After reading this book, I have to conclude that Dawkin's attempt to prove that there is no god is good but not great. You can only go to "but who created god?" so many times before it starts to get a little old. It is a fascinating read, and I think anyone interested in religion (or why they aren't) should take a look at it.

I do believe, like Dawkins, that people have been too easy on leaders/politicians who hold outlandish religious beliefs. Would you support a politician who thought he'd been abducted by aliens and was sent back to earth to spread the message? Why then do we not ridicule fundamentalist christians who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old? Why do we let people get away with bigotry and hate against certain groups (ie. homosexuals)? Religion cannot be a "get out of jail" card. From now on, I will challenge religious beliefs that I believe are harmful to society. If you don't want to do anything about the environment because Jesus is coming back soon, you are a nut. Go ahead and believe what you want. You'll have to explain to yourself why you don't hold rational beliefs. Groups like Focus on the Family need to be challenged to their core to be shown for what they are. They have every right to exist and I shudder to think anyone would take that right away from them, but it's time for rational people to stand up to their hateful remarks, justified only by their religious, irrational beliefs.

Great review. I haven't read the book, but I've noticed a consistent critique emerging from those who would otherwise be sympathetic to Dawkins' basic argument: that Dawkins doesn't put it forward very well, and that others have done it far better.

One thing I have gleaned from the reviews is that Dawkins seems to view religion in unidimensional terms: it's all "fundamentalism" to him. So he's basically cherry-picked the most obstinate and unsubtle religious specimen and used it as a straw man to lever his arguments. It would be interesting to see how his approach would fare in a dialogue with learned moderates like Cardinal Schoenborn of Austria or Daneels of Belgium, or Archbishop Martini of Milan, all of whom grant science, rationalism and all the other lessons of the Enlightenment their full due.

To be fair, the fundamentalist minority (and they *are* a minority of Christians....even, in fact, a minority among Evangelicals) happens to be the religious demographic most likely to apply their belief to organized attempts at influencing public policy. So they're a fair political target....but Dawkins claims to be articulating a scientific argument, not writing a political tract, so what's it gonna be--? Science can neither prove nor disprove the hypothesis of God.

Ultimately, the moderate pro-science religious stance boils down to what Pope Benedict articulated during his apparently explosive speech at Regenburg: That religion must be governed by reason, and the nature of God is reason incarnate. The nature of divinity, of creation, cannot conceiveably be contrary to the nature of reason, to the nature that we observe around us. In fact, if you follow the history of his argument, he was saying that divinity and reason are ultimately one.

"In fact, if you follow the history of his argument, he was saying that divinity and reason are ultimately one."

And in Dawkin's book, he quotes many respected clergy, like Dr. Luther King, who claim that "a true christian has to scratch the eyes out of reason."

divinity and reason

Dangerously close to an oxymoron.

Not at all. The laws of the universe are grounded in reason; it's no stretch (if you believe in a Creator) to say that this reflects the nature of the Creator itself. The great pre-Christian classical thinkers of Greece argued more or less the same relationship between divinity, creation, and reason. They even through Love in the mix too (Reason, Love, Truth, Beauty, Divinity/Immortality - they all boil down to one essence down the line, if I understand my Plato and Socrates correctly).

I'm not endorsing the argument here - But as far as believe systems go, it's no more fantastic than Dawkin's brand of scientific fundamentalism, which also posits a certainty that the bounds on the laws of reality and the universe are already known to us.

Dawkins is just another kind of priest, a guru for another kind of fundamentalism. It's important to keep that in mind.

"Ultimately, the moderate pro-science religious stance boils down to what Pope Benedict articulated during his apparently explosive speech at Regenburg: That religion must be governed by reason."

He should heed his own advice. As Plato insists, rhetoric without substance is flattery.

"We encounter God in the silent emptiness that is the heart of being, and therefore of our being too. It is the place where we can share in that Being in whom “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Not that we are God, of course, but we are, ultimately, what God is." (Nicholas Buxton)

"The God Delusion is a declaration of secular humanism that excoriates religion, both moderate and extreme. It also attempts to outline a possible Darwinian origin for the emergence and prevalence of religious belief."
__________________________________________

Religion is a drug. Anyone remember those anti-drug ads showinig eggs frying, and the caption: "This is your brain on drugs"?

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/13/rwanda-priest.html
This nicely sums up "religion".

But I would disagree with Dawkins about a Darwinian origin for religion (I won't argue the existence of God or gods. There's no point to that). Religion was created as a control device. Religion, in the connotative sense we associate, is nothing more than one person telling another how to believe "or else".

While it is good that Dawkins attacks religioun it is important to remember that orthodox science, or rather that which once was orthodox science, has been equally as monstrous and irrational. Take "scientific racism" and eugenics, both of which were orthodox science in 1900. These led to the extermination camps of the Nazis as well as a host of crimes perpetuated against people of colour by the so-called democracies. Orthodox science once also rationalized child abuse, sexual repression and patriarchy. The problem is not so much religion, the rationalists favorite whipping boy, but ideology in general and especially those ideologies that cloack themselves with morality or reason.

Chris: " it's time for rational people to stand up to... hateful remarks, justified only by... religious, irrational beliefs."

A worthy goal for all of us.

The argument of God vs Science is useless since from the beginning of time, arguing for and against ghosts is fruitless, whether it is an argument trying to prove one's ghost is more real than another's or whether one's ghost exists or not. Actually, the evolution of human consciousness will hopefully solve that problem since we are all atheists to Zeus and Thor and a host of Mayan Gods etc. and certainly if humanity lives long enough, the Gods of present organized religions will appear as "primitive". What would be more fruitful is a full scale analysis of sacred writings, including the Bible from the perspective of science, history, sociology and psychology. The Bible, for instance, is chocked full of errancy, contradictions, injustices, inequalities and absurdities that the average "Christian" is unaware since much of the population knows only the tales of birth, ressurection and "friendly" passages. Indeed, if religion wishes to intrude upon the teachings of science in schools/museums etc. then in fairness, science should be able to intrude on the teachings of religions.
Better to be a Deist where one believes in a creator that started the whole ball rolling and then let it roll the way it wanted without one ounce of interference. I myself, don't need that concept. The mysteries and grandeur of the universe is enough for me and as well, keeping up with science that gradually unfolds them like tiny Christmas gifts.

All ideologies and economic theories have been religion based, permitting the exploitation and destruction of ecologies and licencing mass murder as the "will of God", regardless of what god, or what religion we talk about.

Like Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior, Jim Watts, said: "When the last tree is cut, the Lord will return!"

The good old "My God is stronger than your God" syndrome used in every case of colonization and robbery, now called "wealth creation" by the new pseudo religion, neoclassical economics, in the name of the Money God, who is created by and lives in computers. .

When we went into combat, we had enough holy water sprinkled on our guns to cut holes into the metal, then sent to kill for "Freedom, Christianity, and Western Civilization, led by the Leader with the cross on his chest!" Adolf Hitler.

Religions have been and are the biggest causes of wars and murder in history and there's no way anybody can deny this. The evidence is all there, even if the facts are against the neocon, New World Order, using religion for global enslavement.

Ed Deak. Big Lake.

nightbloom

Religion is a law unto itself and has nothing to do with the laws of the universe. Just the laws of self preservation. Preist = Lawyer = Reality.

A third scientific ideology I forgot to mention was Social Darwinism. We still have corporate CEO's bellowing about "survival of the fittest" and all that. Imagine how much exploitation and oppression has been rationalized away using this bit of secular religiosity.

Unfortunately, the bugs are the fittest........... Could be by "divine order?"

Ed Deak.

"A third scientific ideology I forgot to mention was Social Darwinism. "
Social Darwinism is not a scientific theory, it is a political corruption of a scientiic theory to justify the "success" of the better-offs and their "right" to exploit others.

anarcho:"Orthodox science once also rationalized child abuse, sexual repression and patriarchy. The problem is not so much religion, the rationalists favorite whipping boy, but ideology in general and especially those ideologies that cloack themselves with morality or reason."

You are both right, and wrong.

The problem is... ideology in general and especially those ideologies that cloack themselves with morality or reason. - RIGHT!

Orthodox science once also rationalized child abuse, sexual repression and patriarchy. - WRONG!

As you said, it is ideology, cloaked in reason (or science) that did those things. An "ideology of science" seeks to expand the bounds of knowledge and is unlikely to concern itself with controlling peoples' behaviors except, perhaps, as it pertains to seeking greater knowledge.

In any case "Social Darwinism" should really be named after its inventor," Social Spencerism". Or as the Hungarina proverb says "The strongest dog screws"

Ed Deak.

brainwashing is brainwashing, no matter who or what is the cause!
Religion has for centuries been an easy way to keep the "masses" at bay, by promising that in your next life things will be better!
It is about time that people begin to realize they have been had!
Various religions have develped slick packages, hoping to make you believe that you must join or forever be damned!
Not much different than present day advertising: The less aware are gullible.
I would not be surprised if the profits are about equal too.

Fiat Lux: "All ideologies and economic theories have been religion based, permitting the exploitation and destruction of ecologies and licencing mass murder as the "will of God", regardless of what god, or what religion we talk about."

And further, think of the complicity between the church and the wealthy during the birth of the labor movement. During the week, workers tried to organize, and on Sundays the priest undermined their efforts with mindless nonsense about the "meek inheriting the earth". How many decades of progressive action were undermined by feeding this awful drug to the working classes?! As someone said above: "like that anti-drug commercial; a brain like scrambled eggs."

Religion has much to answer for.

I'll take evolution for a thousand Alex. Every normal healthy gene in all the diverse life forms on earth, cooperate and coexist to grow, evolve and live. Only the human organism has decided to go it alone. Our ego's took over and said yes, survival of the fittest sounds about right. Lets use that and religion as our guides going forward.... Whoops!

""Religion is a law unto itself and has nothing to do with the laws of the universe. Just the laws of self preservation. Preist = Lawyer = Reality.""

Snert: I wasn't asserting my belief, only describing a belief system - in this case, that subscribed to my moderate, educated, pro-science Roman Catholics who see no conflict between rational scientific inquiry and their beliefs. Ultimately, it exists on the same plane as all other belief-systems, including Dawkins' (and he *is* articulating a belief system, not fact, in this instance).

anarcho:"A third scientific ideology I forgot to mention was Social Darwinism. We still have corporate CEO's bellowing about "survival of the fittest" and all that. Imagine how much exploitation and oppression has been rationalized away using this bit of secular religiosity."

anarcho, that's not scientific "ideology". That's corporate dogma, and has nothing to do with science. At best, it's science that's been hijacked for evil purposes.

God exists in the space between one individual reaching out in empathy to help another.

Simple.

If God does not exist there, God exists nowhere; and all the rest of this argument is noise.

This is the fundamental root of all moral teaching and arguments about God and science are of no practical interest except to people with tenure and too much time on their hands.

Yes, social darwinism is ideology, not science. In fact, the proverbial jury is still out on large chunks of Darwin's corpus of thought. Macro evolution (evolution from one species into another, as opposed to intra-species genetic adaptation over time) remains a contentious hypothesis. No uncontestably proof exists (yet) to prove the rule. While I think the hypothesis is true, this conviction on my part boils down to educated conjecture and faith. Science possesses no such flexibility - it ain't truth until its proven by scientific method.

They're going to be arguing about God and Science for aeons more, so I wouldn't get your collective knickers in the twist just yet. The real question, issue, and problem of our day is how religion (and noxious ideologies) are used to sway the public policy programme. Whether it's Allah, Yaweh or Thor & Odin, this is really the only issue that should concern the public sphere.

It would be very interesting to find out over what gods and religions the inhabitants of the thousands of billions of planets in each each of the thousands of billions of galaxies are fighting and killing each other for ?

If our Earth's human race is really the "crowning glory of creation" , I sure feel sorry for them.

Ed Deak.

"Orthodox science once also rationalized child abuse, sexual repression and patriarchy. - WRONG! "

Unfortunately not wrong. The anti-masturbation hysteria was stirred up by doctors and as late as 1900 mastrubation was considered something to be combatted by bizarre divises or surgical intervention in medical texts. Throughout the 19th Century physical abuse was considered a suitable means of child rearing by the authorities of the day. "Scientific" child rearing practices in the 1920's included feeding according to the clock, Read any book on psychiatry and women written since 1970 to see how that profession rationalized patriarchy. Not to mention the dissidents who were treated as psychiatric patients (here not in Russia) and the experimentation that went on in the Alan Memorial.

Haekel and Thomas Huxley both endorsed social darwinism. Both were top scientists of their day. One could find, no doubt, a host of other scientists of the day that endorsed it as well.

nightbloom wrote:
"The laws of the universe are grounded in reason"

No they're not. That statement is pure anthropomorphism. The workings of the universe have been sussed out through the application of reason using the scientific method. The the most accurate models that reflect our current perception and understanding of how the universe, or at least parts of it, work are certainly grounded in science. But you're mistaking the abstraction for the reality. Little wonder you can then jump to the conclusion that there is a creator.

nightbloom wrote:
"But as far as believe systems go, it's no more fantastic than Dawkin's brand of scientific fundamentalism, which also posits a certainty that the bounds on the laws of reality and the universe are already known to us."

NB you seem insist on making an intentional misinterpretation of science and scientists. As a scientist Dawkins would never make such a claim. He would never say that the bounds on the laws of reality are already known to us. On the other hand, he likely would argue that the probability of the existence of god is so infinitesimally small, given our current state of scientific knowledge, that it is laughably stupid to even entertain it as a serious question. That assertion pisses off the religious who then simply label Dawkins a fundamentalist, because it's easier than actually having to think.

Here again you do the same thing:
"Macro evolution (evolution from one species into another, as opposed to intra-species genetic adaptation over time) remains a contentious hypothesis. No uncontestably (sic) proof exists (yet) to prove the rule."

There is no such thing as incontestable "proof" in science. There is merely a body of data that supports a particular model. And you're wrong that what you call macro evolution is a contentious hypothesis. It isn't at all. You're regurgitating theistic propaganda. What is contentious are the modeled mechanisms that achieve evolution. The current models, including Dawkins' own gene driven model, do not accurately enough reflect what takes place during the evolutionary process. But evidence that evolution from one species to another occurs is plentiful, in fact, it is overwhelming.

nightbloom wrote:
"it ain't truth until its proven by scientific method."

Again this is a blatant misunderstanding of science. Science is a never ending exploration. New evidence occurs all the time. But the scientific method doesn't prove anything. It is a process that results in data that support a model or hypothesis. Scientists work to create the most accurate models of reality possible through the application of the scientific method. That method, in simple terms, is a repeatable process of observation under controlled conditions. Repeatable and controlled so that other scientists can repeat the observations under near identical conditions to verify or refute findings.

The only faith, if it can even be called that, in science is that our perceptions imperfectly reflect reality. The primary difference between science and other systems of knowledge (aside from perhaps mindful meditation) is that science actively and exhaustively tests and retests those perceptions, again using the scientific method. This process results simply in more accuracy, but it is an accuracy that is slow to be realized, and it only takes place after an enormous amount of painstaking research. And it is continually revised as more accurate information is discovered. But it works. It sure as hell creates more accurate models of reality than any of the myths and fantasies religion has come up with.

But answers in science simply produce more questions. There is no neat and tidy "42" that gives the answer to "Life the Universe and Everything". The desire for "42", which most people call god, seems really to be a desire for certainty, particularly when faced with the uncertainty of our own mortality. Sadly, most people would rather delude themselves than take the time to just stop and pay attention, right here, right now.

anarcho wrote:
"it is important to remember that orthodox science, or rather that which once was orthodox science, has been equally as monstrous and irrational."

Actually, to be accurate, a lot of people have worked, and continue to work to pervert science to their own particular religious, political and economic ends. Science, the scientific method in particular, is a tool. Models can be biased, data can be fabricated, scientists can have unacknowledged political, religious and economic interests that will influence how they interpret what they study. You only have to look at the efforts of religious fundamentalists where so-called scientific intelligent design is concerned, or the efforts of new age woo-woo proponents who make elaborate claims of supernatural powers or extrasensory perception based on insufficient data.

Ideologues of whatever stripe will use whatever tools available to them to support their beliefs. Science is a handy tool, because, when used properly, it does result in accurate models of reality that work when practically applied. So the patina of scientific credibility for an ideology, when in fact that patina is really just pseudoscientific rhetoric, lends it an aura of believability. Communism used science in exactly that way, to horrible consequences. Capitalism and economics are doing exactly the same thing now, to horrible consequences.

But what is also readily apparent is that science, properly applied, does suss out those deceptions in the long run. Expertly applied rhetoric is itself a fantastic tool, but it can only hide the truth so long. Climate change is an excellent example of that.

Hot potatoe!

It would be interesting to read someone defending religion . Ican not do that since I tend to agree with most of the above comments.

Especially interesting is the notion that evolution will eventually result in some reasonable melding of science and religion. I have used that hopeful idea for years to avoid shooting myself in the head!

Exactly: Science is not a belief system. It is knowlege accumulated using this great tool: the scientific method.
Science relies on evidence, religion depends on faith, the two are incompatible.

Talking about ideologically warped sciences..

When they took us to nazi Germany for military traning in Dec. '44, we were examined and categorized by military doctors, who, among other things, examined the hairs on the top of our hands, looking for Jewish genes. There were 2 true blue Aryan types in my company, a few # 2 and the rest of us, including myself #3, which still permitted us to have sex with German women. Unfortunately, we were starving and sex was the last thing on our minds.

After the war, we had a number of German women in our refugee camp, former KZ Lager inmates, sentenced for having had sex with Poles, who became social pariahs even after the war.

That too was "science".

Today's neoclassical economists are claiming "science" in their convoluted mathematical calculations, predicting globalized wealth for everyone. Unfortunately, the figures they put into their calculations are false, to come up with the prescribed result, yet swallowed by our politicians.

Ed Deak.

Science and religion are domains devoted to creating different satisfactions and the difference isn’t in the substance of their beliefs but in the method for the creation of the beliefs. Following Plato’s tripartite account, the justification of the belief is different. (Let’s ignore what’s true and what isn’t.)

Religious ideas are predicated on the notion that beliefs one has faith in can create happiness and meaning. Every time I hear a gospel choir, I understand something powerful is happening for these people. Scientific ideas have to withstand the rigors of formal, public evaluation and can be satisfying to create and understand because people agree they work. Every time I cross the Lions Gate Bridge, I understand engineers know what they’re talking about.

Dawkins is on thin ice claiming people should simply stop believing in God and should start believing in science because is simply not a replacement for the other. While his scrappy rigor is well suited to Nature or Science, it’s simply not gonna win over anyone he thinks it should.

What I am saying , echoing Terry Eagleton, is that liberal rationalists tend to be smug in their critique of religion. Theistic religion, esp. the literalist kind, is an easy target because its beliefs are so obviously foolish. The real danger in the 20ieth Century was the secular religions like nationalism, scientific racism, eugenics, social darwinism. These secular religions not only cloaked themselves in the garb of science, but in many cases WERE the science of the day. (And I have some of the texts in my library to prove it.) Critiquing theistic religion is not at all radical. You have to expose ALL ideology whether rationalist or theist. That is radical.

Although I'm an atheist, religion can't be replaced by science. Nobody wants to say goodbye to a loved one forever and to think that's it, life is meaningless.

"You have to expose ALL ideology whether rationalist or theist".
There is no such thing as a "rationalist" ideology.
And, to repeat: science is not a belief system, one does not "believe" in science. Science is not an ideology. The scientific method is a tool to acquire knowledge. Science is the accumulation of that knowledge at some point in time. What people do with the knowledge is another matter.

"life is meaningless"
Maybe, maybe not, nobody knows. It's tough, people would like to know, and surprise here comes religion to provide the easy answer.

James Burns -- commendations for clarifying the role of science and the scientific method to those who would pervert the "ideology"of science.

Well done!

nightbloom: "it's no more fantastic than Dawkin's brand of scientific fundamentalism, which also posits a certainty that the bounds on the laws of reality and the universe are already known to us."

He does? I suggest you read his book before you put words into his mouth. Dawkins keeps reminding the reader that we don't know everything, and only have a limited understanding and perceptive ability.

As to religion and the natural world being linked? Show me how a virgin birth is part of the "natural world." The fundamentals behind most religions contain certainties that are so unnatural, you could only call them supernatural. People can believe what they want, but you cannot say that a virgin birth is a reasonable thing to believe in. You have to put reason a side and have faith. That's what religion is all about.

anarcho: "Critiquing theistic religion is not at all radical. You have to expose ALL ideology whether rationalist or theist."

On that we agree.

James Burns says,
"He would never say that the bounds on the laws of reality are already known to us. On the other hand, he likely would argue that the probability of the existence of god is so infinitesimally small, given our current state of scientific knowledge, that it is laughably stupid to even entertain it as a serious question."

I believe this is the crux of the "new atheist" arguement and an excellent statement of why any supernatural belief is "fundamentalism."

Those who would wrap their god in the laws of the universe seem to miss the irony that such a god would not be worth worshipping.

Thermodynamics precludes the existence of a conscious force in the universe that cannot be observed - especially if acting directly upon matter within our realm.

