Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[Nebullis]

Your freedom ends at my 'space'

10 feet? anything you hear? public air waves? newspapers?

You don't have the right not to hear a religious message. Even in a public place. It's not in the constitution.

You might want to read some of the writings of Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia on the first amendment.

[Nebullis]

In fact, if you even stand next to me at that same game, and insist upon yelling in my ear about 'being saved', for instance, - you may get more than a sore throat.

Sorry, lassy, you are not protected from an offending message. The threat or action of physical force is an entirely different matter.

[Aric2000]

19 posts to go, who's gonna get it? I think that PH ought to get it, but he may not be here, so come on people, time to step up the pace!! LOL

[Heartlander]

My boy,…
Nebullis is a female… Beyond that, what’s with the threat?

[viaveritasvita]

"That particular post by f.Christian (which evidently is a condemnation of self serving attitudes, making ones self their own God or Pope) - brings to my mind something more despairing and tragic, like the Requiem Mass (Mozart.)"

Pure brilliance!

[Physicist]

I wrote:

Near the beginning of the book, he lays out four possible hypotheses of consciousness. He labelled them A, B, C and D. "A" is that brains are computers, in effect. I forget what "B" was. He advocated "C", which boiled down to "consciousness is material but not algorithmic". "D" states that consciousness is not material (your position).

My apologies. This is from Shadows of the Mind, page 12 of the hardcover edition.

[viaveritasvita]

From my monster post 1356 (?)....

Agnostic and NASA astronomer Robert Jastrow eloquently expresses the implications of 20th cent. scientific discoveries:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock,
he is greeted by a band of theologians [believers!] who have been sitting there for centuries."

[Aric2000]

I think of a nutcase sitting in some mental ward, who gets on the computer as his medications are wearing off.

[Physicist]

There's a hot rumor going around that Hillary is a creationist.

Yes, but she casts herself in the starring role.

[Condorman]

God was my co-pilot...

It was an obvious troll, of course. So I responded in kind. The difference is that mine was written tongue in cheek. Not only that, but I've got all these fabulous taglines left over from my Usenet/BBS days.

[Physicist]

as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians [believers!] who have been sitting there for centuries

And they say to him, "We're stuck. Can you help us?"

[viaveritasvita]

"...but I know of no curriculum (and I may be wrong) that has the teacher tell the children 'THERE IS NO GOD'."

It's implied.

[SunnyUsa]

bttt....

[SunnyUsa]

almost 4000 posts in LESS than a month! very impressive

[Heartlander]

“It is a fact that God is continuously being publicly discussed by very well-known scientists- just read Gould, Dawkins, Hull, Provine, Wilson, Simpson, Futyama, Sagan, Hawking, and others. From a nineteenth century perspective, books like The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins, 1986) and Wonderful Life (Gould, 1989) are simply Bridgewater treatises such as Paley, Owens, and Roget wrote, works in which up-to-date science is used for the task of world-view apologetics.”

and in textbooks…

“Douglas Futuyma's text (Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition) he writes: "By coupling the undirected, purposeless variations to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made the theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."

" Purvis, Orians and Heller, (in Life: The Science of Biology, 4th edition) tell students that, "the living world is constantly evolving without any goals.. . .evolutionary change is not directed."

[gore3000]

V3 wrote (some thousand or so posts ago!): I'm seriously asking: Where is evolution supposed to be taking us? It's my understanding that we are supposedly 'evolving' to a higher state physically and in our behavior. If this is a correct (albeit elementary) explanation of evolution, then what is the ultimate end? -viaveritasvita-

PH: Evolution isn't 'taking us' anywhere.

Well Patrick is only half right as usual. Supposedly - like Hegelianism with which it is indelibly connected - there is neither an end nor a specific 'goal' to evolution. The 'survival of the fittest' in the struggle for life is indeed a very close translation of Hegel's dialectic of synthesis and antithesis and evolutionists call this struggle the creator of more advanced species through a sort of 'arms race'. Hegel's "belief that individual welfare or suffering simply did not matter in the sweep of world history, advancing like a juggernaut over the corpses of individuals."(1) is abundantly replicated in Darwin's works. So like Hegel, who did not know where it all was leading up to, but knew that it was leading to something greater, Darwin too asserted that evolution was also leading to something greater. Like with Hegel, the way to progress was through the corpses of the less fit.

From: Hegel Philosophy and History

[Condorman]

B.Rabbit: "...but I know of no curriculum (and I may be wrong) that has the teacher tell the children 'THERE IS NO GOD'."

vvv: It's implied.

And what is implied by teaching Creationism/ID?

[Physicist]

bump for the cause of 4000 posts

I have this feeling that fifteen people are hovering over "post" buttons, waiting for 3999 to appear. The first fifteen posts after that will read, "4000!!!"

[Nebullis]

This is from Shadows of the Mind, page 12 of the hardcover edition.

Do you know of a particular group that thinks much of the quantum coherence in tubulin ideas of Penrose?

[Condorman]

4K?