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

boiling oceans

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    I think near extinction events are learned responses for humans. The human species, probably one of the more dangerous life forms in the cosmos, seems to have
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I think near extinction events are learned responses for humans. The
      human species, probably one of the more dangerous life forms in the
      cosmos, seems to have been able to endure several along its rise to
      terrestrial prominence. Many cultures have collapsed and been
      assimilated into others. Perhaps our species is similar to the
      jack-pine growth after forest fires, seeds that germinate most
      successfully in less crowded situations. We may owe our itchy trigger
      finger to an evolutionary reproductive strategy. Nihilism and
      religious suicide cults do not seem so out of character for our
      species when we consider natural history. In any case we have gone
      quite some time now without a near extinction event, and as it is
      becoming more than likely that we will fabricate one of our own
      making, so I think it is fair to argue that it is an evolved
      reproductive strategy of our species, and probably as inevitable as
      any natural cataclysm. Our natural species consciousness, if such a
      thing actually exists, probably must have its overdue near extinction
      event in spite of the absence of a natural one. It is becoming
      arguable that self-destruction is an evolved survival tactic. It may
      be: that the long absence of a natural near extinction event has made
      the will to power and destruction seem an altruistic consideration for
      some in our species; while others of us are being cast as unavoidable
      but endurable positive losses for the future of our species. All of
      this conjecture may be scientific, may even be eventually proven to be
      a natural fact of our species; but it is not true that existentialism
      must argue for it because of any natural facticity. Existentialism may
      take it as a natural fact of the species; but still go on to construct
      a personal existential project that not only flies in its face, but
      changes the natural as well on an individual basis outside of any
      species facticity. We have thrown ourselves to the moon and back. We
      can change an evolved survival tactic, or circumvent the situation
      altogether. It is a matter of dedicated effort.

      Trinidad
    • Mary Jo
      ... ____________________ A couple of years ago the Kansas State Board of Education decided to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution in its curriculum,
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@...>
        wrote:

        >It is not that science or religion are essentially fallacious; they
        >both simply attain to the narrow paradigm of their propositions.

        >I think near extinction events are learned responses for humans.
        ____________________

        "A couple of years ago the Kansas State Board of Education decided to
        de-emphasize the teaching of evolution in its curriculum, setting off
        a brouhaha of no small proportions. Commenting on the case, Harvard
        paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould reminded us that Kansas has usually
        been associated with the land of Oz in our folklore and dogmatically
        declared evolution to be a "fact"—although his definition of a fact
        lacked certain logic in itself. Hordes of scientific Chicken Littles
        proclaimed the end of the intellectual enterprise, and school
        principals searched their classrooms for teachers who might be
        offering a critical analysis of Darwinism to minds as yet not fully
        shaped in beliefs approved by the scientific establishment. No matter
        that the bookstores were filled with volumes pointing out the flaws
        and frauds inherent in the present articulation of evolution.

        I followed this controversy with some fascination, since many well
        regarded thinkers have issued consistent and prolonged criticism of
        Darwinism for decades. The astounding thing about the uproar was the
        knee-jerk reaction among academics, most of whom could not have
        spoken intelligently on evolution for five minutes and who used
        examples that bore no resemblance whatsoever to evolutionary theory.
        I concluded that evolution had become a major tenet in our civil
        religion and, like patriotism and other generalities, was whatever
        anyone wanted it to be. More to the point was the realization that
        almost everyone involved in the debate had picked up their knowledge
        of scientific theory from The New York Times Sunday science section,
        Newsweek, or USA Today. When I turned to various "authorities:' they
        seemed to know less than I did—about their own fields, in many cases.