If you must find a way to maintain a god delusion, don't waste your time worshipping and praying to it!

Frank: "...religion can't be replaced by science. Nobody wants to say goodbye to a loved one forever and to think that's it, life is meaningless."

Nobody WANTS to, but an atheist knows that there's no other option to the "that's it" alternative. That doesn't mean, however, that "life is meaningless". The "after-life" is the good vibes you leave people with when they think of you once you're gone. Surely that's not meaningless.

I agree with grub on the commendations re James Burns' posts this morning. Two of the best I've seen in a while.

Not meaningless Frank, life is mystery. One that sure feels good. Like watching re-runs of Flipper. Why mess it up with a bunch of BS like economics and religion?

I think Ed and James Burns have said it all, over and over again. Warped thinking for personal gain. We are a cancer on this fertile oasis. The most succesful species on this earth to date, depending on criteria, lets use longevity for this example: T-Rex. What religion did they follow? None, we're just thinking to much again. We best figure out a way to get along before we are pushed out of the way. Warning: Earth, deadly organisms at play.

OK, yes the bacteria would win that category. I mean higher life forms that eat other things.

Fiat Lux:

"Today's neoclassical economists are claiming "science" in their convoluted mathematical calculations, predicting globalized wealth for everyone. Unfortunately, the figures they put into their calculations are false, to come up with the prescribed result, yet swallowed by our politicians."

So true. Economics is not a science and can in principle never be a science.

I don't think after life and possible reincarnation should be lumped in with religions, although have been used and misused by priesthoods for thousands of years.

I'm no mystic in any sense , too much of a realist, if anything, but I have seen and experienced certain things in my life and talked to people who have been cured of serious chronic illnesses after having gone through "past lives hypnosis", that forces me to think that we should keep a very open mind about them.

I repeat : "don't accept anything, but keep an open mind". There's a lot in this world we don't understand and probably never will.

Ed Deak.

"There is no such thing as a "rationalist" ideology."

Sorry, not true. 18th Century Rationalism was ideological. In fact in 1792 there was a Cult of Reason which became the official Jacobin "faith." As are some other secular ideologies such as Marxism. Of course, reason and science are not, or rather should not be, ideological.

nightbloom:

"Ultimately, the moderate pro-science religious stance boils down to what Pope Benedict articulated during his apparently explosive speech at Regenburg: That religion must be governed by reason, and the nature of God is reason incarnate. The nature of divinity, of creation, cannot conceiveably be contrary to the nature of reason, to the nature that we observe around us. In fact, if you follow the history of his argument, he was saying that divinity and reason are ultimately one."

Clearly Pope Benedict is not a scientist. We have no proof of the existance of a god or gods. Belief without proof is irrational. So belief in god/gods is irrational.

"Dawkins claims to be articulating a scientific argument, not writing a political tract"

Where does he claim that?

"Dawkins is just another kind of priest, a guru for another kind of fundamentalism"

How so? What kind of fundamentalism? I assume you do not you mean religious fundamentalism...

anarcho:

Based on your posts, you seem to have no idea what the word "science" means.

grub said : The "after-life" is the good vibes you leave people with when they think of you once you're gone. Surely that's not meaningless.

No that isn't meaningless. But I have had a younger sibling die and I'm sure we all have had close friends and relatives die. When you're standing by the bedside holding someone's hand and family is all around crying and a priest or minister is reading passages am I going to say "I'm an atheist and all you people are deluded?"

Or even a year later at Christmas or something? Why? What's the point?

People need something to hang onto, there's very little as it is. I just think those of us who don't believe in gods of any kind should be more respectful of those who do. In places like Canada its not like god-believers aren't exposed to other views as it is.

Ed Deak said:" Religions have been and are the biggest causes of wars and murder in history and there's no way anybody can deny this."
I wonder.
Didn't I hear Dawkins interviewed on CBC TV this year?
And didn't I hear him make a similar argument?
That is, that persecutions of innocents at the hands religiously motivated states or factions has caused more deaths and murders throughout human history, than has any other type of motivation.

Dawkins conveniently has amnesia about the brutality and astronomical numbers of victims killed under officially atheiistic regimes:
-"Uncle Joe" Stalin's victims run to the tens of millions (I've seen one estimate of 20 million).
-Mao's victims count is certainly also well into the millions.
-Cambodia's Pol Pot's killing fields: 1 million+ murdered.

Even the Catholic Church's Inquisitions never killed at these rates!

Chimpanzees divide themselves into "in" groups and rival groups, with one group hating chimps in an "outsider" group. Chimps sometimes even murder those of "outsider" populations if they are encountered.

As we humans are 95%+ "chimp", why should we expect we'd be any different?
Humans, like chimps, congregate in "in" groups, which historically, are prone to viewing "out" groups as enemies (but sometimes as allies - "semi-ins").
Religion is simply one way of many, that one group happens to differentiate itself from another by. If religion disappeared, we'd still be chimp-like primates who divide into groups, who would come into conflict with other groups over things like territory (Territory is probably the biggest bone of contention, not religion). We'd continue to kill each other even if there was no religion whatsoever.

I wish I had time to make the case for religion. An excellent argument is made by Lee Strobel in The Case for a Creator

Bobb999, why don’t go find yourself half a dozens bananas, then some trees and swing yourself to the nearest church, better you stick with your polling survey, as you know jack on this subject. Religion is the root of evil Proof, just look at problems of the world, behind it all there is religion directly and indirectly.

Big differnce that 5% It's been said that we are the only animal that recognizes what a future is. I'm not talking about gathering nuts for the winter. You would think that 5% would stack the odds in our favour. But we continue to through it all at the roulette wheel, expecting the odds to turn in our favour. Expecting different results doing the same things over and over, generation after generatation. Isn't that the definition of insanity?

Ed deak:
"It would be very interesting to find out over what gods and religions the inhabitants of the thousands of billions of planets in each each of the thousands of billions of galaxies are fighting and killing each other for ?
________________

Sorry Ed! We are the ONLY ones to have gods. I have this on good authority from some little green guy................

Religion.

Bah!!! Humbug!!!

Is belief what drives people to terrorize and kill, or are beliefs simply used as justifications by people to legitimize using terror and murder to exert control over the environment and its resources?

Eh, Woody!

Go play with your woody. :-)

Dolphin:
The Case for a Creator

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1222

"Is the case for evolution clearly a shut case? Are all the basic aspects of evolutionary theory known to be correct? Can the entire universe be explained simply in terms of matter and energy? Do science and religion conflict? Do people who believe in a Creator suffer from an inability to rationally comprehend the brute facts of the world around them?"
_______________________________________________

The author makes the fatal assumption that those who do not believe in a god or gods think they know everything. By starting at this quite arbitrary point, he pretty well negates everything he has to say.

One common criticism of Dawkins is that he focuses too much on fundamentalism. As nightbloom wrote: "it's all "fundamentalism" to him". This is incorrect, and here is a good example of him debating a liberal, non-fundie, Christian, from Dawkins's website:

http://tinyurl.com/y9wv69

The thing is, Dawkins's critique really questions all religious and supernaturalist beliefs, not just fundamentalism. So, he doesn't have to offer a different set of arguments for "moderates" compared to "funamentalists".

Anyway, I'll let Dawkins argue it, as he can do so far better than I can.

PS: Nightbloom: "macro-evolution" is not a "contentious hypothesis". It's not a hypothesis at all -- it's a fact. The "theory of evolution" explains how it happens. That it does happen is not in question, except by creationists. The proof is so overwhelming, the body of evidence so massive, from the fossil record to DNA, that it is considered proven.

There is some truth somewhere in most religions. There is also some "rigorous science"

But there is also a whole messy structure of BS wrapped around both.

I'm saying that Science, as preceived by the majority of thinking people, is based on faith - they have faith in the scientist.To aquire my degree I took most of what I "learned" on faith: I learned to ignore the error as delta T approached zero (the basis of Calculus). I also dabbled in Quantum Mechanics after studying Continuum Mechanics (the stuff that holds the Lions Gate together). One PhD (my brother in law) answered the question: "What is this here quatum stuff all about?" this way:

"Quantum Mechanics is a tool. When you need it you get it out of the closet. After you have used it you put it back in the closet."

If that does not demonstrate "faith" I don't know what will.

Coyote be careful, you could be smitten by the BIG WOODY, now, lets all play dominooos.

doggone:

"I learned to ignore the error as delta T approached zero (the basis of Calculus)"

What do you mean by "ignore"? What does this have to do with faith?

"they have faith in the scientist"

No. One component of the scientific method involves repeatable experiments. If you don't believe someones results, you can try to repeat their experiments, and follow their reasoning.

"Quantum Mechanics is a tool. When you need it you get it out of the closet. After you have used it you put it back in the closet."

So do you think this indicates "faith"? How? I see it.

"Based on your posts, you seem to have no idea what the word "science" means."

Don't be so goddamned arrogant! Never assume that your own ignorance of a subject qualifies you to sneer at others. As a sociologist, I quite plainly know what science is. I also happen to know that sometimes what passes for science is in fact ideology or heaviliy larded with ideology. Race science was scientific orthodoxy circa 1900. It is of course pure bunkum.

doggone:

Oops! The last sentence should have been "I DON'T see it".

anarcho:

"As a sociologist, I quite plainly know what science is."

Ha! I won't even get started about whether sociology is a science or not.

I eugenics isn't science. I'd describe it as a social policy or philosophy.

"I also happen to know that sometimes what passes for science is in fact ideology or heaviliy larded with ideology."

I agree. As soon as human values enter into the scientific process, it stops working properly. But you do not make this distinction in your other posts. I seem to remember you writing something about science being, at times, "monstrous and irrational".

doggone said
I also dabbled in Quantum Mechanics after studying Continuum Mechanics (the stuff that holds the Lions Gate together).

Which leaves me to ponder, is this possibly why the overpass in Quebec flailed and fell on people in their automobiles recently? Is it also possible while constructing this overpass an engineer put the “ Quantum Mechanics” back in one closet and reached into another closet for Devine intervention ? Gee I guess this hokus pokus stuff must work, after all the overpass didn’t fail--------- for 10 years.

I" eugenics isn't science. I'd describe it as a social policy or philosophy."

I agree. But the point I am making is that it was accepted as a science at one time. Thus, science in its development accepted something "monstrous and irrational". I am NOT saying that science is monstrous and irrational, merely that the monstrous and irrational was accepted as science. This should lead us to be careful in our acceptance of what is purported to be science. We have to look for the ideological aspect, if any should exist. Far from being an attack on science or scientific thinking, it is a call for a more rigourous approach.

anarcho:

Eugenics is not science, nor was it ever science. It was/is a social philosophy, a philosophy about how society could be improved (note: I am abviously not advocating it, just saying that improving society was its goal).

No, systematic evolution from one species into another has not been proven (although I believe it to be true). There is actually no fossil record that demonstrates this graduation in humans. It's actually still a theory. What has been proven is genetic adaptation within a species over time. That's actually something else entirely. There are a lot of unexplained holes in the THEORY of evolution. I'm not making a statement against it here (and I'm glad I was taught it in public school....and no, I don't favour "intelligent design" crapology as currently peddled by the literalist evangelicals).

Chris H. you make the same mistake as Dawkins and the religious fundamentalists. You assume that Reason and Faith are incompatible opposites. This is actually not true for moderate level-headed believers (which secular humanists would be wise to make allies of in the public sphere). This is what Pope Benedict was articulating at Regensburg. If it's violent, if it's unreasonable, then it's not really godly - it's something else. It is contrary to God and the nature of the universe (according to his moderate belief system). Again, I'm not putting forward a religionist viewpoint for myself (someone accused me of promulgating "theistic propaganda") I'm merely clarifying the moderate religious position. Not everyone froths at the mouth the way Dawkins and others like to imagine and portray.

I've read Dawkins' other material. He admits to areas of doubt and uncertainty within the parameters of his scientific framework, but he does not at any point allow those doubts to bring into question the framework itself. In fact, his entire treatment of the human element is unsatisfactory and reductionist, much like his forerunner in this debate, Allan Bloom (of "Lucifer Principle" fame).

Agnosticism is the "reasonable" and neutral pose which most people adopt with a mixture of apathy and vague curiosity....Militant Atheism however is a fundamentalist cult in and of itself, absolutist and intolerant.

"It would be interesting to read someone defending religion." - doggone

Can't say I can defend man's religion... but I most certainly will make an attempt to defend God's own beliefs and quite frankly, it would be heavily laden with functionality. Most of us here agree with the many disfunctional religious beliefs of man. But are they willing to disagree with the functional beliefs of God? Hence, the issue isn't so much what man believes in terms ofwhat Gods ideals are... At issue is what Gods true ideals would be if such a Father of all fathers actually exists. So the big issue is, does God exist or not? And if it can't be proven or disproven, then the question of what the God ideal would actually be looms largest of all.

And if God's own ideals are subpar? Then who cares what God thinks. So the big question is, if a form of life that has been around for ions has ideals that are highly ordered and functional, what would these ideals be, and are they worth following for humans?

So in one sense, we can argue about what the God ideal would or should be if there wasn't one, or is one, but it would be an arguement of which part of history serves us best or worst, since our ancestors have, in these regards, left no stones unturned.

But like I say, it doesn't matter so much what man believes, as much as it does, what God believes should such a diety actually exist. And what this means or comes down to is whether or not God exists or not and this, my friends, foes, and impartial readers, comes do whether or not the universe has the potential to create a form of life that A) has the power to alter the universe. B) has the will to do so, and go so far as to design the various origins to life and allow the changing environments that hosts such life to evolve with environmental changes. And C) have the ability to live forever without dying, have the ability to communicate to the past from the future. And have the ability to communicate to man in the now.

Now if any of you all are willing to tell me definitively that even a one of you can declare that God defined by my ABC's does not exist after a mere 20, 30, 50, 80 revolutions around the sun, then knock yourselves out, be my guest, and explain to us why you KNOW that the universe doesn't hold the potential to create such highly ordered life. But I'm most certain there won't be any of you who have degree's of intelligence that won't in all honesty, go there. Because none of us can claim this proposed theory of a God of God's, father of fathers, inexistence as an actual fact.

And I have theory of my own to counter such a "theory" which is the best any of you, including myself, can do in these regards. We all know that evolution is for real. Science has literally proven it. There are stumbling blocks of course, which is "where did the simpliest life forms come from?" We have yet to see evidence of new species of life in its simplest form, rise from mere dust. And we have yet to see how the sexes of lifes species came to form, as they are highly dependent on each others opposite sex for survival, hardly what one would expect from evolution.

But back to my own theory of which is a combination of Origins, timelines, scale and potential. I propose that galaxies were formed not by one big universeal big bang, but a separate big bang to create each galaxy in the universe. I believe that the pre big bang to only one of these galaxies had within its potential, a large scale of mass that would have exponuncially increased the possiblity of life to form at its simpliest level, and that with a seemingly infinite timeline by our standards, and sutle changes to the environments within such a pre big bang existence to just one galaxy, that such simple life could have evolved into a much more highly organized species of life, much the same way as Darwin's own theory works.

Cont.

Oops - Howard Bloom not Allan Bloom. Howard Bloom wrote the Lucifer Principle. Allan Bloom is a demigod.

I propose in my own theory that this form of life continued to evolve to the point where it not only could travel and survive such travel in space, but that it became so evolved that it could survive indefinitely if it so choses. I propose that this form of life became highly intelligent, intelligent enough to trigger each and every big bang in the universe to such a point, that this highly evolved life form could in fact, take credit for the present formation of the universe we now see today. I also propose that this life form could and should be considered a God/diety or father of fathers that goes fittingly with such a highly evolved form of life.

I propose that within the scale and timelines of earths existence, that most life has formed from the simplest of one celled organisims that this Diety was responsible for placing on this Earth, and that that God didn't have a direct influence on Earths formation (other than initiating this galaxies big bang), but simply chose this planet as having the potential to host life to such a degree that God would plant such seeds and observe their changes to the full blooms we have today. I also propose that the differences between the sexes were also a creation of this highly ordered, highly evolved life form that is likely not even from this galaxy.

And lastly, I propose that there isn't one of you who can say with definity that such a theory can be proven as false. So until a one of you can, I highly suggest that not a one of you rely on mans opinion and judgement that says God exists or does not exist, for these are nothing more than the opinion of man and as such, cannot be trusted and that includes opinions and theories of my own. So where does this leave us?

Try an open mind? Try a belief that is agnostic until proven otherwise and if we die that way, would any God be so disfunctional as to destroy a spirit because it had an open mind? As it is, my own personal experiences although empirical, have led me to believe very much so that the existence of such a highly principled and ordered father of fathers is real, and I would be foolish at this point to question the existence of God within myself. And I would be just as foolish to not question and outright challenge the beliefs of man.

To summarize, I don't believe there is a one of you who can definitely tell anyone else that the universe does not hold the potential to produce such a highly evolved life form that could be considered as a diety or God, Father of fathers. I also don't believe there is a one of you who could defend the record of man. Mabye someday... but for now, we'll have to give the universe potential the credit it deserves and be open minded about it. The experiences I've lived by doing so...

And Bobb999. You make some excellent points concerning the bloodshed Athiest leaders have stained our humanity with. But the Roman Empire has the record. 52 million slaughtered by the Roman Empire from the time of 33 A.D. to 332 A.D. substantiated by Roman Catholic Archives.

Oh - the one other problem I have with Dawkins is his choice of title: "The God Delusion"

By using the word delusion, he gratuitously *pathologizes* his opposition. They're not merely wrong; they're insane on some level. I haven't read the book, but it's one thing to argue that a divinity does not exist and that therefore he-she-it should not have a role in politics or public life. Fine. But it's quite another to suggest that belief in God is a mental illness.

Again, I'll take Carl Jung's serious reflections on the psychological, sociological and cultural roots of religion before such wafer-thin fare. I know a lot of moderate believers, and not a single one is delusional. On the other hand, I know also know a lot of godless egotists, and everyone single one of them thinks themselves to be a god of one sort or another. That's the real delusion underming the sustainability of our society.

Religions are no problem until they start becoming ideological economic systems.

Unfortunately, history shows that they all have at certain points and many still do.
The present Dominionists, for example, espousing and legalizing the insatiable power grab demands of the neocon masters of the New World Order with Calvin's predestination theories. Not to mention the Zionist and Muslem plans for humanity.

Ed Deak.

We might know intimately the physics behind a snowflake (science) but they are still and will always be, damned awesome(religion)!
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos/photos.htm

Quite right, Ed. (you never disappoint me) A cult is a cult is a cult whether its religious or political. And this ugly marriage of church and state. That religious nutter Harper's got to go.

Thanks for that, Rick W. Its all in the eye of the beholder.

There is a book out written by a Japenese fellow on snowflakes. He shows various snow flakes captured in pictures just like your link... and then he shows pictures of snow flakes as they are formed under controlled and uncontrolled environments with everything from pollution to sounds from music, industrial noise, hate propaganda and last but not least, prayer itself. The pictures could not be more dramatic in terms of what they reveal. And if this man is right and his works can be backed up, what it holds in terms of how our physical realm is formed by the simple positive and negative energies emitted from man... lets just say that if these experiements can be repeated over and over again with the same conclusive results, it would likely put science on its head in terms of what manifested human energies can do in all of its forms.

And since our bodies are made of what, 96% water? Man, if that book was accurate in terms of what its saying... I'll look for the title and come back to you all with this one.

Jimmy:
What I said was: "Ignore the error" if I recall.
Science is based on Calculus. Calculus is based on "ignoring the error" you need to take delta T closer to zero.

Faith is actually a very good thing: without it your money is worth nothing and your police become thugs.

Woody:
I did not design the bridge that fell
T'anks God!

But I sympathize with the workers (engineeres,contractors and laborors) who built that and a number of other bridges and buildings you use every day.

When you actually put your expertice on the line you do have a step up on someone who only imagines and writes about it.

If my building fails I live with that.

If your writing "fails" who would notice?

Charles Demers... I'm fine with everything you've written in your review, except your last paragraph. Y'know, the summary. So, if you don't mind a bit of critique yourself... (man, this format sucks these words are so small in the window, I can barely see them)

"This is a fitting manifesto for any of us who have been told that we have no moral system because we lack faith in a god, or even for those who believe simply that spiritual atavism and confessional regression are not the means with which we ought to meet the challenges of the present day." - Charles Demer

Only a dummie (I'm talking about the lesser evolved religious folks out there) would believe that a person has no moral system because of a lack of faith in God. For what its worth, as legend dictates, demons believe in God and they are presented in lore as having no moral system, so I fail to see why anyone with logic believes that a belief or nonbelief in God defines ones morality. It simply isn't a prerequisite for knowing the difference between right and wrong or more importantly, acting on that difference. Spiritual atavism and confessional regression...? You lost me there. Never heard of the word atavism and if confessional regression somehow means that it is regressive to confess ones bad deeds, then I guess humility and admittance in having done something wrong in the past and present, the acceptance of failure... isn't important to meet the challenges of the present day? I'm sorry, but I fail to understand that one as well.

"Or for those who see no virtue in faith itself, relying instead on reason, and Enlightenment ideals now (hopefully) corrected of the racial, class and gender biases of the philosophers who initially expounded upon them."

