Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3
Of course not. But the above observation seems not to grasp a far more fundamental principle of Gnosticism, i.e., that God is directly the author of both good and evil. "Evil" is everything worldly; thus the Creation itself is "evil."
Christians believe, OTOH, that God is Goodness itself, and created a world that was "very good," albeit not "perfect." (If it were "perfect," it would be static; moreover, human free will would be pointless in such a world.)
Christians believe that evil is "merely" the absence of the good. God is not the malefactor of evil; only creatures made in His image — possessing reason and free will — can be such.
You wrote:
The way Alamo Girl describes Adam, originally existing only as a spirit, makes him an angel who was given dominion over earth.I don't read Alamo-Girl that way at all. Angels and humans — though both are, as you say "noëtic spirits," and as such Sons of God — are still distinctly different orders of divine Being — one "heavenly," the other "earthly"; one discarnate, the other incarnate.
God specified Adam (Man) in Genesis 1; brought him into Being in Genesis 2, and then gave him dominion over the earth. When Adam fell, he did so as a man, not as an angel — for he never was intended to be an angel.
It seems another characteristic of gnostic thinking is the absolute separation of the spiritual (seen as "good") and the earthly (seen as "bad"). That is, there can be no interface between heaven and earth in principle. But of course both Jews and Christians believe that God is constantly active in His creation — that the Creation of the Beginning is constantly ongoing. IOW, the "earthly" constantly resonates with the "heavenly."
Just some thoughts....
Obviously in the case of sickle cell anemia this did not lead to speciation, but there was ABSOLUTELY no such requirement that the mutation happen in two different individuals for for them to meet and reproduce for this change to be introduced into the population.
That is what we are discussing here, changes introduced into a population. And the example I provided showed that no such criteria as was suggested is needed to explain how DNA changes are introduced into a population.
So once again the Creationist argument is based upon nothing but ignorance.
If there are two separated populations of the same species, what is going to STOP this accumulation of change until these two populations are no longer able to reproduce fertile offspring?
I think one major problem we’re having here is that neither the genetic nor the evolutionary processes of speciation can be precisely described.
Why would a bacteria under stress express error prone DNA polymerase instead of the usual high fidelity DNA polymerase if genetic change is “mostly of an entropic nature” that “doesn’t move the genome towards higher or better functioning”?
Apparently the mathematics of bacterial population dynamics ‘thinks’ that by introducing mutations during stress it can adapt and overcome the stress and better survive - i.e. better functioning.
Why would a bacteria have error prone DNA polymerase in the first place if most genetic changes were “entropic”? And why would it be expressed at times of high stress?
I described, precisely, how DNA replication is not 100% accurate, and thus it introduces germline changes. I described to you that these germline changes passed down from parent to child introduce variation into a population. Darwin described, accurately, how natural selection acts upon such variation.
Now if we observe a 0.001% change in a population over 20 years, what is going to stop it from becoming a 1% change in 20,000 years?
If two populations with that rate of change are separated for 20,000 years; why would they not be some 2% different in DNA between them? Why would this 2% difference not be sufficient to call them two different species?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
And how do you reason that?
Deuteronomy 23:2 No one born of a forbidden marriage[a] nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation.
You see Jesus Christ added onto this rule - to do good to those who hate you and revile you. While other religions state it in only in a ‘negative’ context, Christ reversed it as also as a ‘positive.’ If a soldier bids a christian to carry his pack a mile Christ stated we are to carry it 2 miles.
Most religions have in mind to try to ‘earn’ their way to heaven through good deeds.
|
“Here shall no end be hindered, no hope marred
|
|
No loss be feared: faith—yea, a little faith—
|
|
Shall save thee from the anguish of thy dread.”
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: II, Lines 140-142.
|
|
ARJUNA:
“And what road goeth he who, having faith, |
|
Fails, Krishna! in the striving; falling back
|
|
From holiness, missing the perfect rule?
|
|
Is he not lost, straying from Brahma’s light,
|
|
Like the vain cloud, which floats ’twixt earth and Heaven
|
|
When lightning splits it, and it vanisheth?
|
|
Fain would I hear thee answer me herein,
|
|
Since, Krishna! none save thou can clear the doubt.”
|
|
|
|
KRISHNA:
“He is not lost, thou Son of Prithâ! No! |
|
Nor earth, nor heaven is forfeit, even for him,
|
|
Because no heart that holds one right desire
|
|
Treadeth the road of loss! He who should fail,
|
|
Desiring righteousness, cometh at death
|
|
Unto the Region of the Just.”
