BS: Creation v Evolution Part II

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Biskit
Date: 03 Oct 00 - 11:15 PM

Lovely Poem Susan, I believe sweet hour of prayer will do nicely. Love to the family,Donnie

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 00 - 11:28 PM

The problem with Kansas is not their religion, and not even that they want their religion taught to their children. The problem is a failure to appreciate the way bodies of data naturally divide and associate according to relevance and inherent logic (at least inherent as far as we can see). The notion of one class of data dictating that another class of data should be suppressed from sight is abominable because it informs the individual that it is not able to discriminate.

Not only that, but the notion that teaching scientific data in its own proper context might undermine the Cosmic Truth of revelational Xianity kind of shows a low esteem for the power of that set of truths.

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 00 - 11:46 PM

souls?..if anyone can tell me what a soul IS, I might try to answer whether cockroaches or Cocker Spaniels...or Pope John...have one.

So many of these arguments are just anthromorphic projections and poetry and wishful thinking. Sure, that's all we HAVE to work with...and it makes for some very fascination concepts, but it is NOT a discussion that anyone can 'win'....unless some Entity decides to be much clearer about it than *he*(see...anthropomorphism..)has so far.

......I have to think that, if I were a Supreme Being, and had opinions about what my creations ought to be doing, I would not wait thousands of years between demos of my powers and clarifications of the rules. *wry smile*...Look at us (the human race...not just Mudcat)- bickering over little turns of phrase and killing each other over whether YOUR group or MY group gets this hill for a holy place! (yes...I KNOW there's more to it than that!)

What if the clouds had parted over Jerusalem yesterday and a BIG voice had boomed down from above..."Hey!! ALL OF YOU...STOP THAT!"

and what if a lot of other things............*sigh*

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Oct 00 - 12:33 AM

I lead a Bible study at my Catholic parish on Thursday nights, and I had to answer this question last week. I wish I had been able to see this thread first, but it had not yet been "created."
There's one guy in the class of 25 who would have argued the matter with me for two hours, if I had allowed it - so I made sure I made my statement when there was no time for questions. I really try hard to avoid upsetting the applecart for people. I see no reason to debunk people's beliefs, unless there's something hateful in what they believe. But in this case, I had to say something, because the question had been asked.
What I said was that Catholics believe that God created the world and is still active in creation; but the Catholic Church takes no official position on how the world was created. Catholics are free to believe that God created in seven days, or seven ages, or through the wonderful, natural process we call evolution. I decided it was better not to use the word "myth" because that word is loaded with negative connotations and misunderstandings - but I think the Book of Genesis makes wonderful use of mythical language to show how God has been intimately involved with creation and life from the very beginning. I wanted to answer the question in one minute and go on to our scheduled discussion, so I didn't want to get too deep into the subject.

I spent 8 years in a Catholic seminary in the 1960's. There wasn't really any question about the topic there - I was always taught that God created the world through the process of evolution. In the years that have gone by since then, I have learned of the beauty and value of the various creation myths, and I have learned to treat those myths with more respect.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 04 Oct 00 - 12:36 AM

Joe, everyone KNOWS that this thread EVOLVED from the first BS: Creation v Evolution thread!

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Oct 00 - 12:27 PM

Scotsbard, you make good points and ask good questions. But they don't seem related to the "red herring" that got up your craw, namely, whether there is anybody who thinks that the universe was created JUST FOR humans. Perhaps "straw man" would have been a better term for me to use.

You said, and I quote, "assuming that this entire universe was created just for humans seems incredibly arrogant."

Which is true. But nobody believes this.

I asked whether you can show that there is anybody out there in the wide, blue world who really holds this belief.

So far you have not presented evidence that there is.

Whether or not I can define "soul" or if that's the qualitative difference are kinda beside the point. My own personal opinion is that yes we do have souls, but the qualitative difference I spoke to can be seen merely in behavioral terms. What other creatures create art? What other creatures bury their dead with flowers? What other creatures have culture, literature, poetry, bluegrass music? (I mean in the wild, not ones that have been semi-humanized by intensive exposure to humans.) It's not that (say) chimps have really primitive, really lousy bluegrass music/culture/poetry/whatever and ours is more advanced. That would be a quantitative difference. They don't have it at all.

Nevertheless this is all by the bye. The "red herring" was and is: who in God's (Goddess's) green earth really believes that the world was created just for humans? Any attempts to not answer this question by dragging in other questions seem like ... well, fish of a different color.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Oct 00 - 01:49 PM

The false anthropic principle

Some arguments implying that there are those who think the universe has some purpose connected with us, but they are wrong.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Oct 00 - 02:06 PM

Penny, did you read that page? Did you understand it? I sure didn't. Yeesh. Somebody should teach this guy about the nature of popularized science writing.

I do know the writer is at least part idiot, because he thinks the question about the tree falling in the forest is whether it really falls, when in fact the question is DOES IT MAKE A NOISE?

I had forgotten about the anthropic principle. I guess there are some that think the universe was somehow created for humans. It's a bogus argument though; if there weren't humans we wouldn't be arguing the question; therefore the question could only arise in a universe in which all the constants are exactly right for sentient life. For all we know there are a zillion parallel universes in which the constants aren't right. And in those universes there are no people asking questions about whether the universe was created just for them. Ergo, the anthropic principle begs the question. It's circular.