This one, I don't understand either, Charles.

Sometimes, the most important questions are the ones we never ask. Perhaps its because we need faith to go there. Faith to know that we can survive the answers that are true and cold... faith in the possibility that an answer will be provided to one who asks a question "in earnest" to an entity that hasn't proven itself to exist to the one who asks it. Yet.

We've heard these teachings before. When we seek, we will find what we are looking for. When we knock, the door shall be opened. Only through faith do we begin this search. If we don't look, we will find nothing. We don't knock, and the door remains shut. Is there a scientist who doesn't explore the realm of the unknown to seek that of which the seeker was previously unawares? Does the scientist act with the faith that their efforts won't be wasted? And so, it leaves me to ask, why is the belief that there is no virtue in faith, one that is based on reason and enlightenment? Racial, class, gender, is it reasonable to have no faith in your spouse, or someone of another race that aren't like your own to not treat you like an equal, or to not have faith in someone of another class you don't belong to? I'm sorry, Charles... I just... don't understand you.

Please explain what a "trope" is! Thank you!

Nightbloom wrote:

" There is actually no fossil record that demonstrates this graduation in humans. It's actually still a theory. What has been proven is genetic adaptation within a species over time. That's actually something else entirely"

My friend, that's just outrageosly wrong. Do you know how the word "theory" is used in science? It means the body of evidence is so strong, and contrary evidence so lacking, that it can be conidered provisionally true (everthing in science is provisional). So evolutionary theory is "actually still a theory"? What else would it be? As Gould said, "Evolution is a fact *and* a theory". There is plenty of fossil evidence showing evolution in homonins! Changes over time lead to speciation, especially when there is geographical separation. Genetic adaptaion within a species is not "something else entirely". Small changes that accumulate lead to speciation (which really just means there in no longer genetic exchange between the groups)

Now, here's the best answer: Yup there's some kind of god going on alright. Weird and almost unknowable to most people unfairly, but a good technique in getting awareness is trying to identify negative entropy processess. ( a relaxation of the will towards chaos) Wilhelm Reich's orogony's interesting!

Simple-minded pop-evolutionists like Dawkins and S.J. Gould haven't added anything to the mystery of god, pretending to believe as they did that the theory of evolution and speciation by natural selection and mutation afforded some kind of enlightenment. (Duh, the toughest guys win) or tautologically speaking, the fittest survive. Big news! What else is new! Dawkins claims that he's a 'fullfilled evolutionist." See industrial melanism or the spotted moth for a hint--if you're into fairy tales. Or even Stephen Jay Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium,' by which he tries to get around the little problem that species seem to appear suddenly in the fossil record, or read how he claims the irreducible complexity presented by the human eyeball can be rationalized, if you're into comedy--and bs.

In fact, intelligent design is all about irreducible complexity--which is, so far, an unsurmountable problem with materialistic theories of speciation. The point being that there are teleological hints in the diversion from the arrows of time and energy dispersement as required by the second law of thermodynamics, by which entropy increases, and organized systems advance to chaos all over the place, which, incidentally is the common destiny of all life forms. Minimum, speciation requires thoughtful algorithms, eh--not random collisions with environmental changes. And remember, the sun will burn out in a few billion years as it must to fulfill its role in 2nd thermodynamic's Murphy's Law.

The result, at least to a good brain, is that universe without mind is not possible. So here's my private little mantra: There's so far no serious reason to imagine that the universe is not being created by any method which is essentially different than the one by which humans construct machines, with the tenuous exception that this 'mind' is not limited by the 'tendency' towards eventual chaos. Honest, you guys, eh. I wouldn't fool ya.

Now, understanding what this 'mind' is up to will not be known by humanoids for a few hundred thousand years (or so), essentially because our psyches have been constructed on the basis that singularities or first causes will not be understood, the result being that we're not equipped to understand how god could have created itself, or even what the universe was like in that first second after the big bang--which itself is merely a utilitarian construction. (Were the laws of physics the same as they are now?)

In short, yeah, there's a god, eh--totally immoral and self-centred, but real. I mean, would a benevolent god really create a world in which animals kill, terrorize and consume each other as a source of undispersed energy (fuel) for their ATP and cellular mitochondria? I don't think so.

As far as religion... well, I think we should get real. (It's merely a means of concentrating power). And at least half of science is, as anarcho says, a means of concentrating wealth. See 'fossil fuel' hoax, for example. Meaning: oil is not made from the bodies of dead plants and animals getting pressurized and heated as they fall below the oceans. (See 'kerogen') (As Western scientists pretend they believe). Its origin is ABIOTIC OR ABIOGENIC, and there's an unlimited (slowly recreated) supply in the earth's mantle. (it just leaks into sedimentarily-located wells from far below) It's now all over the web, too. Careful, though. This science will definitely upset the peak oilist hoaxers.

So much for science, eh.

I think, we should make careful distinctions between the words "faith", "belief", "assumption, "reasonable expectation" etc, as we should between the words "God" , "Creator", "religion", "scriptures", etc. I can't see any Creator licencing environmental and human destruction.

They say "Faith conquers all!", which is very true, especially logical thought.

In another life I used to be a propaganda analyst in 3 languages and even then I found it astonishing how the use of certain words in different ways can alter the meaning of sentences, especially when translated into other languages.

There have been occasions, when I had to write full page explanations on single, or a few sentences, on what the writers were trying to convey, or mislead people with the selected use of words, distinctions that could never have been detected in verbatim translations.

All our religious and ideological texts have been translated time after time, e.g the Bible has many different versions used by religions as licence to kill each other. So, which is the right one, translated originally by the priests of Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, before the great library was burned by the Crusaders and the Muslim reform movements?

The same applies to economic and political ideologies. Even the most innocent and beautiful words and concepts can be, and have been distorted into legalized colonization and mass murder. The presently ruling neoclassical market economy theory may have been developed in error by some brainwashed academic eggheads, but, in the hands of special interest sectors, it has now become the biggest crime wave in human history, through the fraudulent distortion of sentences and words, e.g those of Adam Smith.

The reason I insist on physical laws based economic theories, is that they can not be distorted and apply equally to everyone.

After all, if God exists, the physical laws were his creation, therefore all religions should accept and preach them as "God's Will", instead of inventing nonsensical theories, overruling them, thereby killing the ecology, the economy and the human race.

Ed Deak.

Nightbloom,

You never answered my question. Is a virgin birth a "reasonable" thing to believe in? If someone comes into a hospital and tells the doctor that there was no father, that it was a virgin birth, shouldn't the doctor be phoning the Vatican so we can all start celebrating?

When talking about the possibility of God, it is quite reasonable with what we know to be open that it could be true. But what percentage chance would you give it? Even Dawkins doesn't discount the possibility altogether. When theists start giving their "proofs" that god does exist, that percentage gets lower for me. It actually discourages me to believe in that possibility because of the specific arguments that they put forward. At the moment, quie like Dawkins, I would give god a %5 chance of existing. Maybe a little generous, but I am a hopefull person. The funny part of it all is that if a personal god does exist, then HE/SHE could end all the speculation right now.

Faith is believing without reason. Religion and reason are just not compatible. That you argue that the religion the Pope leads is resonable because it doesn't call for violence (anymore) doesn't make it any more true then someone who worships satan. It's like you are using the "average" person test that judges use when deciding what is obscene. Your type of reason is hugely flexible and changes over time. During Abraham's time, it was clearly "reasonable" to kill anyone who didn't worship his god. Is that the "reason" you are pushing?

LOL, good to hear from you, brother. Enjoy your input as always. Naturally, I'm flexing the fingers for a little debate. ;-)

"In short, yeah, there's a god, eh--totally immoral and self-centred, but real. I mean, would a benevolent god really create a world in which animals kill, terrorize and consume each other as a source of undispersed energy (fuel) for their ATP and cellular mitochondria? I don't think so."

On the surface, its seems as though there is no justice, here. The animal kingdom is full of predators and prey, it seems to be evolved or designed that way, (whichever seems fashionable to ones ego or current state of mind to believe) and if it is the case of design, which all creationists believe, then the big question is, "what was God thinking? He/she/it must have been benevolent!.... unless, of course, such predator and prey are also complex beings (which they are) that possess a soul/spirit that will also someday be brought back online for an even greater purpose than feeding off of each other. Then, in such a circumstance, there is no benevolence, just a greater plan that we currently don't adhere to, or cannot see.

Principles are principles and if The Holy father of fathers and mothers and sons and daughters and such deems fit to exercise "free will" with itself, are its equals, "subjects" and creations, however evolved (or just created that way), not entitled to the same free will as well? The alternative to free will is zombies or robots, so one one hand, we have murderers and theives and do badders running amuck creating chaos with their free will, true, but the alternative? And if there is such a thing as ressurecting old energies to be later judged and sanctioned/rewarded for their efforts which also seem tuned into the "free will" scheme of things, (those old doctrines do suggest highy, that the lock on the gates of hell is on the "inside", meaning its habitants have chosen to be there, of which leaving such a place heavily suggests a complete change in behavior and thinking that is more "appropriate" for the realms beyond, i.e. new chosen permanent identity to replace the old disfunctional one) then, where's the benevolence? I guess, we'll have to wait and see if our ancestors got it right, or werely full of shit. Otherwise, it might not be a bad idea to park the "God is immoral and self-centered" (might not argue the self centered part) bit, just for now and give the old father timer the benefit of the doubt!

Later, brother, always enjoy your words. :-)

All forms of life exist on resource conversion for every second of their lifespans.

All forms of life, within systems, be they animal or vegetable, from the "kings" to predateors and parasites, are designed to fulfill certain tasks to eliminate waste, thereby ensuring the longeviy of the systems

There are no "fittest" within ecological systems, only species the system needs for its own survival.

In a way, all ecological systems are forms of "intelligent design" the question is, how ?

At the same time, the purpose of human designed economic systems is the fastest possible conversion of resources, because that means "wealth" ,thereby ensuring the self destruction of the system.

Ed Deak.

Truman, I was wondering where you were.

I see you've been studying with the Discovery Institute since you last wrote on this subject.

Sorry, but ID died in Dover:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

"The funny part of it all is that if a personal god does exist, then HE/SHE could end all the speculation right now.

Quite right. But... (there's alway's the but) is there a need? Supposing that there actually is a life after death, cannot some things wait? And haven't our ancestors of old given us the answers we seek already to some extent? Their say is no less important? And if there is life after death, does not faith or belief or acting on such faith and belief lend further to the strong possiblity that all life on earth is a test? And if you had creations of which fully exercised free will, to do good or bad, (including the angelical realm itself) would any righteous God be inclined to give those who seek God not, or act with hatred and hardened hearts, the time of day? Ask yourself for a moment who you talk to when the phone rings and someone begins to leave a message... (or when it rings when you are sleeping) do you always get back to them?

"Faith is believing without reason. Religion and reason are just not compatible."

The opposites of these statements could just as easily be argued to be true, and anyone could cherry pick their reasons why and make sound valid arguements, Chris. Wanna test it?

"During Abraham's time, it was clearly "reasonable" to kill anyone who didn't worship his god."

Highly debatable. I highly doubt that murder would be one of God's ideas of worship. It is most certainly not the case the way the author of such works has defined it. And in such light, if a nation or clan was out to murder your own, I see no reason why one has no need not to defend itself, even if that means... taking out your enemy to fulfill the need to survive.

Amen, Ed, you shoot it strait! :-) Y'all have a good day. (might drop in later)

Hi Booker. Nope, never heard of the Discovery Institute, but I'll take a look.
Yeah, I know all about the Dover case. Big deal, eh. There's teleological-type intelligence (god) in the world besides that resident in the human brain.

Simple as that. It's rather obvious, too. Now, what this thing is trying to pull, I have no idea, other than experimenting, or something.

As usual, Douglas Adams said it best:

"I refuse to prove that I exist", said God, "because proof denies Faith, and without Faith, I am nothing".

"After all, if God exists, the physical laws were his creation, therefore all religions should accept and preach them as "God's Will", instead of inventing nonsensical theories, overruling them, thereby killing the ecology, the economy and the human race."

Exept for maybe this part, Ed. Physical laws might not have been his creation, but merely laws that God, or any other form of life would stumble on if looking and was discovered.

If I see the moon at night, can I claim it to be my own, since I discovered it? I suggest that the physical laws of the universe were there long before God's alpha origins. It might not be "God's will" to preach the knowledge of the physical laws needed to split atoms, for example, but rather teach the principles of peace and love that are required before looking into such physical laws.

For there are two kinds of evolution. The first deals with the simple teachings and principles of peace and love. The second deals with access to information, access to knowlege, for knowledge is power. But what good is knowledge if used for needless destruction? And so, while one is simplistic and the other is complex, which should come first? Is there such a thing as putting knowledge out of sequence? You bet there is. The lesson behind the old story of Adam and Eve and the apple suggests this truth in spades. Anyway's, Ed, time is short today and I agree with your logic entirely in terms of the need for humanity to adopt the jest of what you say. We are all subject to physical laws and if we don't respect this, we will most certainly pay for it. Causal effects of physical laws are impartial to will must be respected as such. For example, the old dead thinking, "I'll make my millions first and then, I'll look after the environment", simply doesn't wash, especially with the scale and and dangerous magnitude such stinking thinking is creating on our environments. Later, dude.

Welcome back Truman - you've been missed!

Truman wrote:

"Nope, never heard of the Discovery Institute, but I'll take a look."

The Discovery Institue is the Seattle creationist organization to which Behe and Dembski belong, and they came up with the "irreducible complexity" brand. It failed product-testing in the U.S., so now they're trying it in Britain. The DI is also extremely right-wing, so be careful of the company you keep.

Since you mention the evolution of the eye, I have a question: If it was designed, who the heck put the optic nerve in the middle of the retina? Someone should email them.

brain....I wrote "if"............................

Cheers, Ed.

doggone:

"Science is based on Calculus. Calculus is based on "ignoring the error" you need to take delta T closer to zero."

Some science uses calculus, not all. What error are you ignoring? What delta T? In calculus or continuum mechanics? When taking a derivative? You've just thrown these terms out there without explaining them or how they require "faith".

nightbloom wrote:
"There are a lot of unexplained holes in the THEORY of evolution."

You know you really should read up on real evolution. You continue to keep trotting out theistic propaganda. Since I don't want to spend the time writing out what scientific theory entails, I'll quote from wikipedia.

In scientific terminology however, a theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and tested through controlled experiments involving empirical observation. In this scientific sense, "facts" are parts of theories. Fact is not merely something obtained by observation, because there is no certainty as to what that "something that has been observed" is or means. In science, for an observation to be considered a fact it must be "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent"[46] through consistent observation or controlled study. Indeed, "facts" are not merely phenomena that can be observed, they are phenomena that are deemed worthy of notice. It is "theory" that guides observations and our understanding of what we observe. In other words, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship.

Moreover, evolution itself is both a fact and a theory. When "evolution" is used to describe a fact, it refers to the observations that populations of one species of organism do, over time, change into new, or several new, species.

What I don't understand is why you bother lying about established evolutionary science.

Congrats, Charles. You've been posted on Dawkins website.

brain your elaborate fantasies are simply a melange of tired old theistic wishful thinking. What's more the notion that anyone should have to prove beyond any doubt something doesn't exist is nonsensical, because it is an impossibility. The burden of proof is on those who believe in god, not on those who do not.

As for where we are left, we are left with what works. The scientific method, despite many human errors and deceptions in its application, works. That simple fact is beyond any reasonable doubt. From a scientific perspective the notion of the existence of god is a foolish question, because there has been no observable evidence that any such deity exists. To establish a fact to support a belief, from the point of view of science, requires refutable data. Theists can provide not a shred. Until they can, it is simply ludicrous to rely on the specious demand 'to disprove the existence of god. Show me the evidence. Where's the beef? Wishful thinking doesn't cut it.

James Burns, I think its possible to put the 'evolution, a fact?' controversy to rest.

Here how it goes: As you say, 'evolution' is actually a FACT. Organisms have changed progressively since the procaryotes emerged. This is not possible to dispute, unless it can be shown that the progression was from most well-organized to least. So get used to it creationists: Life has evolved on earth.
It wasn't created in one fell swoop as the old testament claims. And, notwithstanding our Stockwell's faith, it's been around a lot longer than 6000 years.

But how evolution works is a THEORY. The darwinian theory is that those organisms which are best suited to their environment are 'selected' because they are much more lilely to partake of resources necessary for life than others. Oponents of this view wonder how the activity of the winners could have been transcribed into genetic material.

This is darwininism--original and neo, although the neos like to throw in 'mutations,' by which the theory claims that random mutations cause speciation in the way that it is now theorized that bacteria strains like Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus and methicillin-resistant staph aureus become dominant because mutations of their strains have been selected because the weaker strains have been decimated by over usage of antibiotics.

So, evolution, fact or theory is a red herring. Evolution occurs, but how?

Is it teleologically, or intelligently designed by some reality that we do not understand? Personally, I think yes.

The guy who designed the computer programs (suddenly I've forgotten his name) for the Human Genome Project, when thinking about the absurd complexity of the human genome, is said to have exclaimed, eureka-like, something like; "holy keeriste, I see great intelligence here. It's like it was designed."

brain: "Highly debatable. I highly doubt that murder would be one of God's ideas of worship."

When Moses came down with his original set of commandments, the "thou shall not kill" meant that you should not kill other Jewish people who accepted the correct god. It was quite alright to kill those that worshipped false idols. We can only know what was "reasonable" back then from the texts and writings from that period. Clearly, other "reasonable" activities during first testament times included having slaves and letting others have their way with your daughters so a man wouldn't get raped. Reasonable measures, defined by what the average person thought at a certain time, is clearly not the type of "reason" we are talking about regarding reason and religion being incompatible. When King says that a true Christian must scratch the eyes out of reason, he means that christians must put aside what they see to be true from the natural world around them and believe (have faith) in god's teachings. You'd laugh at someone who claimed a virgin birth today, but fully accept Mary's because of your faith. Using reason, you know that gravity will cause your book to fall on the ground if you drop it. Using reason, I can look at the evidence and conclude that the earth is over 10,000 years old. It is only faith/religion that will make me believe that all the evidence I see is wrong. It will be because my faith is so strong that I can put what is reason to the side and believe in the supernatural.

James Burns:
In regards to your theories as defined by Enwikipedia, the facts established by your definition in the realm in science is not defined by theories, but rather, laws. In science, there aren't many laws that actually exist at this point. And while some theories do exist that are likely to become laws or believed as being laws already, science is quite clear in regards to what the difference is between theory and law. Law is fact. Theory is all that it is. Hypothesis with empirical evidence that come to conclusions that are as of yet, waiting to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

As for this statement:
"What's more the notion that anyone should have to prove beyond any doubt something doesn't exist is nonsensical, because it is an impossibility. The burden of proof is on those who believe in god, not on those who do not."

You are in error in with a belief that God doesn't exist, when you quite simply, can't prove it! It is at best, a theory of your's, albeit, a shared one, of which other theories counter your own. Your belief that God doesn't exist is what it is. A belief! Nothing more than theory at this point, I'm afraid, and quite possibly at best, nothing more than a hypthesis or educated guess. And while you believe that the burden of proof only lies on those who believe in God, I can assure you that it goes both ways. All beliefs on the subject, not just the belief in God but the belief in no God, bear the burden of proof.

"As for where we are left, we are left with what works."

Quite right. Tell this to those who go to a funeral or stand by a gravesite in communication to the dead in an attempt to say goodbye or hello, and tell me that this kind of grieving process "doesn't work". And tell us why you think this world would be so much more ordered with a belief in a brief, finite existence. With such a belief, it could be argued that the best thing to do with opponents to ideology that doesn't suit humans with the most power are best off to simply destroy those who disagree. Quite simply, they can, and do. Better yet, tell us why humanity as a whole should be allowed to live in terms of functionality/disfunctionality when it is obvious that the rest of life on this planet would be better off. Please explain to us all why you believe that a belief in a peaceful, loving God would lead to less peace and love instead of more, or why a belief in the finite existence of man should lead to more peace and love than there is now. Your assertions that this world would be more "functional" without beliefs in God are highly debatable. All one needs to do is use their imagination to see the reasons why this is so.

"brain your elaborate fantasies are simply a melange of tired old theistic wishful thinking."

James Burns, your elaborate fantasies are simply a melange of tired old atheistic wishful thinking. As an example, it is just as easy for me to say the exact same thing about you.

I suggest a truce with this. With you and I there will be no clear winners, as we can at best, offer nothing more than theory to contradict each others beliefs. Please, if you can prove your theory in no God, be my guest. Prove it! Otherwise, it might be wise for Theists and Athiests to agree on the common denominators we all share... "the need for suvival and peaceful coexistence". Seems functional enough, does it not? But as for a theist or Athiest belief that promotes "my way is the only way", or "my way is better than all the rest", don't for one minute think I've suggested this cult like belief is one I've been supporting on this thread in terms of theism being "superior" to "atheism". Quite the contrary. I would suggest that Athiesm is also quite prone to its own "cult" literature and proponents. It goes both ways. So go in peace... unless you are one to be a proponent of cult led thinking. If it be the latter, prepare for war as such thinking should be duefully opposed.

