this would be that the human physical form, at some time during its life, ought to contain vestiges of each and every living thing that has ever existed. If I'm right it ought to manifest the whole of common descent. That which manifests last explains that which comes first.

                                            Examples might be the slight web between the fingers or the remnants of the bird's third eye-lid in the corner of the eye.

                                            Another indication would be naming the animal form which can exist in most all possible environmental niches. That is again the human being. Mayr said that he could not imagine the next dominant life form after the human for exactly that reason. Humanity has conquered the earth.

                                            A thousand thanks for your input
                                            Maurice


                                            PS
                                            I've long thought it likely that perception has to evolve from the breathing process. So I put that question to Yahoo Answers last week just before I joined this forum. The grounds for this was simply that perception involves an in flow of observable motions and an outflow of subjective qualia. I was poo-pooed. "Logical fallacy", "taking a mere analogy too far". Then I read in Why Evolution is True that embryology shows that the entire head is evolved from gill-like structures, the skull from the relevant vertebrae. Now the head is the centre of the perceptual organs. So I don't think I was far wrong.

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • stewart8724
                                            Maurice: But physics, as it is now, is worse than mere assumption. Relativity actually reversed the meaning of what reality means. For classical physics a body
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Apr 14, 2012
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Maurice:
                                              But physics, as it is now, is worse than mere assumption. Relativity actually reversed the meaning of what reality means. For classical physics a body was judged real if it could be located in time and space. For relativity the co-ordinates of time  and space (which are entirely ideal structures, that is thought structures) become real if there is an object to relate to. Thus relativity turned reality into ideality. So it was entirely predictable that they would have to come out with the notion of the multiverse, the mere possibility of all perceived realities.

                                              Stewart:
                                              Maurice my understanding of relativity is not that it makes a judgement on the reality of objects, rather that it makes a judgement on the reality of our perceptions.
                                              Relativity explains the effect gravity has on objects. Einstein proposes that it is misleading to try calculating universal time and distance using Earth time because time on Earth is measured over minute distances, relatively speaking.
                                              Space is not empty it can be thought of as a medium which connects all its contents. That which existed in classical physics continues to be recognised it terms of 'Relativity' Einstein makes no distinction between space and time in terms of measuring distance, hence 'space time'.
                                              In Newtonian terms time can be measured only in terms of the parameters which apply on Earth. Einstein was able to transcend the limitations of testable physics by imagining an overview, this allowed him to postulate a theory which could not be tested for decades after its inception.

                                              Consider a world war two dog fight, pilots of the time would discuss targeting, which I think they called deflection shooting.
                                              As you attack the enemy both aircraft are turning, if you shoot on seeing an aircraft in your gun site you will miss. The bullets of course will only ever fly straight and true but relative to you they seem to form a curved trajectory away from the target. In order to hit the target you must make allowance for the relative speed and direction of both aircraft and bullets. This requires that you have a counter intuitive realisation of your spacial situation.
                                              There is no question as to the existence of the objects in this scenario but your perception of their movement is dependant on your viewpoint, therefore your impression of reality is relative to your viewpoint.


                                              --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy <maurice3mccarthy@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Victor: The modern scientific structure was built on a mere assumption. ...
                                              >
                                              > Maurice: The principal presumption of physics is that inertial motion is straight line motion. This leads directly to realism - i.e. that each material object could exist in a vacuum on its own without the rest of the universe. So gravity might simply be a conceptual error. If the fundamental law of motion is a conservation of angular momentum across the universe as a whole then there is no need for gravity to exist - because inertia would be curved motion, not linear. The consequences would be that Relativity is another error correcting straight line inertia. So the Big Bang would never have happened, if this is correct.
                                              >
                                              > But physics, as it is now, is worse than mere assumption. Relativity actually reversed the meaning of what reality means. For classical physics a body was judged real if it could be located in time and space. For relativity the co-ordinates of time  and space (which are entirely ideal structures, that is thought structures) become real if there is an object to relate to. Thus relativity turned reality into ideality. So it was entirely predictable that they would have to come out with the notion of the multiverse, the mere possibility of all perceived realities.
                                              >
                                              > In this manner they have entirely lost all grip on certainty in knowledge. They no longer know what knowledge is - but the fault surely lies with the philosophers for failing the sciences. It is often said that philosophy cannot answer any real questions but only clarify what the sciences produce. This is a patent failure to grasp the most important reality of all. What is knowledge? That is the one question which philosophy must answer - because no single science is capable of it.
                                              >
                                              > Victor: The word created is only used about three things in Genesis one. He created the plural heavens (evidently the galaxies) and the earth first. However, at first the earth had no form and it was dark. Then He continued to command light to continue to be. It was light that gave from to matter and continues to do so to this very day. Light reveals the truth and confounds error, according to the Bible, because everything that is visible esan phos - is light. Matter and light are a relationship - so there is one way one way to know the truth, not with mathematics or philosophy - but by observing the light. ...
                                              >
                                              > Maurice: I suspect we part here in that I view the light as being not only the outer light by which we see but also the inner light by which we think. Or rather which actually _is thinking. Outer light simply happens but inner light is our own innermost activity.
                                              >
                                              > Victor: We can see the past back to the creation era. In billions of examples, every galaxy clocks different atomic frequencies than local atoms and the differences usually increase with distance (how far the light transited). ...
                                              >
                                              > Maurice: One point I really don't get is why it is imagined that radioactivity has existed for the whole life of the universe. All chemistry would work the same without it. It is not needed. So how did it come to be there at all?
                                              >
                                              > Victor: Scientists have filled the universe up with 99% magic to prevent what is visible from being so.
                                              >
                                              > Maurice: Again if gravity does not exist then dark matter is a fiction. It would not exist at all.
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              > > Maurice, previously: The only way I can conceive of creation from nothing is that He wills forth His own being as the original substance of the world. ...
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > Victor: What you believe is known as pantheism. ...
                                              >
                                              > Maurice: Panentheism would be more exact. Everything exists in God but this does not imply that all things are acting consciously.
                                              >
                                              > Regards
                                              > Maurice
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                            • Jim Goff
                                              INTRODUCTION lucas: Intelligent Design says that parts of living things are directly made by God and did not evolve from previous structures. Intelligent
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Apr 14, 2012
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                INTRODUCTION



