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: VI, Lines 125-138.
|
|
“Of many thousand mortals, one, perchance,
|
|
Striveth for Truth; and of those few that strive—
|
|
Nay, and rise high—one only—here and there—
|
|
Knoweth Me, as I am, the very Truth.”
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: VII, Lines 8-11.
|
|
“There be those, too, whose knowledge, turned aside
|
|
By this desire or that, gives them to serve
|
|
Some lower gods, with various rites, constrained
|
|
By that which mouldeth them. Unto all such—
|
|
Worship what shrine they will, what shapes, in faith—
|
|
’Tis I who give them faith! I am content!
|
|
The heart thus asking favor from its God,
|
|
Darkened but ardent, hath the end it craves,
|
|
The lesser blessing—but ’tis I who give!
|
|
Yet soon is withered what small fruit they reap
|
|
Those men of little minds, who worship so,
|
|
Go where they worship, passing with their gods.
|
|
But Mine come unto me! Blind are the eyes
|
|
Which deem th’ Unmanifested manifest,
|
|
Not comprehending Me in my true Self!
|
|
Imperishable, viewless, undeclared,
|
|
Hidden behind my magic veil of shows,
|
|
I am not seen by all; I am not known—
|
|
Unborn and changeless—to the idle world.
|
|
But I, Arjuna! know all things which were,
|
|
And all which are, and all which are to be,
|
|
Albeit not one among them knoweth Me!”
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: VII, Lines 69-90.
|
|
“Nay, and of hearts which follow other gods
|
|
In simple faith, their prayers arise to me,
|
|
O Kunti’s Son! though they pray wrongfully:
|
|
For I am the Receiver and the Lord
|
|
Of every sacrifice, which these know not
|
|
Rightfully; so they fall to earth again!”
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: IX, Lines 92-97.
|
|
“Yet not by the Vedas, nor from sacrifice,
|
|
Nor penance, nor gift-giving, nor with prayer
|
|
Shall any so behold, as thou hast seen!
|
|
Only by fullest service, perfect faith,
|
|
And uttermost surrender am I known
|
|
And seen, and entered into, Indian Prince!
|
|
Who doeth all for Me; who findeth Me
|
|
In all; adoreth always; loveth all
|
|
Which I have made, and Me, for Love’s sole end,
|
|
That man, Arjuna! unto Me doth wend.”
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XI, Lines 332-344.
|
Pinging you to #608.
Deuteronomy 23:2 - "No one born of a forbidden marriage[a] nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation."
Indeed, dearest sister in Christ! Ever since Francis Bacon, the scientific method has relentlessly been trying for complete "objectivity," which in practice has meant disqualifying all "subjective" perceptions. That is to say, to make science completely free of the "prejudices" of scientific observers. Which in practice meant dumping all of philosophy so as to clear the way for the Novum Organum of a new and improved scientific Weltanschauung which would be untainted by philosophical ideas and intellectual habits. In other words, perfectly "objective," perfectly empirical....
Oh, according to the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary, that German word "Weltanschauung" translates as: "a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint." [Jeepers, subjectivity is invoked in the definition itself.]
The Newtonian revolution — which essentially describes the universe as a vast mechanism whose functions are totally independent of observers — seemed to make this expectation tenable. For quite a while. But then, as you point out, both Relativity and Quantum theory absolutely depend on the presence of observers. So perhaps reluctantly, scientists will come to realize that subjectivity per se cannot be separated from science in principle.
Indeed, on the most basic level, how could that be so? It is subjective minds who are doing the science. And human minds at that; so can we finally stop beefing about the so-called "anthropic principle," widely thought to "distort" scientific knowledge?
Whose scientific knowledge is this, after all?
And indeed, as a practical matter, it seems subjectivity and objectivity — though it appears to me they belong together, to work together — have never been so "fashionably" separated. As Wolfgang Smith points out in Cosmos and Transcendence, the so-called Newtonian reduction itself is already a commitment to a metaphysical (ergo "subjective") proposition, not a "physical" or "scientific" one. It is, to that extent, philosophy in disguise. And —
What we have collectively failed to grasp is that this purportedly scientific Weltanschauung is based, not upon the legitimate findings of science, but upon hidden psychological or a priori assumptions which turn out in the last analysis to be self-contradictory. In the name of physics civilization has succumbed to fantasy.As you note, the Newtonian reduction confines itself to only two of the four classical (Aristotelian) causes, the material and the efficient. But as the physical mathematician and theoretical biologist Robert Rosen well demonstrates (in Life Itself), it is impossible to speak of biological function (or the function of any complex system in nature) without reference to a final cause, executing (so to speak) its formal cause.