"When Moses came down with his original set of commandments"

Did he find those tablets in similar circumstances to when Jos. Smith found the gold plates with the saga of Moroni on them in upstate New York?

Amazing what otherwise apparently intelligent people will believe.

Hi Brain. Good to read your stuff again. So, would you be willing to accept my claim that it is indisputable that life, at least here on earth, has 'evolved'?--from least-well-organized to most-well-organized.

All of which would make you--in a matter of speaking--an evolutionist.
Basically, I'm an atheist who believes in the god idea and the god presence in the world, but I'm totally mystified about what it's all about. And I think that's the only honest conclusion, as unsatisfying as it might be.

brain:

"You are in error in with a belief that God doesn't exist, when you quite simply, can't prove it!"

You say that James Burns is in error. Why? What's the error. If god exists, show us. Otherwise you have no basis for this statement.

"And while you believe that the burden of proof only lies on those who believe in God, I can assure you that it goes both ways."

You believe in a god in spite of a complete and total absence of any physical evidence.

Atheists (I assume Jamses Burns is among them...) don't believe in god because of the complete and total absence of any physical evidence. Much like you probably don't believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, Zeus, and so on...

Who is rational?

"All beliefs on the subject, not just the belief in God but the belief in no God, bear the burden of proof."

If someone tells you that elves exist, but does not offer any proof, would you believe them, or should the burden of proof lie on you?

"And tell us why you think this world would be so much more ordered with a belief in a brief, finite existence."

It's not a question of how we would like the world to be, is it?

When Moses came down with his original set of commandments, the "thou shall not kill" meant that you should not kill other Jewish people who accepted the correct god. It was quite alright to kill those that worshipped false idols.

If you are going to go there, be prepared to back it up with scripture that says so. Even then, the gross errors are not there so much with scripture, but with the interpretation of scripture and the mistakes in translation from one language to the next. Ed Deak explains this phenomenom quite well in a post above. Even with this quote of yours, kill is meant to be "murder" in the proper translation of Hebrew. And death, is meant moreso as a "spiritual death" rather than a natural one. Most of Moses works, as well as most others in the OT and a few books in the new, are full of dual meanings... one for the spiritual and one for the natural. This is why so many are fooled with their own egotistical versions of what they believed to be the "right" interpretation. And cult leaders exploit this tremendously. By all means, find some scripture to back up your assertions, and I'll see what I can do to "set the record straight".

As for your belief that I am a supporter of the Earth being 10,000 years old, you have it very wrong. Defending a belief in God in no way means, that I or anyone else should junk science. There is such a thing as diversified beliefs in God. I'm sorry, but I'm not just some religious nutter who believes in the likes of Stockwell Day's own nutter beliefs. And King? Sorry, I don't know what "king" you are talking about.

"It is only faith/religion that will make me believe that all the evidence I see is wrong. It will be because my faith is so strong that I can put what is reason to the side and believe in the supernatural."

Chris, if I thought this way, I would only end up agreeing with you and mention that I stand corrected. But I don't think this way. What I believe is that what I experience with the 5 senses cannot be discounted. But what I don't see beyond this, should not be counted or discounted solely because I am not aware. It all begins with awareness, does it not? How can I put full weight on things that I cannot personally experience for myself, or witness within the experiences of others? But I will say this. I have experienced things that are beyond all rational explaination to someone like yourself. In hindsight, I believe that I experienced these irrational experiences because I've had an open mind. And what I can not explain rationally, is at best a fomulation of my own theories/beliefs.

brain:

Just out of morbid curiosity, what are the thing you have experience "that are beyond all rational explaination"?

"Hi Brain. Good to read your stuff again. So, would you be willing to accept my claim that it is indisputable that life, at least here on earth, has 'evolved'?--from least-well-organized to most-well-organized."

I agree with you fully... I'm an evolutionist all the way, accept to add that the sparks of life had to come from somewhere. In the context of timelines and scale, the Earth might not hold the possibility of creating life on its own. A pre big bang existence over infinite timelines holds a much higher probability. So I am an evolutionist, the same as you, but I believe/guess/theorize that life orginated from elsewhere in the universe originally where scales and timelines increase the exponuntial likelyhood of a spark of life from mere dust, evolved and evolved even further over indefinite periods of time and began to create life on its own, planting the seeds of life here on Earth as well as other places. From there, life has evolved to what we see today.

Is it possible that such an evolved life form (God) could visit Earth from time to time and create more highly ordered forms of life, such as the opposite sexes of each species that has both the male and female, or even go so far as a virgin Mary pregnancy? Of course, its possible. But did it happen? There's no way in the world I could claim this as fact. Lots of theories floating around, however.

As far as the virgin Mary goes, Jesus is not an incarnation of the father, but an incarnation of the prince of truth. This would lend to be none other than Micheal the ark. The O.T. backs it up, if anyone cares to look, which leads to an interesting question. Does Christianity in such a light have more than one God? I think "begotten son" with the likes of Micheal does quite nicely within Christian beliefs as I understand it. Ask in Jesus's name... what name would that be? Emmanuael? Micheal? Maybe Christians should try a real baptism in earnest and get the name right, along with their practicing what they preach, if they are ever to see any "real" evidence for themselves other than "blind" faith and even then, gifts that come with the proper asking in earnest don't prove a thing... but they do lend to a stronger theory. :-)

brain:

"You are in error in with a belief that God doesn't exist, when you quite simply, can't prove it!"
You say that James Burns is in error. Why? What's the error. If god exists, show us. Otherwise you have no basis for this statement.

You do know that you are taking this statement out of context. The error is simple. His statement that I was commenting on suggested that he knew with certainty that God does not exist! Revisiting what he said: "What's more the notion that anyone should have to prove beyond any doubt something doesn't exist is nonsensical, because it is an impossibility."

To me, he is saying that you cannot prove the existence of something that does not exist, meaning that the non-existence of God is already beyond reasonable doubt, to which I countered, prove it! To which I countered, "And while you believe that the burden of proof only lies on those who believe in God, I can assure you that it goes both ways."

You believe in a god in spite of a complete and total absence of any physical evidence.

Let me make myself clear. A belief in something, in anything, doesn't necessarily make it true. It might have some bizarre manifestations, but in the all in all, belief does not lead to fact. To me, belief is theory and I have had my share of empirical evidence that has led me to a number of hypothesis that leads to a theory that God, does in fact, exist!

Atheists (I assume Jamses Burns is among them...) don't believe in god because of the complete and total absence of any physical evidence. Much like you probably don't believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, Zeus, and so on...

Who is rational?

We both are, if we acknowledge that belief does not make it a matter of fact. Quite the contrary, it leads to a theory which is supported by empirical evidence and hypothesis (educated guesses). Who am I to say that James Burns is irrational? If I had his identical experiences, I might be inclined to believe what he does. But lets face it, Jimmy... I haven't had the same set of identical experiences.

"All beliefs on the subject, not just the belief in God but the belief in no God, bear the burden of proof."

If someone tells you that elves exist, but does not offer any proof, would you believe them, or should the burden of proof lie on you?

The burden of proof lies on those who purport such beliefs as fact! Have I done so? Nope!

"And tell us why you think this world would be so much more ordered with a belief in a brief, finite existence."

It's not a question of how we would like the world to be, is it?

No, its not. Its a question of what is functional and dysfuncitonal, of which neither Atheists or Theists often practice what they preach. And its tell tale, is it not? Nevermind the God ideal or Godless ideal. Take the simple ideal of marrage. Tell me that the marrage ideal is not worth pursuing, because the majority of them fail. Its not the ideal that is flawed, but rather the practice in striving to obtain the ideal itself. Are we to give up on ideals such as marriage simply because couples can't live up to their commitments towards one another? Are we supposed to give up on ideals because the majority of us fail to live up to what those ideals are? Same hold's true for the God ideal or the moral ideal. What, am I supposed to junk any ideals based on virtue because people can't walk the talk? I don't think so.

Eugenics, from Wikipedia, "Eugenics was an academic discipline at many colleges and universities. Its scientific reputation started to tumble in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany"

Yes, it is a philosophy, one that I abhore, but was treated as a science circa 1900

Jimmy:
At the risk of producing a very long boring post I will try to clear up our misunderstanding of Calculus:
(incidently it took me two tries to get a "C" in Math 300 at UBC in the sixties so there are hopefully some commentors who could keep me on track)
{Smacks forehead}
As I understand it Math underlies and props up all science. Your favourite "Law" of thermodynamics or quantum physics is a whole bunch of math. Way beyond what I recall. What I was saying was that I developed a "faith" that somebody somewhere actually understood this Mathimatics (from your postings I very much doubt that describes you) and I use what they "taught" me .
Faithfully
And in the macro world it works pretty good
so far

brain:
Just out of morbid curiosity, what are the thing you have experience "that are beyond all rational explaination"?

I've encountered a full on 20 minute conversation with a person who had a complete change in identity that was not her own 4 years ago, an identity that was full of prophesy and knowledge that is to this day, holding true. My belief is that it isn't a case of scitzophrenia (sorry about the mis-spelling), but rather a form of possession. Regardless of what I believe, I'll never really know who or what I was talking to (other than what I was later told), except to consider what was actually said, and in the context of what the subject was about, I would at this time believe it was a fallen angel. And this, Jimmy, is just a sampling.

I've experienced sereral things personally, once and only once. I once read a persons thoughts quite clearly. In comparison to relate, it was around 100 decibles only in my head. I've heard voices that were not coming from me, one iota and I know this as fact (on several occasions, and most were warnings). It could be imagination, but I'm just not that imaginative considering the information that has come through. I've had small success with meditation, have seen human aura's that are close to the skin (eighth to a quarter inch) from myself that is usually light bright blue, and have seen the same light (colors) within others that has been up to 3 inches or more. Those who have developed their awareness more than this tell me that these human energies extend to well over a yard and goes to around 20-25 feet with adults, but like I say, this is heresay. I can only volunteer what I've experienced for myself.

I have seen what I consider to be angelical light on several occasions in my lifetime. The most notable was witness to a man who glowed golden light that emmulated from him regardless of the lighting and the rooms he was in, and I was not alone to compare notes on this one. I've seen this light reflected from above (talking a crackhead into going to church one sunday), and from within (from a healer).

I can go on with what has been told to me about my future, about parts of what I consider to destiny that I've already blown and have yet to achieve. As for events that have come true in the world, I knew about the twin towers coming 8 months before it happened. Columbine massacre? 6 weeks before hand. The election outcome of the 2001 presidential race between Gore and Bush down to the details of florida and the courts deciding? Heard all about it the year before.
(Cont.)

I've been in the company of prophets, phycics, a few healers, witches... and a few have quite literally been what I consider to be masters of their craft, if not simply trustworthy of such power (from both sides of the coin). If you were witness to even a tenth of what I''ve experienced there would be little doubt within you. And what the most evolved with their searches and actions have shown me in terms of how the worlds religions stack up has been nothing short of jaw dropping.

And where am I at with all of this? Still in theory. I can't claim anything as fact, until I experience things on more signifigant levels of awareness, but I have many theories relating to good and evil, and none so far, have let me down. For all I know, the presence of life I cannot see proves nothing other than to shape what I believe (in theory). I don't know whats behind the power of a phycic or prophet/ess for example, other than what they tell me in terms of what they've been told about the matter themselves, and about their nature in terms of their own principles and morality. But I do know this. An open mind (not an irrational one) has led me to these experiences and the time will come for me to practice my own theory and ideals, to walk the talk, seek more knowlege and with growth, further evolve.

So you can do one of four things, Jimmy. Write me off as either a nut... or a liar. You can second guess my own claimed experiences as being less authentic than I believe them to be with a mere guess. But I will say this. Every ounce in my being has led me to believe that the story of Christ is true, regardless of how its errors in how its been interpreted or told or practiced by those who claim to are skeptical or believe the story itself. I hold no less weight with some forms of native spirituality (world wide) and the sciences in all of its physical aspects, as I've seen empirical evidence that validates all three (at least, in theory), in that we are far from alone and by no means know what our true personal and collective potential really is. I could go on, but I'll cut it short on remembering what I was told by someone about 45 days ago regarding this very comment. You won't believe me... and that is your right. But if you had your mind already made up before hand... why did you bother to ask? Can you tell me in all honesty that you had the "best" of intentions for doing so? Or just trap me into ridicule... and remember... you asked.

brain:

"His statement that I was commenting on suggested that he knew with certainty that God does not exist!"

It does not sound to me, from the statement of James Burn's that you've quoted, that he said he knew with certainty that god does not exist. In that sentence he is saying that it is nonsensical for you to demand of him proof that god does not exist. He feels (and I wholely agree with him) that the person (you) making a bold claim (that god exists) should have to provide proof.

Although I have not read all of James Burn's posts, I don't recall him saying "he knew with certainty that God does not exist". I think all he was asking of you was evidence.

"Let me make myself clear."

That would be a welcome change.

"I have had my share of empirical evidence that has led me to a number of hypothesis that leads to a theory that God, does in fact, exist!"

I would love to hear this evidence. Please share it with us.

"We both are [rational], if we acknowledge that belief does not make it a matter of fact."

So you feel you are being rational by believing in something while being totally unconcerned with whether or not it is true?

Personally I could not care less with whether or not you believe in god. Rather I (as are most people, I imagine) am concerned with whether there is, as a matter of fact, a god.

"functional and dysfuncitonal"

What on earth do you mean by that?

"Are we to give up on ideals such as marriage simply because couples can't live up to their commitments towards one another?"

I can't see the equivalence between marriage and the existence in god. One is a personal choice with an uncertain outcome, an outcome which is impossible to know with certainty in advance. The other is a question about whether or not some being exists.

anarcho:

Eugenics was a philosophy about shaping society. It involved making choices, based on human values, about what an ideal society should be like. So it was/is not a science. I can't see how it could be any more clear. If you are unsure about what science is, I would recommend using a dictionary.

Jimmy:
I'm so dissapointed you did not mention me.
Darn, Maybe I could be slightly more honest/offensive
Theory is just that and as far as I can tell you have swollowed it whole

and there's the hook

doggone:

I was wondering what you meant by "faith" in calculus. But you've brought up some stuff about thermodynamics now... and still not explained what you meant.

The reason I asked about "faith" is that if you didn't believe your profs in university when they stated a theorem, you could have looked up the proof yourself, or asked your prof to prove the theorem. All results in mathematics follow logically from a set of axioms. No "faith" required.

"from your postings I very much doubt that describes you"

:) It's precisely because I understand this stuff that I was asking what you meant.

doggone:

"I'm so dissapointed you did not mention me."

I would never forget about you :)

"Theory is just that..."

Refer to some of James Burns posts above on the definition of "scientific theory". For the definition of "mathematical theorem", this seems to be a pretty good reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem

What hook?

brain:

"But if you had your mind already made up before hand... why did you bother to ask?"

I said why. "Out of morbid curiosity". But anyway...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

Well, that's all from me for tonight, folks. Take care.

"He feels (and I wholely agree with him) that the person (you) making a bold claim (that god exists) should have to provide proof. - Jimmy

I would love to hear this evidence. Please share it with us.

I've already told you about a portion of my personal experiences that leads me to theorize as others have that God does exist. Do you want me to write a book about them and email it to you?

As for the need to provide proof, I really don't feel the need to PROVE ANYTHING THAT I CLAIM AS THEORY. Empirical evidence of my own personal experiences and hypothesis thereof, puts me to theory at best! And when did I ever go from theory to fact? Lets revisit this one last time (even though its getting old)

"What's more the notion that anyone should have to prove beyond any doubt something doesn't exist is nonsensical, because it is an impossibility."

The way James Burns statement is worded can be taken two ways. The first way is this: 1) No one can prove beyond any doubt that something can't exist because it is an impossibility to prove it, since it simply DOES NOT EXIST. (and thats where I'm coming from. It shouldn't be to hard to see how I've extrapolated his statement to my own interpreted meaning which lent further to just, prove it, non existence, I mean.)
2) It is an impossiblity to prove God does not exist, because it simply cannot be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Sorry, dude, I took number 1 to be the jest of it because if he intended it to mean the second meaning, he would have worded it as such.
With these two ways it can be interpreted, you come up with this:

He feels (and I wholely agree with him) that the person (you) making a bold claim (that god exists) should have to provide proof. - Jimmy

To that, I say ???? When did I ever boldly claim beyond all doubt that God exists? Anyone who claims this should offer proof, don't you think? I think so. Problem is, I never did make such a claim.

"So you feel you are being rational by believing in something while being totally unconcerned with whether or not it is true?"

I do when I define belief as theory, and I have, and I believe that definition is appropriate, especially when it comes to the belief in God or no God.

"I can't see the equivalence between marriage and the existence in god."

Both are institutionalized as ideals in this world, are they not? (even though these ideals vary depending on who you talk to) Look at Christ for example in the NT and tell me that this guy wasn't a full blown idealist. Really, its not hard to extrapolate and connect the dots with what I was saying in comparison to ideals and the practice of these ideals whether it be the God ideal or the marriage ideal.

Anyways, its Friday night, I've got a social life (sometimes), y'all have a good weekend. Later, Jimmy.

Interesting link, Jimmy. Got something out of that. Good to know. :-)

Truman I agree with most of what you say with regards to evolution. The mechanisms in play that actually result in evolution are not properly understood. I definitely do not agree with Dawkins' limited model. There is too much it cannot properly explain.

I also know you have your own theories on the mechanisms of evolution, but I'd recommend you try reading some of Peter A. Corning's work (links below). In fact, Ed Deak (aka Fiat lux) you may also be interested in Corning's work. You've expressed an interest a number of times in an economics based on physical laws. In particular you should take a gander at Corning's book "Holistic Darwinism: Synergy, Cybernetics, and the Bioeconomics of Evolution"
Here is the Amazon link to the book:
http://tinyurl.com/y95o6n

Here is wikipedia's entry for Peter A. Corning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Corning

However, Truman, as regards god, or a creator, or whatever you want to call it; anthropomorphism is a common error for many people. People see complexity and make the leap that there is an intelligence behind it. I don't, and I don't, not because I don't appreciate the complexity, but because I see no evidence to suggest that complexity needs an intelligence for its genesis.

brain wrote:

You are wrong. That you make this statement demonstrates, at the very least, that you are ignorant of some of the basic principles of science.

Now instead of writing out my own definition, in the interests of time, I will provide this quote.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

brain wrote:

brain you are unnecessarily confusing yourself. I was very clear. I said: someone cannot prove beyond any doubt that something does not exist. That sentence does NOT have the same meaning as stating: you cannot prove the existence of something that does not exist. The latter is also a tautology.

It is wrong to suggest I don't believe in god. The truth of the matter is that I don't believe god doesn't exist, and I don't believe god exists. I think the question is simply a foolish one, because there is no evidence to support the existence of a creator (so why believe in one), and why bother wasting time trying to disprove something that no one can find evidence to support it exists (so why believe in god's non-existence)? There is a very very important difference between believing there is insufficient evidence and believing in non-existence. The latter is a semantic trap that forces you into a faith-based mindset, it requires a leap of faith.

Now there is one sense in which god does demonstrably exist. It exists as a fantasy in the minds of many believers. Dawkins calls that a delusion. Believers think that is an overly harsh condemnation. I don't. There are plenty of things most people are deluded about. Given the lack of evidence it is foolish to believe in god. That doesn't make the belief evil, or even wrong beyond any doubt; it's just foolish given our current state of knowledge.

As for religion, elaborate fanatasies are insufficient for me to believe in god, no matter how much history, dogma, art, and philosophy have been generated to support those fantasies. In and of themselves those things can be spectacularly fascinating and beautiful, or sublime, or terrifying. But their existence is totally unconvincing as evidence of god. The same holds true for me where the intricate patters of life and the workings of the universe are concerned. I see no evidence or even any reason to jump to the conclusion that there is an intelligence behind the creation or existence of those things.

We have better ways of knowing and of making meaning. We don't need religion to do it. In fact, there are very good reasons, given its history, not to make meaning and sense of the world through a religious frame. At the same time I don't think people should be persecuted for their beliefs, provided they don't seek to persecute others based on those beliefs.

James, as always this discussion is doomed by fatal non-sequiters. To wit, just because I hate and disbelieve every word in every religion, (especially that sniveling, whining Jesus Christ), it does not follow that I don't believe that there's some kind of intelligence operating in the world besides that possessed by human beings and animals. And I think 'mind' or some fantasitc dimension of impetus was in existence before human brains.

And it's not merely the degree of complexity, but the kind. Did you know that the entire human genome of 30,000 genes is derived from the pair bonding of four, sometimes five nucleotides and 20 amino acids? (And that a special factory call a ribosome has been devised for housing the production.)

But these items are merely the raw materials. god exists in the algorithms for production.

And that's the case with all living things whether plants, viruses or human beings. Each of the 200 trillion cells in our bodies has the information and epigenetic propensity to create a complete human being. For me, the leap of faith was derived from being giving a fairly decent brain with which to comprehend a lot of science, but finally understanding that I don't really know anything about the origin of existence. And there's no science that can increase my knowledge about it. Because I already know a lot of the science, and it just doesn't cut it.