        The fundamentalists wisely hid in their bunkers during this struggle,
        since it was not at all clear that advocates of intelligent design
        and of the anthropic principle, which are intellectual ways of
        describing an anti-Darwin belief in patterns and purposes in nature,
        would come down on their side of the equation. It became clear that
        in addition to the age-old perspectives of science and religion,
        there was a third way of looking at the data, one that comforted
        neither the Darwinians nor the creationists. For nearly two thousand
        years we have believed that our solar system, indeed the cosmos
        itself, was a smoothly operating mechanism and that the Earth was a
        special project of either mother nature or god. Then the Shoemaker-
        Levy 9 comet hit Jupiter, and studies of the meteor/asteroid/comet
        hits on our planet suggested that we live on a small bull's eye that
        has been frequently visited by monstrous disasters of cosmic origin.

        Today we receive our scientific knowledge piecemeal from two-inch
        newspaper columns, and each discovery is trumpeted as affirming what
        we already believe, so that only minor adjustments in our worldview
        need be made with each item. When enough discoveries begin to
        accumulate, however, the implications become clear: We need a major
        shift in our interpretation of data, and we can no longer cling to
        the other ways of understanding. If each meteor hit exterminates
        close to 90 percent of the living organisms on the planet, how can
        the Darwinian "trees of life:' which are supposed to show how
        creatures evolved, be produced? If a tsunami can deposit strata
        hundreds of feet thick in a matter of days, what does that imply
        about the validity of the slow erosion and deposition process, which
        has been taught as fact for more than a century?

        When the smoke clears and we make all the proper adjustments in our
        thinking, we will come to understand that quite possibly we are not
        the first humanoid species to live on this planet: that there is a
        rough repeating pattern in the Earth's history in which the planet is
        transformed and new biospheres come into existence through processes
        of which we have not yet dreamed. This worldview is found in the
        traditions of non-Western peoples, including many tribal peoples.
        Such beliefs, which we may have previously rejected as childish
        superstitions, may turn out to be our only glimpse of the real
        planetary past.

        This view, many people tell me, represents a retreat to the past. But
        non-Western people did not "evolve" their beliefs; they remembered
        events that they survived. We have cast aside these experiences
        because they did not fit into a neat package that explained creation,
        be it YHWH or the Big Bang theory, and spent our time convincing
        ourselves that we are the only example of intelligence in the
        universe. Thus our present knowledge is illusory because we have
        excluded so much data that the anomalies now outweigh doctrinally
        compatible evidence."

        Evolution, Creationism, and Other Modern Myths: A Critical Inquiry
        by Vine Deloria
        Fulcrum Publishing, 2004
        ____________________

        Mary
      • eupraxis@aol.com
        Just more proof that the Dark Age is upon us. Incidentally, I have read all of Darwin s major works, including posthumous materials, and most of my friends and
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 6, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Just more proof that the Dark Age is upon us. Incidentally, I have read all
          of Darwin's major works, including posthumous materials, and most of my friends
          and associates can discourse quite well on the subject of modern evolutionary
          theory as well as its history.

          For an interesting analysis of "Kansas", see Thomas Frank's What's the Matter
          with Kansas?.

          Wil

          In a message dated 9/6/07 7:21:57 AM, maryjo.malo@... writes:


          > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@.Tr>
          > wrote:
          >
          > >It is not that science or religion are essentially fallacious; they
          > >both simply attain to the narrow paradigm of their propositions.
          >
          > >I think near extinction events are learned responses for humans.
          > ____________ _______
          >
          > "A couple of years ago the Kansas State Board of Education decided to
          > de-emphasize the teaching of evolution in its curriculum, setting off
          > a brouhaha of no small proportions. Commenting on the case, Harvard
          > paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould reminded us that Kansas has usually
          > been associated with the land of Oz in our folklore and dogmatically
          > declared evolution to be a "fact"—although his definition of a fact
          > lacked certain logic in itself. Hordes of scientific Chicken Littles
          > proclaimed the end of the intellectual enterprise, and school
          > principals searched their classrooms for teachers who might be
          > offering a critical analysis of Darwinism to minds as yet not fully
          > shaped in beliefs approved by the scientific establishment. No matter
          > that the bookstores were filled with volumes pointing out the flaws
          > and frauds inherent in the present articulation of evolution.
          >
          > I followed this controversy with some fascination, since many well
          > regarded thinkers have issued consistent and prolonged criticism of
          > Darwinism for decades. The astounding thing about the uproar was the
          > knee-jerk reaction among academics, most of whom could not have
          > spoken intelligently on evolution for five minutes and who used
          > examples that bore no resemblance whatsoever to evolutionary theory.
          > I concluded that evolution had become a major tenet in our civil
          > religion and, like patriotism and other generalities, was whatever
          > anyone wanted it to be. More to the point was the realization that
          > almost everyone involved in the debate had picked up their knowledge
          > of scientific theory from The New York Times Sunday science section,
          > Newsweek, or USA Today. When I turned to various "authorities: Newswe
          > seemed to know less than I did—about their own fields, in many cases.
          >
          > The fundamentalists wisely hid in their bunkers during this struggle,
          > since it was not at all clear that advocates of intelligent design
          > and of the anthropic principle, which are intellectual ways of
          > describing an anti-Darwin belief in patterns and purposes in nature,
          > would come down on their side of the equation. It became clear that
          > in addition to the age-old perspectives of science and religion,
          > there was a third way of looking at the data, one that comforted
          > neither the Darwinians nor the creationists. For nearly two thousand
          > years we have believed that our solar system, indeed the cosmos
          > itself, was a smoothly operating mechanism and that the Earth was a
          > special project of either mother nature or god. Then the Shoemaker-
          > Levy 9 comet hit Jupiter, and studies of the meteor/asteroid/ Levy
          > hits on our planet suggested that we live on a small bull's eye that
          > has been frequently visited by monstrous disasters of cosmic origin.
          >
          > Today we receive our scientific knowledge piecemeal from two-inch
          > newspaper columns, and each discovery is trumpeted as affirming what
          > we already believe, so that only minor adjustments in our worldview
          > need be made with each item. When enough discoveries begin to
          > accumulate, however, the implications become clear: We need a major
          > shift in our interpretation of data, and we can no longer cling to
          > the other ways of understanding. If each meteor hit exterminates
          > close to 90 percent of the living organisms on the planet, how can
          > the Darwinian "trees of life:' which are supposed to show how
          > creatures evolved, be produced? If a tsunami can deposit strata
          > hundreds of feet thick in a matter of days, what does that imply
          > about the validity of the slow erosion and deposition process, which
          > has been taught as fact for more than a century?
          >
          > When the smoke clears and we make all the proper adjustments in our
          > thinking, we will come to understand that quite possibly we are not
          > the first humanoid species to live on this planet: that there is a
          > rough repeating pattern in the Earth's history in which the planet is
          > transformed and new biospheres come into existence through processes
          > of which we have not yet dreamed. This worldview is found in the
          > traditions of non-Western peoples, including many tribal peoples.
          > Such beliefs, which we may have previously rejected as childish
          > superstitions, may turn out to be our only glimpse of the real
          > planetary past.
          >
          > This view, many people tell me, represents a retreat to the past. But
          > non-Western people did not "evolve" their beliefs; they remembered
          > events that they survived. We have cast aside these experiences
          > because they did not fit into a neat package that explained creation,
          > be it YHWH or the Big Bang theory, and spent our time convincing
          > ourselves that we are the only example of intelligence in the
          > universe. Thus our present knowledge is illusory because we have
          > excluded so much data that the anomalies now outweigh doctrinally
          > compatible evidence."
          >
          > Evolution, Creationism, and Other Modern Myths: A Critical Inquiry
          > by Vine Deloria
          > Fulcrum Publishing, 2004
          > ____________ _______
          >
          > Mary
          >
          >
          >




          **************************************
          Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
          http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


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