Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 04/09/2006, at 5:58 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 4 Sep 2006 at 5:36, Charlie Bell wrote: On 02/09/2006, at 6:41 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the universe... ...apart from all the major ID spokespeople have said at various times that the designer is God, and a number of them are YECs who Ah, kinda missing my point, Charlie. It's not to do with that, but rather that they haven't been able to get creationism taught as science, so this is just another shot at the pie. Ah, I see what you mean. I thought you were making the very European mistake that assumes that ID *is* theistic evolution and therefore can't understand all the fuss... :-) I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and set in chain the process which lead to Man. This here is theistic evolution, not ID. Theistic evolution is indistinguishable from secular evolution at the level of science. It's only a matter of whether one is a believer in God or gods or not, not whether one thinks evolution happened or not. Yes. Gets back to the book _Genesis and the Big Bang_. The Gerald Shroeder book? If so, that has big problems too, by trying to tie the science too closely to the Genesis order of things. In fact, most of the ancient history of the biblical texts is archaeologically and scientifically dubious, there's a fair bit of myth in there. Which I don't think any reasonable person should have a problem with, as it's not supposed to be a history text any more than stories of the Lightning Man or the halls of Valhalla are. They're stories that bind a people culturally, that provide an anchor to their identity. Conflict? WHAT conflict? The conflict is between people who think science should be science and religion should be religion, and if you're religious you can understand God's universe by studying it, and those who think that studying it is anathema because we already know all the answers through revelation. Again yes...I'm saying that as a Jew, I don't see the conflict. those who think that studying it is anathema ...are not Jews. Judaism has allways had a strong scientific tradition, and no theory is thrown out purely because it conflicts religious beliefs. To do so it so limit what G-d can do. Precisely the reasoning I have used when arguing that ID creationism is not only bad science, it's rotten theology too. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 02/09/2006, at 6:41 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the universe... ...apart from all the major ID spokespeople have said at various times that the designer is God, and a number of them are YECs who were convinced that pretending that there's a scientific way to discern the existence of God was the best way to further the creationist and dominionist agenda. ID has *everything* to do with belief that God created the universe. I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and set in chain the process which lead to Man. This here is theistic evolution, not ID. Theistic evolution is indistinguishable from secular evolution at the level of science. It's only a matter of whether one is a believer in God or gods or not, not whether one thinks evolution happened or not. Conflict? WHAT conflict? The conflict is between people who think science should be science and religion should be religion, and if you're religious you can understand God's universe by studying it, and those who think that studying it is anathema because we already know all the answers through revelation. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 9:36 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design The conflict is between people who think science should be science and religion should be religion, and if you're religious you can understand God's universe by studying it, and those who think that studying it is anathema because we already know all the answers through revelation. Charlie I don't know if you know who Billy Graham is, Charlie. He's the most famous American evangelical preacher of the last 50 years. A friend of mine is sending me an email quoting Billy stating that evolution and Christianity are fully compatible. He falls in the first category. I always thought he was a fundamentalist, but its clear now that he isn't. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 4 Sep 2006 at 5:36, Charlie Bell wrote: On 02/09/2006, at 6:41 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the universe... ...apart from all the major ID spokespeople have said at various times that the designer is God, and a number of them are YECs who Ah, kinda missing my point, Charlie. It's not to do with that, but rather that they haven't been able to get creationism taught as science, so this is just another shot at the pie. I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and set in chain the process which lead to Man. This here is theistic evolution, not ID. Theistic evolution is indistinguishable from secular evolution at the level of science. It's only a matter of whether one is a believer in God or gods or not, not whether one thinks evolution happened or not. Yes. Gets back to the book _Genesis and the Big Bang_. Conflict? WHAT conflict? The conflict is between people who think science should be science and religion should be religion, and if you're religious you can understand God's universe by studying it, and those who think that studying it is anathema because we already know all the answers through revelation. Again yes...I'm saying that as a Jew, I don't see the conflict. those who think that studying it is anathema ...are not Jews. Judaism has allways had a strong scientific tradition, and no theory is thrown out purely because it conflicts religious beliefs. To do so it so limit what G-d can do. One considers scientific facts seperately from religious ones. I have no fondness for any form of fanatic, especially ones pushing religious and philosophical arguments as scientific theories. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