Anyway, I stand corrected on the question of whether there are people who think the universe was created just for humankind. Thanks, Penny.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Lena
Date: 04 Oct 00 - 11:05 PM

Julie,the most relevant difference between us and apes in general,which got us to be what we are,is learning capacity.We spend our entire life learning.You can teach an ape how to read and write and use basic language to communicate,but so what?!They don't feel the need,when they're happily and freely living in the jungle,to go and learn these things.They never needed fire(as we did,changing our hole history)or even if they do,they don't try to work out how to have it.Of course they are intelligent.Of course they have the potential.But not the drive or the initiative.As both human and ,say,gorilla species started with the same potential,humans never stopped complicating their life to get it easier,inventing,wondering,working on theirselves:actually,,inventig the human.Other apes stopped at their state,never going any firther for thousands of years,apart from what natural selection got them to change,slowly.
And even if apes are most fascinating,moving creatures,for some reason humans fascinate me more:this insatiable thirst for knowledge and sharing it.Take the purely social purposed invention of music:for humans getting together wasn't enough.They had to invent something to amuse,entertain,excite each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Penny S.
Date: 05 Oct 00 - 12:28 PM

I did cheat - I only scanned it - it was easier than the first one I tried, which also was anxious to make the point that the anthropic principle does not state that the universe is dependent on us, the observers, thus indicating that there are believed to be some people who think it does. But I didn't have time.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Oct 00 - 12:17 AM

refresh for Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Haruo
Date: 07 Oct 00 - 12:48 AM

Thanks, kat, here's what I wanted it for:

I've never looked at the thread in question, and now with the last post over 24 hours old and the Supersearch function down I can't, but I had intended to visit it and perhaps post a link to my article on Darwin — yeah, it's in Esperanto, but the animated GIFs at the bottom are still funny (I think, anyhow) — I'm not sure where I stole 'em from — as are some of the DARWIN FISH variations on the page linked to at bottom left.

Liland
Something Different

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Haruo
Date: 07 Oct 00 - 12:53 AM

  Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II  From: Lepus_Rex   Date: 04-Oct-00 - 12:36 AM     

Joe, everyone KNOWS that this thread EVOLVED from the first BS: Creation v Evolution thread!    

---Lepus Rex      >>>>> <<<<<  

I get the impression it's actually a concatenation of successive discrete creative events.

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 07 Oct 00 - 01:07 AM

My first attempt at Esperanto...

Clintoni morfica est hilarioso et oddlie hypnotikosa.

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Haruo
Date: 07 Oct 00 - 01:29 AM

Looks more like Interlingua, or maybe Occidental, but yeah, you're right!

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 00 - 12:14 PM

Penny -- the site you pointed to was absolutely terrific. Except for one small thing. He cites the probabiity scale for a large number of critical parameters ever occurring randomly and then adds ("without divine intervention"). And it is really an impressive piece of math when you (as he did) add the composite effects of all those parameters. The chances of life occurring come out to around 10^(-99).

But with all this brilliant analsyis his addition of that one phrase reveals that this is a mechansim of self-vindication. There is no reason to assume from these staistics that widely distributed discrete events of creation, as distinguished from the SIlver Bullet Entity theory of creation, could not account for the statistics and provide a perfectly workable model.

Come to think of it, there are several billion creative beings on this planet alone. Why not erect a model which cites the trillions^10 of moments of creative attention experienced by all beings since T-zero? That could account fer an awful lot without having to invoke an "unavailable male authority of unthinkable scale" by way of explanation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Frankham
Date: 07 Oct 00 - 02:34 PM

I understand that Darwin was a preacher's son. Apparently Darwin, himself, believed in God.

If the tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, it needs to have a song written about it. Poor tree.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Penny S.
Date: 09 Oct 00 - 02:10 PM

Here's another, less theological - I've read the other now, a bit like the Drake equations for calculating the likelihood of there being life elsewhere.

Another serious anthropic site

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 00 - 03:55 PM

Amos said: "we eat a lot more of them than they of us"

Not if you count the worms. Except for the spoilsports who go in for cremation, which always strikes me as cheating. I want an apple tree planted on my grave.

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 00 - 04:02 PM

I was referring to those members of the species still engaged in the battle for survival, not those who are decomposing. (BTW, I want my ashes placed under an apple tree or sprinkled on the waves.)

My point was that as a species, we have demonstrated the capacity to outsmart other species at least to the extent of being able to more or less round them up, rather than being driven into flight by them.

There is a certain amount of blind and bestial stupidity that gets used in this pursuit, but at least we do not live in terror of other carnivores much anymore.

Like Microsoft: we may not be the best or the smartest and are certainly not the most elegant or most graceful, but we are the dominant group

A

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: GUEST,Philippa
Date: 09 Oct 00 - 04:49 PM

I haven't read the messages in this thread yet. Is it about composed songs versus songs evolved through the "folk process"?

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: mousethief
Date: 09 Oct 00 - 04:54 PM

Alas, no, Guest Philippa. That WOULD be an interesting thread. This one is about the Kansas school board, and Darwin, and Duane Gish, and all that.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
From: Frankham
Date: 09 Oct 00 - 09:46 PM

Merle Travis sings about it on his recording of songs from back home. The song is called "That's All".

Frank