This just can't be an accident, James. Life is the most interesting thing in the universe. Without it there's only never-perceived or exerienced dust swirling around.

James, I promise you, there is no way this could have happened without some kind of teleology, that is to say, planning and awareness of consequences and purpose.

To reduce mechanist theories of speciation and organ and organism developement to their all-emcompassing universality is to believe that atoms over time automatically convert to living organisms depending upon how they happen to collide with their environment, unless there is meaning in the idea of meaning.

You've probably read my history of atomic creation before, (hydrogen to helium to heavy metals and carbon from which we are constructed purposefully) but i think the world was, from the beginning, created in a fashion that would eventually allow thought to exist.

The intent, I think, was always that guys like you would be pondering about things.

James Burns - I am neither "lying" nor attempting to disseminate "theistic propaganda". I am agnostic, which makes me fairly impartial...at least moreso than an avowed atheist.

The Wikipedia entry you quoted at length is correct in that "evolution" is both theory and fact. Parts of it have been substantiated by science, and other parts of it still boil down to educated conjecture, albeit highly plausible conjecture.

We've proven that natural selection catalyzes genetic adaptation in a species over time. We have not proven what homo sapiens have evolved from, and are still learning about that. For you (or Dawkins) to claim that all is already known about human origins is a falsehood. That we evolved from Cro-Magnon Man (and not Neanderthals, as scientist first told us) is now increasingly plausible....but it is still not proven fact according to the standards of proof which science itself sets. Nor has it been established that this transition (if it did indeed occur) happened over time through the process we know as natural selection. The absence of transitional fossils suggests a far, far more sudden appearance on the part of modern man (a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms). Some scientists have already attempted to explain this with theories that stay within the confines of darwinism. For example, one theory for the light-speed evolution of modern man is the emergence of hierarchical social order that allowed only a tiny percentage of elegible males carrying mutations to breed with the pool of available females. Over the course of mere generations, they say, these priviledged super-breeders remade the species. That's one theory that attempts to keep all the eggs in the darwinist pouch, and hardly a proven one.

And all of this disregards the equally plausible argument that factors other than genetic adaptation over time through natural selection has had a role. I'm not making a theistic argument here - Only saying that the darwinist framework has created a self-enclosed system that excludes any other co-factors. For example, someone mentioned the fossil record. What fossil record demonstrates this transition in man? If it exists, it hasn't been discovered yet. The closest we've come is a single skull with the characteristics of both Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens...and that is probably the result of interbreeding, not evolutionary transition.

Who really knows? In a few years they might even discover that unusual solar flare radiation impacts genetics in leaps and bounds every hundred thousand years or so, and that this has been an unacknowledged co-factor alongside natural selection and possibly others. All I'm saying is that scientists don't know everything, and they are just a bad as the fundamentalists when they use the authority of their profession to peddle certainties which they clearly do not possess.

...And I want to re-iterate a point I made earlier: Dawkins is indulging in ad hominem polemic when he employs the word "delusion" to describe the faithful. It's totally unscientific, unless he's planning to cross over into the social sciences (which he is not qualified to do) and give us a treatise on human culture, tradition and psychology.

It's a tendentious insinuation that effectively pathologizes those with an opposing point of view. How typical of the scientific profession to invent a sickness out of anything that dates question its own orthodoxies and dogmas. Darwinism has indeed become a dogma.

...that dares question its own orthodoxies and dogmas, is what I meant to type...

Nightbloom,

You need to crack open a book on physical anthropology...

"The absence of transitional fossils suggests a far, far more sudden appearance on the part of modern man (a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms)"

and

"There is actually no fossil record that demonstrates this graduation (sic) in humans".

First of all, all fossils are "transitional". The creationist demand for some "transitional" fossil of, say, a Homo Habilis specimen morphing into a Homo Erectus specimen shows they have a complete lack of understanding of evolution, and of the time frames involved. What exactly is your meaning of the term "transitional fossil"?

"That we evolved from Cro-Magnon Man (and not Neanderthals, as scientist first told us) is now increasingly plausible....but it is still not proven fact according to the standards of proof which science itself sets."

All the evidence would indicate that Cro-Magnon was us.

"For you (or Dawkins) to claim that all is already known about human origins is a falsehood"

Where does anyone (especially Dawkins) say that? There is a huge amount more to learn, which is why it's such an exciting field.

Nightbloom, if you are simply saying that we can't say with 100% certainty, for example, that Homo Habilis was a human ancestor, then that is true, but that's true about nearly everything. We can't say with certainty that one fossil is the predecesor of another, and we can't do DNA tests on 2 million year old specimens. But as more fossils are discovered, the relationships become clearer, and there is not a single piece of evidence that would suggest that humans did not evolve from earlier organisms. If you want 100% certainty, you won't get it, ever. Science is about making reasonable, provisional conclusions based on an analysis of all the best evidence available. It's subject to change as better evidence is found.

"The closest we've come is a single skull with the characteristics of both Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens...and that is probably the result of interbreeding, not evolutionary transition"

I don't know what you are talking about here. Do you?

And here is a link to the evidence, via Afarensis at Scienceblogs:

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

Truman wrote:

Of course it can be.

Not quite just dust, but I agree the complexity that is life is wonderfully fascinating and horrifying.

You may be eventually proved right, but unless and until there is repeatedly verified scientific evidence of just such a purposeful intelligence, I'm afraid it just looks like wishful thinking.

The notion of god seems far more likely to be something that has evolved in humans as a form of mental palliative. It is a means of dealing with the terror evoked by our awareness of our mortality.

The thing is, there are far better ways of dealing with that awarenss. In fact, there are far better forms of awareness available to us. Unfortunately, even those forms tend to get fantasies attached to them, but at least we're learning how to access them without a lot of the esoteric religious and delusionary baggage we've been saddled with by miscommunications in culture. Science, for example, is just beginning to get involved in the serious study of mindful meditation in conjuction with the study of the human brain. Modern brain imaging technology, complexity science, and neurobiology have been making great strides over the last decade. But again the research is painstakingly slow and careful.

Now I also know, even if science provides a natrualistic answer to the riddle of sentience, there will be those who persist in the belief of souls and such. But what those stuck in fantasy should try to realize, is that science is a deeply fascinating subject with a beauty and a mystery that easily surpasses anything any religion could hope to attain. It's worth the time and effort to understand it honestly, without the distortion of religious bias, without the distortion of clinging to beliefs that you subsume as part of your identity and thus are as loath to let go of as an arm or a leg. And make no mistake, the understanding science provides isn't simply some ego derived pride in being right. Science is never right in any sort of absolute sense. It is merely a never ending progression to ever greater accuracy. The reflections of reality it provides just get a little more in focus with each tiny contribution. Its honesty can be brutal, as brutal, in fact, as reality itself is brutal. But until some form of more accurate knowing comes along, pursuing a scientific understanding of the world is as close to the truth as we're going to get.

That said, never forget, like any human endevor, the actual practice of science is fraught with fraud, lies, arrogance, ego, theft, and the distortions of ideology. That tends to slow its progress, and often leads it down deadends. But in spite of that, it is still the best method humans have developed for understanding.

Don't really understand what you're talking about, James. This might sound a big presumptuous, but I think I've studied more science than 90% of the population. I'm not clinging to any ideological or heartwarming beliefs. This is just your ideology showing. Science is my hobby and continual pursuit. It is science that causes me to suspect that there was some kind of 'mind' in the universe before life appeared.

And what's this: "It is a means of dealing with the terror that is evoked by our awareness of our mortality."

What terror? I'm not particularly interested in being paralysed in an accident or otherwise maimed before dying, but as for dying itself, I have absolutely no problem with it. Certainly not 'terror.' And I'm not looking forward to another existence after death. I can't imagine anything being more fun than the one I have. And if I'm wrong, well, I'm not all that greedy for more.

My studies suggest strongly that the order in the world, albeit only locally or temporarily 2nd-law-of-theromodynamics defeating, should make it apparent to everyone that there is another kind of 'purpose' in the world.

It was actually Stephen Hawkins' discussion of the converging 'arrows of time' that supplied the straw that broke the back of my doubt.

As a non-believer, agnostic and ever questioner, I have seen some remarkable and unexplainable happenings , but here's one I have experienced and written about before, without anybody ever been able to give me a rational explanation.

About 20 years ago I was working on a small engine on the clean, lino floor of my shop, when a 1/2" wrench flew out of my hand, looped over my right shoulder and dropped on the floor with a clang. I work with tools every day, but no such thing has ever happened to me ever before, or since.

I reached back, but couldn't touch it, then find it , no matter how long I searched all over the place, lifting and pushing around everything I could think of. Ultimately, I had to go and buy another wrench. Some 10 years later I walked into the shop one morning and there was the wrench, where it fell on the floor. I called my wife to see and she can confirm what happened

I still have both wrenches.

We live on a remote ranch, there was nobody around when either occasion happened and, being a woodworker, the shop must have been swept 100 times.
We don't drink, or smoke, never have taken any hallucinatory drugs, or even medications and are extremely down to earth people who don't fall for mysticism. If I'd found the wrench hidden somewhere, I could write off the experience as an accident, but out there on the open floor I left empty the night before, makes no sense.

Can any science, or anybody give me a rational explanation where the wrench was for 10 years and how did it come back to the same place it originally fell?

Yes, I'm dead serious and am willing to make a sworn testimony, even if it makes me look like a gullible fool. This has nothing to do with God, or religion,
but I have the feeling, there are many things in this world we don't understand, can not explain, and never will.

Ed Deak.

"It is science that causes me to suspect that there was some kind of 'mind' in the universe before life appeared."

You can believe that if you want, Truman, but there is no scientific evidence for it. Unless of course you are talking about the Einsteinian "god", the laws of the universe. That's not the type of "god" belief that Dawkins is talking about.

What is the nature of this "mind"? Is it the same as a deity? Does it have goals for the universe? Or is it just a place-filler, a god-of-the-gaps representing what we don't understand?

Truman wrote:

My ideology? Ok Truman, could you please point out to me which peer reviewed scientific journals have conducted scientific research into the existence of god, or more generally a teleological scientific hypothesis of the universe. I'd like to know what sort of experiements they've conducted, what kind of data they've gathered, and the conclusions they've come to. I'd be very interested to see refutable data and repeatable experiments that support the existence of an intelligence behind the synergistic complexity that is life. If you can't provide that, then the only person here spouting ideology is you. If you simply "suspect" that there is some kind of "mind" in the universe predating life, well I'm sorry, but from a scientifc perspective suspicion is no kind of evidence. It is, as I've stated before, only an indication that you are willing to anthropomorphize natural complexity.

As I mentioned earlier, read some of Corning's work, if you dare. He has done an enormous amount of research in the area of complexity science. His hypothesis surronding the notion of synergy certainly does not support the notion of an intelligent creator, but it goes a long way to explaining what may perhaps be one of the macro principles at work in the development of complex physical phenomena, including life.

Here are some snippets from one of his articles, available to read for free (link below).

(continued....)

(continued from above....)

and more specifically here is Corning's basic definition of the synergism hypothesis from the same article.

And Truman, Corning's work, unlike your teleological wishful thinking, IS testable.

""I don't know what you are talking about here. Do you?""

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3346455.stm

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/13/7117

There's actually a lot on this on-line. I'm trying to locate an article that circulated on the wires about two or three weeks ago, in which scientists confirmed the discovery of yet another (possible) hybrid skull (Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens).

And no, James, I don't claim to be a scientist...I'm simply wary of them. Especially scientists who claim to possess 'Truth' rather than earthly 'fact', and even have a big black book the smack us around with. "Delusional" indeed.

Ultimately, Dawkins in no more qualified than anyone else to judge whether God belongs in the human worldview, let alone whether he-she-it exists.

Ed:
I have no explanation but I do know that 1/2" wrenches have a way of dissapearing and reappearing and it does not seem to matter how much I search for them. Vicegrips too. In fact all small tools do that to me regularly.
Still waiting for the vicegrips and a couple of stepladders and my shop vac.
I blame it on my brother in law who only brings tools back if they are broken, dull or out of fuel.
I do drink but I quit drugs many years ago. Before quitting I did notice a couple of such weird things while a bit "High" which , though your story tops mine, I could attest to it honestly. ( do not care whether my testimony would be thrown out of court because I was using a psycho- active at the time: I saw what I saw and guess what? I know the difference between reality and an hallucination. If you ain't tried it spare me your opinion.)

Anyhow a friend and I were sharing the last homebrew in a single tall beer glass. when the bottle touched the edge the glass shattered in concentric rings from the point of contact. Since it stll held the liquid we sat comfortbly and passed the glass back and forth while our interest went on to other topics.
The beer was finished and the glass rested on the arm of my chair. After some time the glass carefully folded itself inward. No shard strayed. I beleive my friend saw exactly the same event.

James, I'm neither wishing for or against the reality of teleology, only perceiving it. I'd be equally happy whether there's mind beyond ours--or not.

Synergy is old hat, James; a tautology. A construction by virtue of its own definition. A boring presumption. Whenever any two or more events, substances--even products-- converge, the resultant effect can be referred to as synergistic. This is just sophomoric stuff, James.

The problem, James is: how did the atoms comprizing the "enzymes" you refer to, which are really proteins, come into existence by the differentiation of amino acids and nucleotides? And what organized the genetic code into four or five bases and our genome into 3 billion nucleotide bases?

And to say that synergy has been a major source of creation is a massive exaggeration; "Synergy," describes a possible mechanism, as one would consider the mandelbrot fractal, for instance.

Synergy may be a source of form, but it is not the source of creation.

It doesn't explain anything about creation.

Saying synergy is 'testable' is like predicting the 'brownian effect.' It adds nothing to the conversation. (It would be just as relevant to claim that synergy's opposite, antagonism, is a source of creation. Corning's just being silly, and I know that he understands this.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is testable--by merely opening a window and testing the direction of heat loss, or by making a hole in a tire and observing the dispersement of energy from most concentrated to less concentrated. But this tells us nothing about how the 2nd law was brought into place as a seemingly universally dependable description of the direction of the dispersal of energy and the progression of entropy, and how and why entropy is always increasing within a closed system.

This has nothing to do with the presence or absence of 'mind' beyond that is possessed by humans or animals. And I'm surpprised (honestly) that you think it does, James.

I'm sure synergistic effects are interesting, but they tell us nothing about the origin of synergy, itself. Pair bonding of dna bases is essential to the transcription of information on the helix. This pair bonding could not exist and specialized organisms could not develope without dependable and prescribed synergistic pair bonding.

For example, adenine always pairs with thymine and guanine always pairs with cystosine in DNA and adenine with uracil and guanine with cystosine in RNA.

What is the impetus for this determined pair bonding? Answer: nobody knows and Corning hasn't a clue, either.

The philosophy of creation is about the origin of existence, James, not about some fanciful--or legitimate--models of mechanism description.

Ed there are plenty of similar sorts of stories that people have experienced. I could go on about possible materialistic explanations about what may have happened, but there really is no point. Singular experiences certainly can be powerful enough to convince people of just about anything. That's fine.

But from a scientific perspective, strange phenomena, that cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions are simply something that science is unable to study. The reason it is unable to study it is most likely due to human error in the interpretation and memory of what happened. Because under controlled conditions what seemed mysterious is either unreproducable or found to have a materialistic far more "boring" explanation.

A lot of new age types like to explain science's inability to study these so-called phenomena with the fantasy that negative mental energy or some such nonsense prevents the expression of the phenomena that would lead to the realization of the existence of things like spirits or enegy bodies or whatever. A number of comments up, brain even mentioned a japanese photographer who claims his photographs of snowflakes and other things reveal the impact of so-called mental energy. Sorry but that sort of thing is old hat. It's been around since the invention of photography. People use distortions on photographic film and paper, lens distortion, lens flare and all kinds of intentional and unintentional image manipulation to make all sorts of elaborate claims.

So, while I don't deny you had an unusual experience. From a scientific perspective, it is simply an anecdote.

Anyway to switch gears, as I mentioned a few posts up, take a look at Corning's work if you have the time. You've mentioned a number of times on numerous threads an interest in an economics based on physical laws. Corning has done a lot of work in that direction, so you might find his ideas interesting. His most recent book "Holistic Darwinism" in particular has a number of chapters on human social systems. But here is an abstract from one of his articles along with a link to the full article:

Corning says "enlightened capitalism" but in reading his work, I doubt there are any neo-liberal "free" market capitalists out there who would do anything other than ignorantly scream communism, when presented with Cornings ideas. The same holds true from the other end of the ideological spectrum. But I'd be interested to know what you think of Corning's work, as I respect a lot of what you've written.

Truman, synergy isn't a "source" of anything. It is a functional principle of a dynamic system we call reality, or the universie. Did you even bother to read what Corning wrote? In your response you conveniently ignored a fundamental part of the synergism hypothesis: the role of differential selection. Evolution, not simply of life, but of all complexity. It is environmentally and contextually contingent. Synergy is a dynamic system that does not have an origin. It functions at a near infinite number of levels that are all really just one big system. It is not a material 'thing' it is a process involving material things. The whole notion of final causes is a deadend. It invites succumbing to the notion of teleological origins.

Ah yes, it's easier to reword something to meaninglessness than to actually deal with the content of what was actually written.

Of course it does, it just doesn't provide neat and tidy final causes. It certainly doesn't explain the details of all the mechanisms at work in the material world. Saying that all the parts of a car let you drive it from place to place, says nothing about how each part came into existence, merely that their synergy lets you get from place to place. By extension, all the work and all the evolution, in fact all of the history of existence, and the functional synergies that resulted from it that are absolutely vital for that car to have come into existence and to work as it does.

Ok see now here we have the foundational root of your problem Truman. You are starting from the premise that there is an origin to existence. You presuppose a final cause. Therein lies your error. Why does there have to be a beginning to existence?

Thanks James.....I'll look into Corning. I would like to mention that, although I never claim anything special, my memory is excellent and can remember things from my early childhood also that I do have a reasonable degree of education, including some years at Cambridge, albeit not in the sciences, but in certain forms of infornation analysis. I learned trades after I got fed up with academia and any kind of office work, and never looked back, but I do have scientific contacts all over the world if I need any advice. Working in an office would mean suicide for me, I have to use my hands every day and make things, or art.

25 years ago I took a private course in medical hypnosis with a doctor of clinical psychology , who's a top name in the field and who was also a member of an international team of doctors investigating "miracle cures". He knew me for a long time, was interested in my work and what made me tick, so I stayed in his house for almost 2 weeks. His group of doctors from Canada, USA, Britain and Switzerland visited the Philippines several times, and wrote it off as sleigh of hand, albeit very intereting, but also in Brazil, where these miracle workers actually cut people wide open, which they filmed and then followed and examined the patients up for months, still showing the scars, including one on this doctor's knee. I saw some of the movies and slides they took and couldn't explain, except that "they couldn't have happened anywhere else". .

At one of the forums, that included at least 12 or 15 doctors and dentists, who wanted to learn anasthesia through hypnosis, he told a dentist to hypnotize him and then push a large hypodermic needle through his palm and then say"When I pull it out, there'll be a drop of blood showing at the exit point and when I wipe it off, there won't be any mark left" The dentist did exactly as told and there was no mark on his hand. I stood right beside him, no more than 2-3 feet, and saw the whole thing.

Unfortunately, my experience with the wrench happened some years later, so I didn't have the chance to discuss it with him.

As I mentioned, I'm a sceptic and non believer, but the only thing I do believe is that there's more to life than what we know and can understand.

Ed Deak.

"In science, there aren't many laws that actually exist at this point. And while some theories do exist that are likely to become laws or believed as being laws already, science is quite clear in regards to what the difference is between theory and law. Law is fact. Theory is all that it is. Hypothesis with empirical evidence that come to conclusions that are as of yet, waiting to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. - brain"

"You are wrong. That you make this statement demonstrates, at the very least, that you are ignorant of some of the basic principles of science." - James Burns

It appears that we are both inaccurate, but with myself, it is with putting forth this statement. "law is fact." Scientific law is infact as factual as it gets due to the reality that there is absolutely no evidence that can be provided in any reasonable sense to dispute it... however, it does not make it absolute. In my own defence, I could argue that this statement needed more clarity such as the clarity I'm giving it now, but I didn't, so I won't go there. What I will say however, is that this statement of mine is anything but ignorant and if the word ignorance is going to be thrown around, I'd be glad to call this own quote of yours as such. Your quote in itself, is nothing more than an opinion piece and is, I believe at this time, poorly chosen:

Quote:
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology. (this is a false statement, according to the definitions of hypothesis and theory with the links provided below.)

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. (this conflicts with my own provided links as well.)

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. (I believe this latter sentence is false, compared to the second provided link which tells it best) Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced. (this is false, as well. History speaks otherwise with theories sent on their ass given the appropriate timeframes. Its why we call them theories instead of laws. Don't quote me, but I do not know of a scientific law that has ever been reversed.)
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

If you wish to take the time, James Burns, you will see that your quote is contradicted by these other links to some degrees. The first link I've provided is also an opinion piece in a sense with some links of sources provided, which I believe agree with your own... views, of which I should apologize for confusing you with an Atheist, over one who is "Agnostic?"
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/theory.htm

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fullerd/Definitions/Chapter_1/ScientificLaw.html

In short, until the theory of evolution does in fact, become a scientific law, I'll give it the weight it deserves. Why James, I've used it myself on this thread: Cont.