I don't know if you know who Billy Graham is, Charlie. He's the most famous American evangelical preacher of the last 50 years. ...and I've seen him evangelise. A friend of mine is sending me an email quoting Billy stating that evolution and Christianity are fully compatible He falls in the first category. I always thought he was a fundamentalist, but its clear now that he isn't. No, he's just an evangelical. And he seems to have avoid the power and money traps so many evangelists fall into (along with the fundamentalist leanings that are so easy to use in that us vs them way that the real greedmongers and loopers do. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 1 Sep 2006 at 22:10, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 27, 2006, at 7:41 PM, William T Goodall wrote: There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of intelligent design taught in some US states. So ... JPII wasn't infallible after all? What does that actually mean for the Papacy? Imagine the chaos that will ensue when millions of Catholics realize that the Pope isn't actually the living representative of Jesus Christ after all. Millions of crushed believers weeping and wailing in the streets ... worldwide rioting ... icons clasted ... how dreadful. Yea, because there's nothing like a Pope summing various reprisentatives on a topic for a militant atheist to start issuing press releases. Because that's all the thread title is, it's propaganda. Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the universe...I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and set in chain the process which lead to Man. Conflict? WHAT conflict? AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
At 10:41 AM Saturday 9/2/2006, Andrew Crystall wrote: [snip] Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the universe...I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and set in chain the process which lead to Man. And then what? Did He let things proceed on their own from that point, knowing how it would inevitably turn out, or did He have to remain actively involved in the process, or what? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Andrew said: Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the universe...I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and set in chain the process which lead to Man. Do you believe that God chose the initial conditions such that humanity was an inevitable outcome? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:39, Richard Baker wrote: Andrew said: Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the universe...I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and set in chain the process which lead to Man. Do you believe that God chose the initial conditions such that humanity was an inevitable outcome? If there infinite universes, as many scientists now believe, does that make the this universe any less? If every descision has other universes where you decided in every other possible way, let alone the stranger posibilities. Why? on a grand scale is not something science can yet answer. It would appear that evoloution of a species (ignoring individual members plights) is random, but equally we know that no such thing as true chance exists. So to species, so to society. As a species is a pool of genes flowing through time and space, society is a pool of memes flowing through time and space. inevitable is a word which is loaded in itself, and as to outcome, I don't think we're quite at the end of the river yet. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Andrew said: inevitable is a word which is loaded in itself, and as to outcome, I don't think we're quite at the end of the river yet. Well, it seems to me that religious people talk quite a lot about human dignity and humanity being made in the image of God in some sense, and it seems that in the Islamic/Christian/Jewish religion God has some kind of special interest in humans (or perhaps He is also supposed to send prophets and messiahs to chimpanzees and squid and so forth...) and that humans have some centrality in God's universe. This being the case, it seems to me that these religions imply that humanity was supposed or intended to exist in the universe. On the other hand, although one might make the case for certain traits such as intelligence or bipedalism being likely to arise, it's vanishingly unlikely that humanity would appear in its current form if evolution had had even a very slightly different starting point or been subject to very slightly different perturbations along the way. The juxtaposition of the religious idea and the scientific idea suggest to me that people who believe that God started off life and then watched it unfold must also believe that God chose very, very specific initial conditions. This is what I was implying by my use of the word inevitable. Which then further suggests the question: why would God bother with this rather elaborate scheme rather than creating humans directly? I can't help but say that it looks to me like religious people struggling to hold onto vague and metaphorical versions of ideas whose exact and literal versions have been shown to be extremely unlikely indeed by the progress of science. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Rich wrote: Well, it seems to me that religious people talk quite a lot about human dignity and humanity being made in the image of God in some sense, and it seems that in the Islamic/Christian/Jewish religion God has some kind of special interest in humans (or perhaps He is also supposed to send prophets and messiahs to chimpanzees and squid and so forth...) Have you read Steinbeck's _St. Katherine_? :) On a related note, Vishnu's incarnations, though mostly meant to sort out the problems of the bipedals [though not just humans], take the form of a fish, a tortoise, a boar, man-lion hybrid etc. And one of Shiva's incarnation was in the form of a monkey, and he was a prophet to the monkeys. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Ritu said: Have you read Steinbeck's _St. Katherine_? :) No, I haven't. I'll look out for it. On a related note, Vishnu's incarnations, though mostly meant to sort out the problems of the bipedals [though not just humans], take the form of a fish, a tortoise, a boar, man-lion hybrid etc. And one of Shiva's incarnation was in the form of a monkey, and he was a prophet to the monkeys. I didn't know that last part, which is quite cute. But of course I knew that some other religions are less humano-centric. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Rich said: Have you read Steinbeck's _St. Katherine_? :) No, I haven't. I'll look out for it. Its a short story and the collection is called _The Red Pony_. A lot of good stories in there. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 2 Sep 2006 at 19:28, Richard Baker wrote: Andrew said: inevitable is a word which is loaded in itself, and as to outcome, I don't think we're quite at the end of the river yet. This being the case, it seems to me that these religions imply that humanity was supposed or intended to exist in the universe. You won't actually get many Rabbis willing to hold forth on pure theoreticals like that, just like not many will hold forth on life- after-death. Essentially, though, Judaism is not threatened if Aliens exist, even intelligent ones. On the other hand, although one might make the case for certain traits such as intelligence or bipedalism being likely to arise, it's vanishingly unlikely that humanity would appear in its current form if evolution had had even a very slightly different starting point or been subject to very slightly different perturbations along the way. That's why I brought up many-words/multiverse - in that, we are not unique snowflakes at all. There are at alpha versions of you, for example, if they're true. I'm not going to get into transinfinites, but if it's true then we're NOT unique, NOT unusual. I refer you to John Brunner, _The Infinitive of Go_ the word inevitable. Which then further suggests the question: why would God bother with this rather elaborate scheme rather than creating humans directly? We're getting into perceptions now. Okay, if people KNEW they'd been created then it's change our perspective of G-d. If we didn't know, well, then...I'm going to refer you to Brin's _Heavens Reach_. How does the quote go..something like.. All the simulations have been run and discarded, what we call existance is merely an illusion of elapsed time. I can't help but say that it looks to me like religious people struggling to hold onto vague and metaphorical versions of ideas whose exact and literal versions have been shown to be extremely unlikely indeed by the progress of science. Maybe and maybe not. But please don't confuse Christianity and Judaism's approach to science. Gallelo is the perfect example. He had years of trouble with - was called a Heretic by - the Catholics for advocating Copernician theory (although calling the Pope a simpleton in print did't help either). The Jewish astronmers of the day were not convinced by Copernician theory either, but there was no threat to their religious views - the important observations of the sky for the Jewish religion would not change if the idea of heliocentric movement was true. What mattered was not scientific theory but the specified observations. Time after time, where a Christian finds historical views have changed within the Church, there has simply not been a conflict in the first place for the Jews. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Baker Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 1:29 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design This being the case, it seems to me that these religions imply that humanity was supposed or intended to exist in the universe. Well, if Wheeler is right, that's by definition because the universe requires a primitive act of registration. :-) Other intelligent beings would produce different interfaces. All one really has to do is take the original intent of the passage in Genesis and extend it. I can't help but say that it looks to me like religious people struggling to hold onto vague and metaphorical versions of ideas whose exact and literal versions have been shown to be extremely unlikely indeed by the progress of science. But, the literal version, at least within the Judaic-Christian tradition, has never been intended to hold statements like man was made in the image of God to imply a God with two eyes, a nose, a mouth, two arms and two legs. God, by definition, was transcendent. Let me give two good examples of this in Hebrew Scriptures: the first is the anathema of Israel creating an idol of Yahweh. The second is the mockery of those who have a concrete understanding of God in Isaiah. Going to the general topic, I'd be very surprised if the Pope would embrace intelligent design. It would undo over 100 years of Catholic teaching on the subject of evolution. It would also contradict a very recent official article in the Vatican newspaper which regarded a cardinal's support of intelligent design as unfortunate. Cardinals, on occasion, speak out on their own. Vatican officials do not publish in the official Vatican newspaper on their own. The latter is usually considered policy. Finally, only one papal pronouncement has been declared infallible since the existence of papal infallibility was declared at Vatican I, in the 19th century. The rest of the statements didn't meet the requirements. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Andrew Crystall wrote: ... You won't actually get many Rabbis willing to hold forth on pure ... That's why I brought up many-words/multiverse - in that, we are not unique snowflakes at all. There are at alpha versions of you, for example, if they're true. I'm not going to get into transinfinites, but if it's true then we're NOT unique, NOT unusual. ... Andrew-- Going with this whole Jewish thing, I'm thinking you may mean aleph. : ) As in: There are at least aleph-null versions of you, for example, if that's true. On do I have any idea what you were trying to say? ---David Cantor got to name them, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 2 Sep 2006 at 20:04, David Hobby wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: ... You won't actually get many Rabbis willing to hold forth on pure ... That's why I brought up many-words/multiverse - in that, we are not unique snowflakes at all. There are at alpha versions of you, for example, if they're true. I'm not going to get into transinfinites, but if it's true then we're NOT unique, NOT unusual. ... Andrew-- Going with this whole Jewish thing, I'm thinking you may mean aleph. : ) As in: There are at least aleph-null versions of you, for example, if that's true. On do I have any idea what you were trying to say? Bleck, yes, aleph. Heh. As a further note, it's also somewhat explored in Ian Macleod's _Learning the World_, but I consider it quite clumsy in comparison. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On Aug 27, 2006, at 7:41 PM, William T Goodall wrote: There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of intelligent design taught in some US states. So … JPII wasn't infallible after all? What does that actually mean for the Papacy? Imagine the chaos that will ensue when millions of Catholics realize that the Pope isn't actually the living representative of Jesus Christ after all. Millions of crushed believers weeping and wailing in the streets … worldwide rioting … icons clasted … how dreadful. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