In short, all four causal categories are needed — as you say, "Formal cause and final cause are back on the table." And this is fascinating to me, for final cause in particular gives many scientists the heebie-jeebies these days. :^) It's one of the things that Francis Bacon thought he could dispense with, and still do science....
We live in such fascinating times, dearest sister! So much going on, all over the place, in so many different fields. There is tremendous ferment around so many questions.
Thank you so very much for your outstanding essay/post!
May God continue to bless America; may He continue to guide her by His Light and Grace.
Good grief, dear kosta; but you must be dreaming. Either that, or grossly (and grotesquely) misrepresenting what these men were saying.
Let's have a look:
True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all. — SocratesIn the first place, in this passage, the correct word isn't "exists," it's "consists". The prefix "con" stipulates a relation to something outside the cognitive self. Socrates — the great gadfly of Athens (who stung so many "worthy ones" that they ended up conspiring to kill him, which conspiracy was successful) — did say something to the effect that "I know that I know nothing; and because of this knowledge, I am wiser than other men."
You leave out the context of this remark. Socrates, in modesty before the God whose oracle was at Delphi, was trying to mitigate, distance himself, from the oracular words the Pythia had spoken, in response to Socrates' friend's question. The answer was: Socrates is the wisest of men.
In his response, indeed Socrates was the wisest of men. He knew that wisdom was of divine Source. He knelt to this Source.
This hardly constitutes a repudiation of God! Socrates doesn't even complain that there are limits to human knowledge that cannot be overcome in principle, on categorical grounds....
We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of school children. The real nature of things we shall never know. — Albert EinsteinAgain, the great-souled Einstein (IMHO) is not expunging the universe of "metaphysical" reality. He is simply acknowledging the category problem already alluded to: I.e., that God, being outside of dimensionality altogether, is not entirely reducible to human terms.
Of all the persons you cite, kosta, Einstein is probably the most profoundly religious in spirit. Alamo-Girl and I have been posting excerpts of his comments along these lines forever it seems, and to you directly. But it's as if you never heard of them....
As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more mysterious. — Albert SchweitzerAnd thus, for the third time, your "source" is acknowledging a mysterious "beyond" the Limit of human reason....
Thinking it over, it seems you want the world to be so "flat" that questions involving context [which would seem to involve the presence of at least one additional temporal dimension] can never come up. It's all dominoes, from first to last. Simply take the man at his word — and then explain his words in ways he would never have intended.
What do you really hope to accomplish by such methods?
Just wondering....
Thank you so much for writing, dear kosta!
I'm sure that would be the case, dear brother in Christ, had such a person bothered to consider the "enormity" of what quantum theory seems to be pointing to....
But I have some doubt that is the case in the present circumstance.
A person cannot have "facts" without acknowledging some ground by which such purported "facts" can be "validated." This is the fly in their ointment....
Were that my position, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night, either.
Thank you ever so much, dear brother, for your most perceptive insights!
May God bless us all!
Well, he’s right that the theory of evolution is more than an explanation of evidence. From day one, it has been an overarching theory of the universe. Theistic evolution counters this with still another myth, which is something like Teilhard de Chardin’s view of things.
Well, if all that exists is caused, and God exists, he must be caused. And if he is caused, then he is not the first cause…
… and what caused God must have a cause, which must have a cause, ad infinitum.
This just restated the argument FOR an uncaused first cause.
Without an uncaused first cause, you encounter the infinite regress problem above and nothing exists - which, from observation, we "know" is not true.
Accepting your objection we would have: "If all that exists is caused, nothing exists." The result of your objection is precisely the problem that the first cause argument solves, and so this objection fails.
A more fruitful line would be to attack the infinite regress problem itself rather than project it out further.
The gap between us and our nearest biological relatives (chimpanzees) is quite small, only 2% in genetic DNA and some 6-10% in genomic DNA.
Rats and mice, for example, are much more different from each other in DNA than a human and a chimpanzee are.
Do you speculate ‘seriously’ about extraterrestrial origins of mice?
Ever read “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”? LOL!
Actually, Robby is correct. And the fact that humans are collecting chimp DNA to compare is proof Robby is right.
There’s an immense gap between us an any other creature on earth.
How long do you think before chimps will be checking out DNA? Writing books? Creating computers?
Chip, my dog, is content to lay by the fire and lick himself....and us, if we’ll let him. He gets so excited when I take the leash off the hook.
He does not put it on my neck. And he doesn’t light the fireplace for me to get comfy in front of.
Labs are among the smarter canines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.