Note these Hypothesis I've offered:
A) A more intelligent and versatile form of life evolved (theory of evolution)from a pre-big bang existence (theory of big bang to each galaxy formation, as opposed to one big bang for the entire universe) with an indefinite lifespan. (I've offered a much larger scale of mass than an ordinary solar system to work with, as well as an exponuncially indefinite larger timeline than this solar system has had since its conception in comparison to increase the numerical possibility that life has spontaneously evolved without a form of creation to support this hypothesis which is a combination of two existing theories .)

B) The origins of life on earth were designed and placed here by a life form who's origins come from Hypothesis A and potentially subject to Hypothesis D.

C) Life on Earth has evolved from these early origins explained by A and B to what we have today.

D) Hypothesis A provides the explaination for more highly ordered forms of life that have not originated from evolution as suggested in Hypothesis C, such as the appearance of highly ordered life that has male and female sexes. (which I believe at this point, the theory of evolution does not provide enough evidence to support as conclusively as it should.)

E) Should the Hypothesis of A be true, and such an evolved life form has evolved to the point of being able to move across great distances in space and time (galaxy to galaxy for an eg.), as well as evolve to the point where it possesses the knowledge to trigger the big bang of each galaxy and used such knowledge to trigger the big bang behind every galaxy formation in this universe, as well as ahere to the functional principles needed to live indefinitely. This defined form of life from hypothesis A through E should be heavily considered to be the one and only creator of this universe and all life that the universe holds, other than the original life form itself as defined by Hypothesis A.

With these 5 hypothesis integregated from A to E, the theory is proposed that the earliest, oldest, and most evolved form of life is the one and the same with the God as described by the Judaic and Christian faith, which is in fact living, capable of creating the universe as it has formed since its big bangs, and life on Earth, and aheres to its own principles that this Christian God wills us to follow.

And you know what? There's nothing nothing nutty about it, especially as hypothesis, theory, and laws are defined with the provided second link.
In short, James, it is most definitely possible to create a theory that God does exist, running right along side the theory of evolution used by Atheists to disclaim that God does not exist. I should add that Creationists have hypocritically argued against the theory of evolution as is well defined by the first link (which is why its there as it is an opinion piece to some degrees.) Their flaw is in not coming up with a reasoned theory of their own based on hypothesis such as the one I've laid out for you. As well, I also find Athiests to be somewhat hypocritical themselves in the sense that the vaste majority of them have bashed religious doctrines of all kinds without actually reading them, or putting them to the test to see how functional or dysfunctional they really are. Both extremes (Atheist/Creationist beliefs) have had their share of hypocracy.

Anyone is welcome to challenge such a theory based on these hypothesis. Be my guest. I'm here, hopefully, like the rest of you all, to learn.

brain:

"I've already told you about a portion of my personal experiences that leads me to theorize as others have that God does exist. Do you want me to write a book about them and email it to you?"

Nope.

"As for the need to provide proof, I really don't feel the need to PROVE ANYTHING THAT I CLAIM AS THEORY. Empirical evidence of my own personal experiences and hypothesis thereof, puts me to theory at best!"

Well, if you're going to claim god exists, some verifiable evidence would be the only way to do it. You've only given subjective personal experiences, and zero empirical evidence. So it's not a theory, in the scientific sense. It's, well, just you and a bunch anecdotes that mean nothing to me.

"When did I ever boldly claim beyond all doubt that God exists?"

Let us make this simple. Either you are claiming that god exists or you are not. If you are making the claim that there is a god, then back it up with objective, verifiable, falsifiable evidence. If you can't do that, then your claim that there is a god is irrational. If your claim is irrational, then we should stop this discussion, since it would be pointless for me to try to reason with you.

"Really, its not hard to extrapolate and connect the dots with what I was saying in comparison to ideals and the practice of these ideals whether it be the God ideal or the marriage ideal."

No, I'm pretty sure that your analogy was meaningless.

brain:

"As well, I also find Athiests [sic] to be somewhat hypocritical themselves in the sense that the vaste majority of them have bashed religious doctrines of all kinds without actually reading them, or putting them to the test to see how functional or dysfunctional they really are."

What do you mean by this "functional or dysfunctional"?

I atheists do read religious texts. And they find no "objective, verifiable, falsifiable evidence". So they discount them.

"Anyone is welcome to challenge such a theory based on these hypothesis."

If you have no evidence, then there's really no theory.

"law is fact"

Don't think so brain.

You might be able to assert that something called ‘natural law’ has some objective reality but even such concepts are mutable. In the real world such an equality is meaningless at worst and circular at best.

God can have nothing more than a subjective reality. Sorry.

G: Already poked that simple line full of holes, myself, did I not? Simply click onto the third link I provided. The best answer is there.

"Let us make this simple. Either you are claiming that god exists or you are not. If you are making the claim that there is a god, then back it up with objective, verifiable, falsifiable evidence. If you can't do that, then your claim that there is a god is irrational. If your claim is irrational, then we should stop this discussion, since it would be pointless for me to try to reason with you."

But that's the point, Jimmy. I'm not claiming God exists. I'm theorizing that God exists. BIG DIFFERENCE. And noting that a theory isn't a major leap from a hypothesis defined by an unbiased scientist with a background in chemistry (second link I provided) who defines Hypothesis, Theory, and scientific law, removed from the bias and opinionated battleground of evolution/creation, I believe I can go there, especially since I'm combining theories that the scientific world tends to largely agree with. In other words, some evidence is provided... just not the evidence you are looking for.

And I should ask this question. If a prophet or phycic spills out futuristic information of major platitudes with major detail concerning a future event that has not happened, even if this prophet is filmed with its date authenticated, regardless of how fantastical it might seem and how low the odds would be in terms of predictability, in today's scientific world, it is shot down as nothing more than a series of lucky guesses. That's just how it is, Jimmy. So I ask you, if knowing the future isn't good enough then what will it take? Do you seriously expect the creator to fax a blueprint of how to create one celled organisms 101? Really, if God must prove himself, how do you expect God to do it? On your terms only? And if it happened to you and only to you, how would you think you could offer proof of such an experience to someone else? Lets try and be a little bit reasonable.

The reality of it is that most of these experiences that you say mean nothing (until they happen to you directly) simply cannot be duplicated (at least, not exactly)... except maybe.. just maybe... you and your experience can be replicated if one goes back and tries to recreate the same set of identical circumstances that brought on such an experience and within the realm of Christianity, there is what science would call, a recreation of the "experiment" itself. And in this case, that would be you. You would be the experiment. (I'll get into some detail as to what to do)

What do you mean by this "functional or dysfunctional"?

Perhaps I spelled disfunctional wrong? (I've seen a few over the years spell it with a Y, so y not?) But if you would like an example, lets say a doctrine of a spiritual nature teaches, oh, say, peace. Or unconditional love. Or maybe forgiveness (when asked for it sincerely). You check it out, it functions, it works. Would you discount it since it is found in doctrines of a spiritual nature? That's what I'm getting at. How much can you junk when it comes to any doctrine, simply because you don't like bits and pieces of what it says... just the bits and pieces? The majority of it? All of it?

cont.
And what of clearly laid out "experiments" that are needed to be replicated to see proof. For an example, if one is peaceful, and loving, or at the very least, aspiring to be so in a serious way, makes a promise to preserve life as much as humanly possible, (which, if one performs a ritual known as the water baptism properly, as an oath to such a promise to preserve life, is protected by those who do not believe in preserving life), follows specific laws laid out in the OT and the NT, believes in a form of life that fathered all other life in the universe that is of highly ordered principles and is willing to serve this form of life, (most people know a singular Holy diety or God) asks for specific powers needed to do so in service, and gives it enough time, then by all accounts, new levels of awareness should occur. Interesting things should happen, (unless its all one big ego trip power grab). Evidence proven at least to oneself, should occur. Such "experiments" aren't often tried, by the way, which explains alot. So many claim to be Christian, so few have tried living up to being one, and in all reality, there isn't an Athiest alive that has tried to duplicate such an "experiment" simply because they believe it will not work.

So its like this. What scientist will have any degree of success, if they believe their experiments will fail to such a point that they don't even bother to try? What, does anyone think it is so different with a belief in God? If you aren't willing to try the "experiment", how do you expect any degree of success?

RICHARD DAWKINS ON CHRISTMAS (today's New York Times)

When asked what his feeling about Christmas were, he replied:

“Presumably your reason for asking me is that ‘The God Delusion’ is an atheistic book, and you still think of Christmas as a religious festival,” Mr. Dawkins wrote, in a reply printed here in its entirety. “But of course it has long since ceased to be a religious festival. I participate for family reasons, with a reluctance that owes more to aesthetics than atheistics. I detest Jingle Bells, White Christmas, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, and the obscene spending bonanza that nowadays seems to occupy not just December, but November and much of October, too.”

“So divorced has Christmas become from religion that I find no necessity to bother with euphemisms such as happy holiday season. In the same way as many of my friends call themselves Jewish atheists, I acknowledge that I come from Christian cultural roots. I am a post-Christian atheist. So, understanding full well that the phrase retains zero religious significance, I unhesitatingly wish everyone a Merry Christmas.”

It's great to be religion-free.

Mid '60s Five or six of us gathered in Ron's room in the student housing towers at UBC (was it called "West Mall" then?) We had graduated the summer before and proceeded together from a small interior town where things were "normal" as far as we knew. One very normal thing was an acknowledgement of the "truth" of some form of christianity whether or not we attended any formal church. Another normal thing was that now we were for the first time living "on our own" . We were experimenting with one of the most psycho active drugs ever used by young people: alcohol.

Giggling and chatting we got around to the subject of "devine Retribution" and we all got to wondering just how to test it. One brave soul got up, opened the 4th floor window and shouted some blasphemy into the night. We hunkered down expecting at least some thunder.
Nothing happened so another fellow shouted out something about the virgin mother and "un natural" sexual acts (see, I still can not say it) .
Pretty soon we were taking turns dreaming worse and worse blasphemies and launching them into the night and falling back into the room laughing.

I admit that I worried for few days that one or all of us would be "punished"
Nothing happened to any of the rebels as far as I know. What that experience did for me was:
Diminish the stature of "Vengence is Mine" Sayeth the Lord.

Can't shake the feeling that someday "HE" might drop the hammer on me.

But to date that's as close to "scientic Method" as anything I have seen applied to the question of the existence of a supreme being

James, you wrote, responding to my consideration of synergy:

"Truman, synergy isn't a 'source' of anything."

However, Ed, I did not just pull 'creative synergy' out of thin air.

I got it from your guy, Corning, in your excerpt from his work:

To wit: "The formal hypothesis is that major synergistic effects of various kinds have been a major source of creativity in evolution."
(see Corning, l983)

I think it's important to keep in mind also, (regarding the provability of the theoy of evolution, which you claim) that Darwin's revelation about natural selection was entitled, "The Origin of Species."

If you go back to his Autobiography, you'll find that he was loathe to write or speculate on the existence or absence of god.

Certainly, he had a lifelong problem with 'irreducible complexity,' which he referred to as the problem with 'organs of extreme specialization.'

It's about organs such as the human eyeball, which are comprised of components such as iris, cornea, retina, conjunctiva, fovea, lens etc.

Heck, who needs the eyeball for this consideration? Think human brain, and its neurons and neurotransmitters--chemicals--constructed from molecules and atoms, all elegantly devised to transmit feelings of emotionality and well-being.

Even, more fantastic is the fact that every one of the 200 trillion cells in our bodies has within its nucleus the infinite algorithms (recipes) on exactly how to manufacture and express, not only the genes, but the the cells which comprise the organs and all components of the organism.

The problem is: (regarding the eyeball) without any one of these components you have exactly nothing.

Could they really have all just come together randomly, by chance, (oops a tautology) in order to supply the brain, through the optic nerve, with photons, interpreted in such a way that the world would be perceived?

Is it just a coincidence that all of the raw materials needed to manufacture all of these components were themselves manufactured by the nuclear fusion at the first singularity, beginning with hydrogen and advancing to progressively heavier elements?

This is engineering, James.

I got a real hoot out of Stephen Jay Gould trying to solve this mystery by claiming that eash of these components existed prior to the eyeball with completely unrelated morphology, which again, similarly to Corning's weird and wonderful extrapolations of Darwin's "The Descent of Man," added exactly nothing to the question of organized complexity.

I think honest people have trouble imagining that such infinitely elegant complexity can really be attributed to the converging (or synergy) of random, non-teleolgically-devised events.

As Einstein said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

There must be a God, Pierre decreed it so, am I correct?

PART 1 CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Hi Woody. Somebody once pointed out to me when I worked in construction that because I was always saying, "Goddamned blanking Christ," on the jobsite, I must believe in god. Not real good evidence though.

The charter really says that about God, eh. I'm a bit surprised. I figured Trudeau would have tried to drop it. Probably pandering to the believers, I guess. But actually, referring to the "supremacy of god," isn't altogether a bad idea--probably a pragmatic, even machievellian maneuver. Something like:
rights being 'inalienable,' like the Yanks have it, meaning, basically, 'out of the reach of tyrants and despots.'

Brain:

How about this: "The book of Numbers tells how God incited Moses to attack the Midianites. His army made short work of slaying all the men, and they burned all the Midianite cities, but they didn't kill the women and children. This merciful restraint by his soldiers infuriated Moses, and he gave orders that all the boy children should be killed, and all the women who were not virgins. 'But all the women children, that have have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves' (Numbers 31: 18)." (from The God Delusion, p. 245)

While you don't hold your beliefs up to others as absolute truths, organized religion does. In Dawkins' book, he doesn't go that far in his disbelief of god. He merely theorizes that god is a very unlikely possibility. Maybe functional atheists wouldn't be so defensive and point to the atrocities commited in the name of god, if their disbelief was just as respected as a reliogious person's belief. Interesting to think about anyway.

And, who is the authority on the translation on the bible/scripture? Is it you? Do you have a degree in Theology? I know it wouldn't me. I only know what was taught to me at sunday school as the TRUTH. Things that I have now discounted as I can think for myself. So, while theologians can have intellectual discussion on different interpretations, organized religions are putting things like "homosexuality to is a sin" as the truth. That I am going to Hell as the truth. I learned awhile ago that if that really is "god", I don't want anything to do with him.

Charles Demers, I forgot to say that I thought this was a first class review. I'd even say that I was surprised by your firm grasp of the issues. Pardon the 'faint praise,' eh. (If I didn't recognize how smart you are it's probably because I'm not as smart as I thought I was.)

But I was!

brain wrote:

Truman you prefer to twist what people write instead of honestly deal with its content. When Corning writes: "The formal hypothesis is that major synergistic effects of various kinds have been a major source of creativity in evolution.", he is not talking about synergy as being the "source" of creativity in some godlike sense. I already took issue with your earlier oversimplification of Corning's words. But instead you just regurgitate that oversimplification. It is a dishonest rhetorical tactic. Set up a straw man so you can knock it down.

Synergy, as both I have described above, and as Corning has written extensively on, is a process or more properly a part of a process. The source of creativity he refers to are the resultant effects of the various synergies that occur due to the physical properties of interacting material in the universe at a variety of levels, from the macroscopic to subatomic. Synergy is not a source in the sense you want to misinterpret it into. Differential selection (again not a thing or a source but a part of a process) acts on all the various synergies. Those effects that work most effectively within the environment tend to perpetuate. That holds true for certain chemical reactions, just as much as it holds for the survival of certain species. Moreover, what "survives" is all environmentally, chronologically and contextually contingent. Emergent wholes of those synergistic process of earlier emergent wholes create or perhaps better said, result in, greater complexity.

Perhaps an analogy will help. Meaning makes language work. It is the effects of meaning from which creativity in language is derived. But it would be incorrect to say meaning is the source of all understanding and creativity in language. It is the interaction of all the parts involving language, from the words and the resultant descriptions used to the people writing and reading the text as shaped by their thought processes which in turn have been shaped by their life experiences. Meaning then is a part of a process. It requires all those real parts, but it is not a source in any sort of substantial or materially existent sense. It is an abstraction of a very real dynamic. (continued...)

(continued....) The rest of your comment, I'm sorry to say, is just bizarre. Why the ramble about Darwin? What does his hesistancy to write about the existence of god have to do with the modern theory of what is frequently referred to as neo-Darwinian evolution? You go on about issues of extreme specialization and the notion that that complexity couldn't possibly have come about randomly. Well no complexity didn't exactly come about randomly, it follows the physical laws of the material universe. Again, from the same quote of Corning I provided above (in place of your habit to quote out of context surrounded by your own misinterpretation):
[QUTOE]It is not magic at all, of course, but a fundamental characteristic of the material world that things in various combinations, sometimes with others of like kind and sometimes with very different kinds of things, are prodigious generators of novelty. And these novel cooperative effects have over the past 3.5 billion years or so produced at every level of life distinct, irreducible "higher levels" of causation and action whose constituent "parts" have been extravagantly favored by natural selection. Furthermore, in many instances these emergent wholes have themselves become parts of yet another new level of combined effects, as synergy begat more synergy. The formal hypothesis is that synergistic effects of various kinds have been a major source of creativity in evolution (see Corning, 1983); the synergism hypothesis asserts that it was the functional (selective) advantages associated with various forms of synergy that facilitated the evolution of complex, functionally-organized biological and social systems. In other words, underlying each of the many particular steps in the complexification process, a common functional principle has been at work.

And Truman, you avoided this question in your last comment, but with what you write, you keep circling back to the notion of origin like a moth to a flame. You seem to be subsuming a desire to believe in existence having a beginning as an a priori fact that shapes how you interpret everthing else. Why does existence need to have a beginning?

Darwin trained, and I seem to remember that he was all ready, to become a clergyman when he got the job on the "Beagle" as a naturalist. His friends and professors never spoke to him again after that.

Einstein, allegedly also said, although there are no confirming references to prove it: "Deine eigene Scheise stinkt nicht".

Which is definitely a great scientific discovery, used every day by politicians and corporations.

Ed Deak.

A good example of natural forces - procreation within a species - creating enormous variety is the modern dog.

Speciation is also taking place among insects as we speak and is well on its way to doing it among some other groups of animals as well

It is difficult for modern consumers to understand the role of time in the mix because we are so fixated upon the miniscule duration of a human life compared with the attenuation necessary for evolutionary change. Man is not the measure of everything.

The fact that we value the 'effects' of a process does not mean that the process has stopped - merely that we 'see' such a tiny slice of its vast panorama as to be unaware of its dynamics. The evolution of viruses is proof enough for me.

James, I was hoping you'd be able to read between a few lines about Darwin's evolution and how it relates to synergy.

You write about everything being in accordance with the "physical laws of the material universe."

And how were they devised? This is the questions at which everyone arrives sooner or later, whether you choose to ignore it or not, James.

In fact ALL physicists base their entire investigations of the material world from relativity, general and special, to quantum mechanics to string theory-- on what the world was like before the end of the first second after the first singularity or big bang. Were the laws of physics the same as they are not?
Where they the same before the first singularity? Are there other universes in which they are completely different and entropically opposite?

Meaning the question of whether their is 'mind' in the world beyond ours is always about: the source and nature of the "physical laws of the universe."

Like it or not, James. I'm saying that from my understand of randomness in the theory of evolution and my perception of events available to my neurons and neurotransmitters, there must be something beyond; something other.

If your perception sees nothing of the sort, I think it's because you're stupid; you think what I perceive is an illusion, or even a delusion, or that I'm stupid. Only one of us is correct.

You can run, but you cannot really hide from this question if you're going to be serious in your consideration of the creation of the world, and whether its suspected anthropic nature is an illusion-- or not.

Otherwise your programs--synergy, evolution etc must have created the "laws" to which they conform, instead of the other way around.

Understand yet? It's very chic to say forget first causes--origins, but that's what we're all thinking about.

If we're being serious and honest, James.

And I'm not really thinking that existence needs to have a beginning--only some kind of 'mind.'

Holy murphy, I went too fast on that. Spelling mistakes all over the place.

Where instead of were; their insted of there. I know better, honest!

Fascinating account about the wrench, Ed.

I've known a few people who experienced occurences almost as peculiar, which made them re-evaluate their take on unseen phenomena.

Speaking for myself, I'm stil waiting. The only freaky shit that ever happens to me is the more mundane stuff that I invariably set myself up for.

I must be losing my touch: I don't think I have anything further to contribute to the thread, save to reiterate that Dawkins could have come up with something more original and legitimate than "delusion". I still think that the concepts of natural selection and evolution may need to be adapted as other co-factors are theorized. It really has become a rigid dogma.

I'd be curious if Dawkins delves into questions of altrusim and 'the Other' as they relate to religious faith and community behaviour, or if he attempts to put forward a secular "morality of the professors" (which usually assumes a level of formal education well beyond what most of the world possesses).