                                                lucas: "Intelligent Design says that parts of living things are directly made by God and did not evolve from previous structures." Intelligent design says no such thing. In the first place, the science of intelligent design says absolutely nothing about God, and in the second place, design theorists do not contend that "parts of living things" could not have evolved. They do, however, dispute that the Darwinian mechanism of random genetic mutations and natural selection is capable of generating novel and complex organismal forms, systems, stuctures, and processes. Intelligent design is not at odds with the idea that living things evolved; it is at odds with the Darwinian mechanism of evolution. lucas: "For instance, Behe claims that the human blood clotting system is an example: it had to be made by God complete and in one piece." No, what Behe says is that irreducibly complex systems are provably inaccessible (on logical grounds) via a direct Darwinian pathway (i.e., an evolutionary pathway where function is maintained while structure evolves via the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations and natural selection), and that there is no evidence showing that such systems are accessible via an indirect Darwinian pathway (i.e., an evolutionary pathway where function and structure coevolve via the Darwinian mechanism). Also, like all design theorists, Behe says that the evidence that leads them to design inferences does not also lead them to the identity of the implicated designer. In other words, the science of intelligent design cannot say that "God did it." As Behe put it in "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism": "If one
                                                wishes to be academically rigorous, one can't leap directly from design to a
                                                transcendent God. To reach a transcendent God, other, nonscientific arguments
                                                have to be made - philosophical and theological arguments." Jim in Vermont











                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Maurice McCarthy
                                                On Saturday, 14 April 2012 Stewart wrote :
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Apr 15, 2012
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  On Saturday, 14 April 2012 Stewart wrote :
                                                  << Maurice my understanding of relativity is not that it makes a judgement on the reality of objects, rather that it makes a judgement on the reality of our perceptions. >>
                                                   
                                                  Maurice : Yes, but every science has to presuppose the existence of its objects or else it is studying something vacuous. (Even Behaviourism thought that subjectivity existed but it just found it non-observable.)
                                                   
                                                  Stewart :
                                                  << Relativity explains the effect gravity has on objects. ... >>
                                                   
                                                  Maurice : Thereby presupposing that gravity really exists, when that may be a mistake in the first place, and then going on to find that it is curved coordinates. 
                                                   
                                                  Stewart :
                                                  << Einstein proposes that it is misleading to try calculating universal time and distance using Earth time because time on Earth is measured over minute distances, relatively speaking. >>
                                                   
                                                  Maurice : As we cannot travel very far in space, not even with an unmanned probe, then we are obliged to see the cosmos through our expectations. For example, can you be absolutely certain that space exists between the galaxies or do you presume it in an expectation or concept? Einstein did alter our expectations, that much I can agree with.
                                                   
                                                  Stewart :
                                                  << Space is not empty it can be thought of as a medium which connects all its contents. That which existed in classical physics continues to be recognised it terms of 'Relativity' Einstein makes no distinction between space and time in terms of measuring distance, hence 'space time'. >>
                                                  Maurice : Yes, I can agree that is one way of looking at space, the concept relating separate bodies when all other reltions are irrelevant. The bare notion of space is separation itself, regarded as a unifying relation. It is right down my street as a monist.
                                                   
                                                  Stewart :
                                                  << In Newtonian terms time can be measured only in terms of the parameters which apply on Earth. Einstein was able to transcend the limitations of testable physics by imagining an overview, this allowed him to postulate a theory which could not be tested for decades after its inception. >>
                                                   
                                                  Maurice : I'm becoming more and more convinced that such "imagining" actually means co-creating the reality we live in. Physicalists will reject that out of hand but the life-scientists may not.
                                                   
                                                  Stewart :
                                                  << Consider a world war two dog fight, pilots of the time would discuss targeting, which I think they called deflection shooting.
                                                  As you attack the enemy both aircraft are turning, if you shoot on seeing an aircraft in your gun site you will miss. The bullets of course will only ever fly straight and true but relative to you they seem to form a curved trajectory away from the target. In order to hit the target you must make allowance for the relative speed and direction of both aircraft and bullets. This requires that you have a counter intuitive realisation of your spacial situation.
                                                  There is no question as to the existence of the objects in this scenario but your perception of their movement is dependant on your viewpoint, therefore your impression of reality is relative to your viewpoint. >>
                                                   
                                                  Maurice : In pragmatic terms I agree entirely. But my soul yearns for ultimate truth.
                                                   
                                                  Regards
                                                  Maurice   

                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.