All this ignores the reality that there are uses and abuses to organized religion that have nothing to do with God and everything to do with the nature of humans in groups (i.e. "society"). I don't think religion can ever be expunged...in fact, it may prove dangerous to the social order to attempt to do so. There are dynamic and volatile forces in play, and even our own secular society is slaking its sublimated religious thirst in unhealthy and perverse waters. As I've said on other threads, it is necessary to accomodate moderate manifestations of the religious impulse, in order to *survive* (or avert) its more virulent manifestations, are a certain craven surrogate for it (like, for example, the West's bizarre, myopic and increasingly fanatical cult fixation on celebrity and the Cult of Ego).

Cheers - N.B.

Truman wrote:

"The problem is: (regarding the eyeball) without any one of these components you have exactly nothing."

You are trotting out old creationist canards, Truman. So much has been written about the evolution of the eye, and a lot of it by Dawkins, that I'm surprised that you'd bring up this stuff. Especially since you think you "know more about science that 90% of the poulation". The animal kingdom shows us every step in the evolution of vision, from organisms with a few light-sensing cells, to rudimentary lenses, to eyes considerably better than our own. You could try reading "Climbing Mount Improbable", or "The Blind Watchmaker" by the author under review, for a start. You have to ignore a lot of evidence to believe the stuff you're promoting here. (If you want to actually see the "eyes" I'm refering to, you can download the documentary of "The Blind Watchmaker" from the Dawkins website: http://tinyurl.com/yczebc )

Sorry about the typos. Truman, if our eyes are such miracles, why can't I see this font!

The best way to improve your eyes, Booker, is to develop cataracts and get plastic lense implants.

I'm 79 and don't have to wear glasses except for very small print...,

like this one is. Where in hell did it come from ?

Cheers, Ed.

Thanks, Ed.

I look forward to getting some intelligently designed eyes...

James, I read all Dawkins' old stuff and wasted a lot of time on his silly selfish gene book, too, but you're still not getting it.

So here: Even if evolution by natural selection is real it's still only a mechanism; an idea.

Where'd this idea for a mechanism come from?

All you're doing is describing what you see and reporting how others have speculated things work.

Basically reverse engineering!

I'm philosophysing about whether all of these things--organisms and systems--were self-created.

Do you recall me writing that the problems of organisms of extreme specialization go back to Darwin, and that they've newly emerged as "irreducible complexity?"

You're claiming they've been solved; I don't think so.

Nightbloom wrote:

"As I've said on other threads, it is necessary to accomodate moderate manifestations of the religious impulse, in order to *survive* (or avert) its more virulent manifestations..."

Dawkins does tackle this issue. He feels that "moderate religion" actually enables the lunatics by creating an environment in which superstition is respected. From such an environment the truly nasty belief systems can grow. So he would, as I'm sure you would expect, disagree that religious impulses need to be accomodated. (BTW, he is strictly speaking about the supernaturalist aspects of religion).

Signing off........

Hi Booker. Your eyes were intelligently designed. Unfortunately the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics requires that all once-organized entities will revert to chaos, unless they have an orogon-like intervention to reverse the arrow of time and the positivity of entropy. (Entropy or the will to chaos tends--only tends-- to increase, eh.) Don't laugh, but I've been trying to figure out how to slow my own aging for about twenty-five years now--and don't giggle but I honestly believe that I've had a bit of success.

The key is not to join the hierarchies of conventional probabilty into which all bits of matter are placed--resist quantum effects, in other words.

Or just don't go to Coney Island as expected, as a famous essayist once wrote.

brain:

"But that's the point, Jimmy. I'm not claiming God exists. I'm theorizing that God exists. BIG DIFFERENCE."

At this point I have a sneaking suspicion that you're just trying to be cute and not taking this seriously.

"So I ask you, if knowing the future isn't good enough then what will it take?"

So now you can predict the future?

"Really, if God must prove himself, how do you expect God to do it? On your terms only? And if it happened to you and only to you, how would you think you could offer proof of such an experience to someone else?"

Oh boy. I'm not sure how much clearer I could be. I don't expect god to prove "himself", but you you to provide empirical evidence of god's existence. Any personal claims about psychics, crystal balls, apparitions, etc. don't cut it, because they are not objective or verifiable.

"The reality of it is that most of these experiences that you say mean nothing (until they happen to you directly) simply cannot be duplicated"

Well then, since you admit that they cannot be duplicated (i.e. verified) then we can stop bringing them up, since they are not empirical evidence.

"So its like this. What scientist will have any degree of success, if they believe their experiments will fail to such a point that they don't even bother to try? What, does anyone think it is so different with a belief in God"

Whether or not a scientist believes that an experiment will support their hypothesis or whether they think it will contradict their hypothesis they still conduct the experiment. In fact, they *must* try the experiment. This is fundamental to the scientific method. I'm not sure how the third sentence from the above quote follows from the rest. Maybe you should read about the scientific method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

In your case, this link might be better:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Truman Green:

"Your eyes were intelligently designed."

If you read Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker", you'll get an interesting account of the evolition of the eye, from light sensitive cells all the way up to the complicated organs humans have.

Dawkins points out that the veins and arteries feeding the retina in the human eye are actually in front of the retina. That's not very intelligent design at all.

Oops, I just noticed Booker already brought up the point in my last post.

Jimmy, I've already done Dawkins fantasised discriptive analyses of evolutionary construction. Problem is every single step of progression requires that the nucleotides and amino acid combinations that construct them must be transcribed before they can happen. This is the problem with all of Dawkins' fantasies--especially his delusional ascribing of selfishness to genes or his instance that he perceives 'memes' when he probably wouldn't know a single polymorphic nucleotide from, well you know. He really doesn't get it--more likely as a pop-evolutionist, mostly interested in selling books and films, he pretends that he doesn't get it. I think he's too smart for this as dull as he is-- in all due respect, you've been punked.

Does he really claim that the placement of blood vessels is a mistake?

There are no mistakes in meaningless events, devoid of any particular end in 'mind.'

Do you mean you think there is a goal in mind? Was something trying to create something? Is consciousness on the mind of this something, or is it satisfied with a universe that will never be perceived?

Mind. See what I mean? Think about it. Is something trying to create something? Is something trying to create an organism that will be able to utilize protons in a way that will bring the universe into view?

And btw I think the bible and all holy books and religions are easily as silly as a system that designs itself for no reason at all.

You guys are getting close to getting it, though.

Unless the systems are doing something for the organism in which they are found and working....they are doing nothing, except hanging around.

Thus teleology!

This reporting of construction systems by Dawkins and ilk, is quite clever, I know. But really, you guys, its just a trompe l'oeil parlour game to think that systems invent themselves with no goal in mind. Nucleotides are only good for the construction of organisms. Nothing Else. Trust me.

So when the procaryotes changed into eucharyotes --nucleated cells with machinery for reproduction and energy assemblage (mitochrondria) there was a goal in mind.

It's the arrow of time that's interesting.

Something was trying to build something. The goal: consciousness; the employment of protons, sound waves, electromagatic fields for neurons etc...

Left alone systems revert to chaos, not complexity!

Duh.

And James, if I might continue, I referred to Darwin and his Autobiography to make the point that he never would have used any of his evolutionary ideas to argue that there was no God. In fact, I'm sure you'll recall that part in the 'Origin' where he says something like: "I see no reason why people are getting so upset with natural selection. I'm not saying anything that denies the existence of God."

I used to have it memorized but you know...entropy increases.

Weird, but for a hundred and fifty years people have reacted to his theory as though he had called it, "The Origin of Life."

He was talking about speciation--nothing more. And Dawkins' talking about evolutionary systems--nothing more.

From TalkOrigins

"Disorder and entropy are not the same."

"The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, order from disorder happens all the time."

"The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form"

Perfectly simple systems don't get more simple. There is only one direction to go, to greater complexity. If you don't believe this, explain the Mandelbrot Set, for example.

Again, from TalkOrigin:

"Theoretically, complexity is expected because complexity-generating processes dissipate the entropy from solar energy influxes, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics"

They've heard 'em all, Truman.

Truman wrote:

"Something was trying to build something. The goal: consciousness"

Show us the math.

Truman Green:

Have you read "The Blind Watchmaker"? It's the only one by Dawkins I've read, but it does not, as far as I can remember, discuss much about proteins and DNA and so on. And biology is not my field, so I can't follow your reasonong about "Dawkins' fantasies".

I don't think he claims it is a mistake, as a mistake would require intent. But let me tell you, if I was going to design an eye, I would not block the most sensitive part with a bunch of arteries. That would be pretty stupid.

"There are no mistakes in meaningless events, devoid of any particular end in 'mind.'"

It sounds like you are presupposing intent in the design of the eye...

"Is something trying to create an organism that will be able to utilize protons in a way that will bring the universe into view?"

Not sure I follow this...

Truman wrote:

Truman you can say whatever you want, just don't call it science. Until you have scientifically verifiable data for a creator, all your assertions are utterly empty from a scientific perspective.

truman wrote:

No, I'm not claiming the mechanisms have been solved at all. I'm merely pointing out a possible largely unacknowledged fundamental principle in the evolution of complexity. In a sense the synergy hypothesis answers the why, not the how. It suggests an explanation why complexity arises in the forms that it does, not how each step or emergent whole (which really is all one whole) arose. As a guiding principle, if it is found to have enough scientific support to become a theory, it very well could help tremendously in moving science forward, particularly in highly complex areas like biology, human social systems, and psychology.

Hi Truman Green, thanks for the God in Charter reply, now I have one more question that possibly you may answer.

Its in regard to a comment made earlier by doggone. My question is, what is a supreme being? In the following quote Doggone makes reference to the existence of a supreme being.

(Can't shake the feeling that someday "HE" might drop the hammer on me.
But to date that's as close to "scientic Method" as anything I have seen applied to the question of the existence of a supreme being)

"My question is, what is a supreme being"

1. An imaginary friend

2. What creationists use in lieu of evidence

3. A nonsensical question

"""Truman you can say whatever you want, just don't call it science. Until you have scientifically verifiable data for a creator, all your assertions are utterly empty from a scientific perspective."""

That's exactly what they told Galileo when he was working out his theories. He didn't always get the evidence right (he was before his time), but his hypothesis was ultimately proven correct.

We need to invent a new term for the outlook you (and Dawkins) give voice to: Scientific Dogmatism .... or how about Scientific Fundamentalism.

Under your regime, scientists (and the industries which bankroll them) would have sovereign claim on the closest thing approximating "absolute truth", including how that proof is arrived at, and who gets to say so. Anyone not in possession of a PhD in the sciences who has an independent opinion will be invalidated, disenfranchised and ultimately pathologized as delusional.

"That's exactly what they told Galileo when he was working out his theories. He didn't always get the evidence right (he was before his time), but his hypothesis was ultimately proven correct".

Nightbloom, you have the rolls exactly reversed. Galileo was using the scientific method; the church was arguing from tradition, authority, and superstition. Gallileo had evidence; the Church simply had belief.

You also can't seem to shake the idea that the study of nature (science) is about "absolute truth". Again, you have things topsy-turvy. "Absolute truth" is the realm of religion. Science is all about contingency, doubt, skepticism, and verification.

Your resentment towards scientists and people with advanced degrees seems to lead you to accept theories simply because they are not "scientific".

"""Nightbloom, you have the rolls exactly reversed. """"

You're wrong. I didn't say anything about the Church. I was responding to what James Burns said to Truman. And Galileo got his proof wrong (some of it), which is why "the establishment" (i.e. the Church, other scientists and learning institutes) refused to jettison Aristotelian cosmology. And since you brought up the Church....some of Galileo's most ardent defenders were churchmen, whereas some of his fiercest critics and persecutors were other scientists. Read the history - his application of the theory of tides was way off, even though he had the correct hypothesis, yet he insisted on teaching his flawed science after being challenged by scientific authorities...it didn't help that he plagiarized and alienated a huge number of his scientific peers and colleagues either. Have you ever observed up-close the rivalries in the scientific profession? Now that's pathological, my friend.

That's what that fight was all about.

It's funny that you project "resentment" onto my resistance to Dawkins' pathologization of faith. Do you also think I'm "delusional"? Too cute.

""" "Absolute truth" is the realm of religion. Science is all about contingency, doubt, skepticism, and verification."""

Apples and oranges. Some would argue that science and reason are ultimately synonymous with the creation and structure of the universe. In any case, anything science has to say on the existence or non-existence of God is totally inconclusive. That hardly means the belief is delusional, pathological nor even misguided.

I wonder how Dawkins goes about dismissiing the vast cultural repository that religious faith has generated over the millennia. Is that a product of delusion too? What is it about the religious impulse that brought out the very best in human creativity, in both art and science? Do you think science will ever be able to measure, quantify and fabricate it?

nightbloom wrote:

NB that has got to be one of the most idiotic things you've managed to type out in any comments thread, and for you that's saying something. Galileo's ideas weren't rejected because he got the science wrong. Attempting to make that assertion is an utter distortion of history. Galileo was persecuted by that institution you extol the virtues of so much on other threads, the catholic church. Galileo challenged their dogma, not their non-existent scientifically gathered evidence. What's more no modern loony tune, no matter how bizarre his pseudo-scientific notions has had to face the kind of persecution Galileo did at the hands of the church.

from wikipedia:

Galileo was one of the first westerners to actually use a model approximating the modern scientific method. But most if not all of the conclusions he came to are actually considered incorrect by modern scientific standards, or at least have been modified extensively as more accurate information was discovered.

nightbloom wrote:

What utter tripe. You use a set of rhetorical distortions to indite scientists, using the words "absolute truth" with the hedge "approximating", knowing that science doesn't deal in absolutes, while knowing the use of the words shapes meaning and frames the context. You also tar all scientists as servants of industry, which is simply categorically untrue. Earlier in this thread you didn't like my accusation that you lie. Well sorry NB, but you employ lies at whim to suit whatever distortions you seem to want to create. You lie about Galileo, and you lie about the modern practice of science.

Independent opinion without scientific research is not science, and while it is rare, you do not need a PhD to have scientific research published. Nor is a PhD in the sciences sufficient to have your opinion published as scientific evidence, if you don't have scientific research to back it up. As has been repeated ad nauseum, the requirement to make a claim to scientific accuracy for a proposed scientific explanation for the workings of any natural phenomena is scientific evidence gathered under controlled conditions utilizing the scientific method. There are plenty of people out there, like you, in religion and in industry who pretend to make scientific claims and thus distort the practice of science.

People can philosophize about anything they want. But the moment they make scientific claims they have to back it up with scientifically gathered evidence.

So NB, stop being such a sleaze. Instead of relying on distortions and lies, try to making an argument based on its merits openly and honestly.

nightbloom wrote:

from wikipedia:

Again with the distortions eh, NB. Is it genetic with you or is it something nurtured in you from birth?

nightbloom:

"We need to invent a new term for the outlook you (and Dawkins) give voice to: Scientific Dogmatism .... or how about Scientific Fundamentalism."

Ha! So now it's "fundamentalism" to ask for proof?

James Burns - That's a very truncated history you've posted there. It totally distorts an historical contoversy that waged for decades during Galileo's lifetime within the scientific community and learned society at large.

Distortions? Delusions? Lying? Resentfulness? Not sure what you're projecting onto me in this debate. If your little wiki-paste job represents your perspective on what was actually a very complex historical period replete with shades of grey, then you could do with a little more rationalism and a little less labelling and categorization. For those who argue in favour of science and/or secularization, I'd counsel them to avoid that kind of smugly simplistic categorization of their opposition - Dawkins most of all.

"""Ha! So now it's "fundamentalism" to ask for proof?"""

Not at all. But who's calling who "delusional" here...? They're not just asking for proof: their pathologizing anyone who doesn't subscribe to their world-view. That's fundamentalism by any standard. I think the "religious problem" in society is going to require a more oblique approach than the ham-handed Dawkins is capable of. I think there needs to be a bit more interdisciplinary "live and let live" on the part of those who put themselves forward as spokesmen for their discipline....and make no mistake: that is exactly what Dawkins is presuming to do (... and all the way to the bank at that!).

The least he can do for us is put a little more meat on the stick, stop preaching to the converted, and engage in a genuine mature inter-disciplinary discussion and debate of the historical interrelationship of religion, authority, culture, society, and government. Based on what I've read here, he falls very short, and fails even to demonstrate the premise of his title.

Again, I hope he is challenged by other professions and vocations on his use of the term "delusion". It's polemic, not science.

"I didn't say anything about the Church"

Your implication was that Truman and other woo-meisters are analogous in some bizarre way to the persecuted genius, Galileo. You do indeed have things reversed. The woo-people would more approprately be compared the the Church of Galileo's day, promulgating Faith in fantasies, and outright lying when it suits their needs. If there is any one common characteristic of "Intelligent Design" preachers, it is dishonesty.

"I wonder how Dawkins goes about dismissiing the vast cultural repository that religious faith has generated over the millennia"

He doesn't. Quite likes Church architecture, in fact.

"Anyone not in possession of a PhD in the sciences who has an independent opinion will be invalidated, disenfranchised and ultimately pathologized as delusional.

Major resentment. People at the top of the science world had to work bloody hard for their achievments, and they do have a great deal of expertise. While they can be wrong like everyone else, their achievements do tend to give them more authority. I don't agree with everything Dawkins says, but I sure as hell respect what he knows, and I take him just a little more seriously than someone who looks up "nucleotides" in a book and then thinks he's a world-class biologist.

nightbloom:

"Based on what I've read here, he falls very short, and fails even to demonstrate the premise of his title."

You haven't even read the book?! You're basing your criticisms of Dawkins just based on this revue and the comments?!

"Not at all."

Well, you said that James Burns embodied some sort of dogmatic outlook when he said that "Until you have scientifically verifiable data for a creator, all your assertions are utterly empty from a scientific perspective". Now you're reversing yourself.

"But who's calling who "delusional" here...? They're not just asking for proof: their pathologizing anyone who doesn't subscribe to their world-view."

Who do you mean by "they"? James Burns?

"How about this: "The book of Numbers tells how God incited Moses to attack the Midianites. His army made short work of slaying all the men, and they burned all the Midianite cities, but they didn't kill the women and children. This merciful restraint by his soldiers infuriated Moses, and he gave orders that all the boy children should be killed, and all the women who were not virgins. 'But all the women children, that have have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves' (Numbers 31: 18)." (from The God Delusion, p. 245) - Chris H"

This is, of course, a highly condensed version of Chapter 31 which is about 15 times longer than Dawkin's, condensed version. The chapter can be intrepreted in two ways. Its is either a spiritual war (of which death means change in belief and identity), or it is a natural one. Dawkins offers the natural interpretation. I offer the spiritual one, as the vaste majority of Moses works in his books are intended to be interpreted in such a way.

Numbers CH 31 describes a spiritual war, not a natural one. Note that the men are slain with swords (swords mean truth and did swords even exist back then? Asia, maybe) and the cities are burned with fire (old identity is destroyed). Those who are slain, are actually converted to Judaism. Note that this is a major effort by all of the tribes of Israel towards the Midianites at the time. Moses blows up on his warrior's because they left the virgins alone (those who were spiritually pure), but did not convert the women who were not pure, nor male children. He leaves ritual instructions of intent to make pure everything physically taken with fire and water (explaining why these things were taken). The city itself appears to be plundered, but this isn't an absolute concerning interpretation, since the OT was translated from Hebrew to English and has some room for error.

It should be said that there isn't an ojbect found in the bible, no form of metal or jewel, no natural object such as rock or stone or mountain or river or ocean or cloud or sky, nor animal or insect or fowl that does not have a spiritual meaning attached to it. This includes life and death as well. To not know what these spiritual meanings are, is where the average reader, and also the most seemingly schooled of priests and reverends go wrong. I may not have studied under a recognized college or university of sorts, but I do know that much... and that makes me, highly likely to know more than most, especially compared to someone the likes of Dawkins. Hope that helps, Chris H.

Booker, you don't seem interested in having a real disussion about this. You've sidestepped every point I've made. You also get a number of things wrong:

1. Truman is no "woo-meister". I've been following his posts on & off for a while now, and even though I may disagree with some or all of his ideas, he is not and never has pitched woo on these threads. Again, you might want to ease up on your labelling habit and take people at face value.

2. A lot of scientists work hard; some of them make it, and a lot more of them don't. Just like any other discipline. In fact, a lot of non-university people work pretty damn hard too...some probably a lot harder than even Dawkins. I have my opinion on the comparative publishing/research/career trajectory of scientists and arts/social science scholars. But that's not the point. You seem to have made an idol out of him and scientists generally, and that's not a healthy thing. Scientists can be carpetbaggers too.

3. You told Truman that until he can provide scientifically verifiable proofs, then what he was saying was essentially false. I responded with the historical fact that this was basically what they told Galileo. He had provided incorrect proofs for a theory that was subsequently validated using other means. Just because someone hasn't worked out the proof yet, doesn't make a theory invalid. I'm not endorsing Truman's opinion, but I'm not dismissing it dogmatically in the manner you seem to be doing.

4. Your quick take on the Galileo controversy showcases your own susceptibility to propagandistic and ahistorical distortions. You've regurgitated the same bromides you've evidently been spoon fed. Clearly an abuse of power occurred in the Galileo trials, but that whole episode did not unfold in the manner that has been perpetuated in pop culture and media. There was a lot more going on than just "martyred scientist versus evil churchmen"....although every cult seems to need a martyr, so why not the cult of scientism too.

I'm open to listening to Dawkins' conjecture on whether God exists or not, but that's not what he seems to be doing. I think the title says it all. He's using his stature as a world-renowned pop scientist to launch a polemic. That's fine. But it ain't science.

Re: "Those who are slain, are actually converted to Judaism." is an oversimplification, if not outright error. Moses is considered to be the founder of the Jewish faith, but Judaism is a religion that evolved obviously through time.

One of the things I've learned here on this thread (or at least have become consciously aware of) is that I've made mistakes that are often repeated by a good number of people on this site. These mistakes include:

- oversimplification.
- generalization.
- grammatical and spelling errors.
- error in misintrepreting what others say.
- lacking a clearcut definitions of certain words.
- even, every once in a while, losing patience. :-)
And for that, I thank everyone who's helped me to bring it to my conscious attention.

In the realm of debate (and that is in large part, what we do) there are sometimes winners and losers, but upon reflection, if there really are clearcut arguements that put opposing arguements to rest, there are, by this definition, no losers but only winners, unless egos come into play.

Pure science has no room for egos (regardless of what scientists are often capable of). It deals with evidence that is used to support hypothesis (educated guesses). One gets enough educated guesses together with common denominators, and next thing you know, one has a theory going. Some theories are obviously more reasoned and thought out than others. Some will obviously fail to stand the test of time, while others will not, or will need to be revised to continue to stand.

Earlier, I have put forth a theory supported by 5 hypothesis that God (defined as a lifeform that is responsible for the existence of life on earth) does, in fact, exist. All principles goals aside that this highly evolved life form might have (should this lifeform exist), is the theory mere philosophy, or could it be submitted as an actual theory? That's what I want to know (even though gentlemen like James Burns suggests there isn't enough evidence within the integration of two existing theories to support Hyothesis A, from which B through E draw heavily from. 'lil help? I wouldn't mind some feedback on this.

nightbloom:

"You told Truman that until he can provide scientifically verifiable proofs, then what he was saying was essentially false."

I've read alot of the Truman/Booker discussion, and I don't think Booker made the statement, or anything like it. If you could please provide a quote...

"I'm open to listening to Dawkins' conjecture on whether God exists or not, but that's not what he seems to be doing."

Well, if you haven't read the book, how would you know?

"""Well, if you haven't read the book, how would you know?""""

From my own familiarity with Dawkins' other material, as well as the several other reviews of this particular book that I've read...not to mention the reader commentary here. Then there's the title, which is pure marketing & polemic. Not science.

Again: how are the faithful being "delusional"? Simple enough diagnosis on Dawkins' part = simple question on my part. Does he apply his own rigorous standards to proving this assertion? Apparently not. It's not science; it's the new fundamentalism. Why is it necessary to pathologize religious faith? Ultimately, what Dawkins seems to be peddling is an ideology, not a system of inquiry.

Nightbloom,

Forgive me for misunderstanding your Galileo comparison. I was not aware that the Church told Galileo that until he had scientifically verifiable data that his "theories were not valid from a scientific perspective." Their concern over correctly employing the scientific method had escapted my eye. I guess I just don't quite get what your point was after all.

Indeed, it's debatable whether Dawkins's statement that "there almost certainly is no God" is a "scientific statement". His knowledge of science leads him to make that statement, but that's a somewhat different thing. And "The God Delusion" certainly could be called a polemic -- it's his goal to stir things up, and he has.

As to "labels", someone on this thread has been tossing around "fundamentalist" hither and yon, and now "pop-scientist", and someone else mentioned "pop-evolutionist", but I know you wouldn't stoop to that.

As for "Intelligent Design" creationism...I'm just going to be a bastard and label that "woo". If someone comes up with anything resembling evidence to support it, I'll eat crow. So far, it doesn't look like I'll have to.

that has got to be one of the most idiotic things you've managed to type out in any comments thread. - James Burns

Well sorry NB, but you employ lies at whim to suit whatever distortions you seem to want to create. You lie about Galileo, and you lie about the modern practice of science. - James Burns

So NB, stop being such a sleaze. Instead of relying on distortions and lies, try to making an argument based on its merits openly and honestly. - James Burns

James... these are pretty strong words to use in a debate. Usually such words are used by people who's arguements don't hold water. Whether or not this implies your own arguements are worthless or not, isn't the point, but rather, the point is that it is most certainly doing you no good.

Its like this. An honest man is not capable of lies, but is most certainly capable of fallacies and/or incomplete facts. For you to call someone a direct liar without acknowledging what the definition of a liar or honest person actually is... are you really suggesting that Nightbloom is telling us something that is not only false, but is purposely doing so?

You might want to rethink you're "attitude" and for what its worth, I didn't appreciate being told I was "ignorant" concerning the definition of Theory, when I was not. I found it to be quite insulting. And this constant quoting of enwikepidia. Do you not have the time to research you're arguements to come up with better links? And why not just post the link with a short clip, as opposed to doing what you've been doing? Could you please tone it down some, and offer peole the respect they deserve until its clear within yourself that they don't deserve it? At the very least, it wouldn't be a bad idea to offer an apology in such regards. Why, it might even suggest to the rest of us in reader land that you have an ego that is in check.

Yuck. Just caught James Burn's post from 2 hours ago. Now I'm a apparently "a sleaze" for not endorsing the Dawkins' book, and for not jumping on the ahistoical Galileo martydom bandwagon. And I though the fundies were bad when dealing with opposition...It's funny how it's actually the putative defenders of rational scientism resorting to ad hominem name calling. That's okay: I've been excommunicated by far better cults than this, so no worries...but you might want to get a grip on your language useage, James B.

I stand by what I said: Galileo is neither who nor what he has been presented as in pop science and pop culture. The theories he expounded proved to be correct, though some of the proofs he was using at the time did not stand up, and his eventual persecution and house arrest remains an unjustifiable wrong (though hardly the most grievous wrong to occur in that day & age, relatively speaking). From your reaction, James, you'd think I'd insulted your Jesus or Mohammed or something....They have indeed tried to create a Christ or Socrates out of Galileo, but the historical record is far more ambiguous. Look beyond Wikipedia for a moment and read the history.

And I'm still waiting for someone to provide proof that the faithful are "delusional"...

And "The God Delusion" certainly could be called a polemic -- it's his goal to stir things up, and he has. - Booker

And make alot of money, eh?

As to "labels", someone on this thread has been tossing around "fundamentalist" hither and yon, and now "pop-scientist", and someone else mentioned "pop-evolutionist", but I know you wouldn't stoop to that. - Booker

If, in fact, that's what Dawkins is doing, then what's wrong with it? Dawkins is using labels of his own, is he not? I haven't read a word of Dawkins book, but the title does speak for itself. I guess what I'm really getting at, is if the shoe fits, is there anything wrong with calling a spade a spade?

As for "Intelligent Design" creationism...I'm just going to be a bastard and label that "woo". If someone comes up with anything resembling evidence to support it, I'll eat crow. So far, it doesn't look like I'll have to. - Booker

Interesting that you would use a Christian expression "eating crow" to support your views, lol. Seriously, when we look at man's intelligent design creationism and then look at the possiblities that the universe holds in terms of potential and sheer scale with much longer timelines to play with than what Earth was given... I wouldn't rule out the possiblity that you altering your menu of things to eat ever so slightly. :-)

nightbloom:

"From my own familiarity with Dawkins' other material, as well as the several other reviews of this particular book that I've read...not to mention the reader commentary here."

So without having actually read the book, you feel you can correctly assume Dawkins' arguments? Based on a few reviews, some of which, I'm sure, were downright hostile? Maybe this is what Dawkins means by "delusional".

"Not science."

Do you think that his book is meant to be a scientific refutation of god? Or were you just referring to the title? If it's the former, I am pretty certain that Dawkins would never claim to have found a scientific refutation of god, as that would not be possible.

"Again: how are the faithful being "delusional"? Simple enough diagnosis on Dawkins' part = simple question on my part. Does he apply his own rigorous standards to proving this assertion? Apparently not. It's not science; it's the new fundamentalism. Why is it necessary to pathologize religious faith? Ultimately, what Dawkins seems to be peddling is an ideology, not a system of inquiry."

I'd say that the first step in your inquiry should be to *read the book*. Listen to what Dawkins has to say in his own words. I'm sure that he would provide an argument (unless the word "delusion" in the title is just a marketing gimmick, of course).

And I'm still waiting for someone to provide proof that the faithful are "delusional"...

Well, there was this time when one was testing the other and said, "hey, if you jump off that cliff..."

Brain wrote:

"If, in fact, that's what Dawkins is doing, then what's wrong with it? Dawkins is using labels of his own, is he not? I haven't read a word of Dawkins book, but the title does speak for itself. I guess what I'm really getting at, is if the shoe fits, is there anything wrong with calling a spade a spade?"

Brain, we agree!

LOL - Thanks Brain. I think that's the only answer I'm going to get to that question on this thread! =)

Cheers!

Have you read the book, Jimmy? Just curious (and not morbidly so, lol)

brain:

:-) Nope, though I intend to.

nightbloom wrote:

You can read, so your statement isn't much other th an outright falsehood. Your manipulations have been pointed out, you respond that history is complex. When you can't deal with the evidence, you change tack into muddy waters. And NB, it is altogether rational to point out dishonest behavior, especially in a debate. Categorization is only irrational if it is inaccurate.

It may be correct that Dawkins' pathologizes anyone who doesn't offer scientific evidence of a creator. But he presents a very good argument for doing so. Science works. It more accurately reflects the workings of the universe than any other system of knowledge, and it obtains that knowledge in a fair, open and repeatable manner. It doesn't simply rely on authority and dogma.

As for Dawkins' "ham-handed" approach, strong advocacy of a scientific perspective along with a willingness to point out the inconsistencies and fictions in religious points of view, in some cases subjecting those points of view to ridicule they richly deserve, may be a polemic, but it certainly isn't unfair. That said, having others take a softer approach is also wise. Having a good cop to Dawkins' bad cop is never a bad idea to create bridges. But I think Dawkins' approach is vital to establish that those who ascribe to a scientific perspective are willing to openly and vociferously challenge aggressive fundamentalism.

It is scientifically invalid. People have been trying to demonstrate the existence of a godlike creator for eons. They've been trying to do it with science for centuries. No scientific evidence supports the notion of a godlike creator. How much time, how much research does the god-squad need? Unless and until an established body of scientific evidence conclusively supports the notion of a godlike creator, the notion has no scientific accuracy. Given that science is the most accurate reflection of the natural world, any notion about the world that conflicts with science should be subject to serious doubt, and in some cases ridicule if it diverges dramatically from science supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence, as is the case with evolution and the laws of thermodynamics. Why? Because to not do so is to support what appear to be clear delusions about the nature of reality. Why is that bad? That should be obvious, but the short answer is that delusions lead people into making bad decisions.

"And I'm still waiting for someone to provide proof that the faithful are "delusional"".

Nightbloom, it's an educated opinion. Scientists are allowed to have them. If there is no god, then god-belief is a delusion, by definition. Adding up all the evidence, for and against, Dawkins concludes that it's extremely unlikely (not a 100% certainty) that there is a god. So it's extremely likely, in his view, that god-belief is, in fact, a delusion. A proof that it's a delusion would require a proof that god doesn't exist, which is not possible. Please, please, don't say "well, that's not scientific" again, or I'll have to label something,

Booker:
Ain't debates just grand? lol

NB : lol
Cheers, everyone, I'm going to jam for awhile and listen to some mistakes on a different keyboard of sorts, (I play guitar, myself) so I'm out for a bit of company and fun. God, I luv days off. Catch ya all later. ::-))

the brain:
"Numbers CH 31 describes a spiritual war, not a natural one."

Sorry, brain, don't think so. You need to study a little more Torah dude.

Nothing figurative or satirical about Numbers Ch 31.

Modern Torah analysis never makes the claims you have. Occasionally you'll find a kind of half-assed apology like this:
A war fought thousands of years ago – against the Midianites. The story told in the Torah about the war against the Midianites presents a battle plan that no moral nation today would undertake. Let no one accuse me of ignoring the troublesome passages in the Torah.

Those are the words of Rabbi Barry Leff by the way. I’ll post a link to his Torah commentary on Numbers 31 if you’re interested. It has some interesting things to say about a nation that gets involved in someone else’s quarrel

http://www.neshamah.net/reb_barrys_blog_neshamahn/2006/07/matot_masei_576.html

Okay, I'll give it another shot. Firstly, I'm not among the faithful regarding anything--religion or science, creationism, or evolution by natural selection and mutation--or synergy.

Certainly I'm not a Christian or a creationist. Creationists believe 'god' created life and all of its forms at a singular point in time.

That's nonsense. Life evolved. Its not arguable.

Dawkins stuff is unfortunate (basically disinformation) because so many have bought the idea that his speculations have something to do with the question of the existence of god. They don't. They're entirely epiphenomenal to the issue.

My sincere belief is that Dawkins knows this; he's just dazzling readers with his speculations regarding how evolution might work, some or much of which might be true. This is basically a parlour trick. As a metaphor, its much like describing how aneuploidy in chromosomes is the cause of cancer, even though it is merely a 'result' of of cancer, as are mutations.

Darwin admitted that his work had nothing to do with the existence of god.

Perhaps some day science popularizers like Dawkins will admit the same thing, but I doubt it.

When I say 'god' I mean 'mind' beyond ours, and 'purpose' that predates ours.

I have no understanding of the 'purpose' of god--only suspicious that this 'mind' has some kind of consciousness as the desired effect.

When I say that I believe in 'intelligent design' I mean that the systems of creation appear to have been developed with purpose, and for me, the greatest example is the human genome and the development of nucleated cells with the capability of reproduction and energy dispersal--and nucleotides and amino acids--protein developement, all specifically constructed to do a job--for a PURPOSE that predates their developement.

Google "64 codons," and you you'll get a picture of the genetic code with the the representations of how the nucleotides ALWAYS align with each other for construction of amino acids. This code is the basis of all forms of gene expression including that of humans, fungi, bactera, viruses--all life except some kinds of mitochondria and a few other rare forms. These nucleotides always bond in the same pattern.

Take a look. It's dazzling.

It is not possible to imagine that the genetic code does not have purpose.

Even if you are James Burnsian enough to imagine that it constructed itself with no goals in mind, you MUST conclude that it exists for a REASON, and that reason is to furnish the complexity of life forms.

Therefore the system is intelligent; on some level, which we can't yet understand, it KNOWS what it is doing and it came into existence in order fullfill a role.

The computer scientist whose name I forgot was Gene Myers. Here's what he said as presented by Elizabeth Sahtouris, evolutionary biologist, in her essay, "A Message To Us From Our Genome." (A must read; it's online)

"The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed. There's a huge intelligence here. I don't see that as unscientific; others might, but not me."

Sahtouris writes: "It seems reasonable to suppose that our genomic system, too, is behaving intelligently as a constnt hive of activity now known to edit and repair itself. If it did not know what it was doing, I believe it would revert to chaos in short order."

"Even if you are James Burnsian enough to imagine that it constructed itself with no goals in mind, you MUST conclude that it exists for a REASON, and that reason is to furnish the complexity of life forms".

In fact, I CAN imagine that, since life forms look as if they evolved in an unguided process, they DID evolve in an unguided process. You are simply making the "argument from incredulity".

You earlier said the the human eye was intelligently designed. Sorry, but that's creationism (and I notice that you haven't addressed the issue of how badly designed the eye is. Can you address that?) I realize that you aren't a "young-earther" or a Christian, but Intelligent Design is just creationism dressed up in a new suit.

Anyway, I'm sure there is no evidence that would convince you, and I'll leave it at that. But while you are telling us about why the "Mind" screwed up so badly in making the eye, perhaps you could also tell us why our gene for creating Vitimin C has been broken since just before we diverged from the Apes. I just don't think this theory of Universal Mind stands up to any scrutiny at all, and you haven't provided us with anything that supports it. You've only shown us your incomprehension at how natural selection works. James asked earlier, "Where's the beef?". We're waiting...

Truman,
How can you be certain that the debate about 'purpose' and ‘design’ in issues of god-speculation and the hypothesized presence of 'mind' behind evolution is not just another kind of epiphenomenal effect?

Something very like the idea that something as diverse and discursive as the internet could be anything but an epiphenomenal 'community'.

I'd suggest much of this speculation is just a product of the mind's natural affinity for metaphor and a desire for some kind of certainly - however illusory.

I think one could even speculate that the 'invention' of various conspiracy theories to 'explain' complex and difficult aspects of current affairs is a manifestation of a similar tendency.

Humans don't like randomness and uncertainty while the pure sciences acknowledge and, at best, live with it. Contingency is a fact - always has been. Certainty is the illusion.

James Burns - If you're going to toss around ad hominem broadsides like that, you'd better back them up with something. You're a little over the top, passing nasty judgments on everyone like a...well, ahem, religious fundamentalist.

My characterization of the Galileo fiasco is pretty close to the mark. Everyone who's read the history knows it's become conflated. Your assertion that I'm a liar and manipulator in contradicting popular misperceptions is baseless. Read the history of that whole controversy. While his treatment was unjustified, it's not as black and white as it has been taught in modern times, and Galileo wasn't really a martyr for free enquiry to the extent he has been portrayed. So enough with your silly name-calling.

Truman: thanks for again making the effort to carefully explain your viewpoint.

"...my incomprehension at how natural selection works," eh.

Here's how it supposedly works: Let's take Darwin's wolves. According to his "Origins," packs of wolves chase deer. The toughest, fastest, biggest wolf will get a bigger share of the meat by virtue of its prowess. Therefore, according to 'natural selection,' that individual will be the best nourished, and therefore most likely to breed with the females, therefore, most likely to have its genome flung into the future. As Spencer claimed, "the fittest survive."

Besides, being a tautology, (fittest survive, eh, so what) Problem is Darwin interpreted this exactly backwards.

Natural selection is about change; among animals its about how speciation occurs. Remember, it's always about speciation--as in the Origin of Species. No speciation; no species, no 'natural selection.'

Darwin claimed that natural selection occurred because there is competition among individuals within the same species.

Unfortunately, Darwin lacked the intelligence to understand that the competition between members in the wolf species, indeed families, occurred EXACTLY SO THAT GENETIC CHANGE WOULD NOT OCCUR.

There was, as Darwin claimed competion, but that competition was not a vehicle for a change but a vehicle for LACK OF CHANGE.

The strongest wolf was best example of a genomic archetype, a super wolf, if you like, which got to breed with the females IN ORDER THAT INFERIOR INDIVIDUALS would be kept out, at least statistically, from the mix.

In otherwords competition in predators is to facilitate genomic STASIS, not SPECIATION. The exact opposite of the claims of Darwinians and neo-Darwinians like Dawkins. It's all a mistake, and it happen because of lack of neuronal complexity.

Another example. This time Darwin's 'sexual selection,' a variation of the same theme. Male herbivores or carnivores do battle, infrequently to death.

Darwinians claim that these battles occur in order that the species over millions of years will gradually and progressively change. However, this is an error. Sexual selection, again, like competitive predation is all about genetic Stasis. The toughest, best looking, or most visually appealling individual is always the best ARCHETYPE of the species. (How the females know this will have to remain a mystyery. Like human females they are not alway sseriously impressed with nice guys.)

This sexual competition is about disallowing the kind of genetic transfer that would weaken, or change the species. Again about maintaining the species; not changing it. Stasis; not speciation.

Regarding environmental selection, again another variation on the same natural selection theme... let's look at 'industrial melanism.'

For many years evolutionists used the peppered moth in Britain's industrial areas to claim that the coal dust that landed on trees supplied the environmental change that caused speciation in the peppered moth--from white to dark-coloured moths. The idea was that as the trees were covered with coal dust the birds that fed on the moths couldn't see the dark moths which occasionally arose in a population by mutation so the result was that the birds ate only the white moths, and gradually the whole species morphed into only dark moths.

Besides, being a simple-minded observation that could be compared to the result of Europeans slaughtering all of the original Indians on pre-slavery Haiti and claiming that only white people remained, it was proved that, in fact, both variations remained in exstence exactly as they did before the dust arrived.

Google "peppered moth," or "peppered moth."

I had fifteen hundred more words but I had to reduce it. It was all about why mutations are alwaus retrograde and how artificial selection in domestic dogs never results in speciation--all dogs remain reproductively compatible regardless of how how they have been selected for thousands of years.

Booker, regarding your suspicion that the human eye is poorly designed...notwithstanding the presumption of 'intent,' in your claim--which I think you fail to recognize--suffice to say that degradation appears to be built into the system too. Who would have wrapped the prostate gland around the urethra, eh, so that as men age and their prostrates enlargen, the flow from their bladders will be compromised? Poorly designed? Are you sure?
Dawkins probably bit his tongue trying not to laugh if he claimed that the placement of the vessels in the back of the eyeball was done in error.

Synergy of the prostrate and urethra for another reason--probably.

Placement of the vessels in the eyeball... probably just as intended.
And Book, why is your "poorly designed' not just flawed creationism?

Also, although it's pleasantly anthropomorphic of you to assume empathy in my proposed 'purpose,' it's your claim, not mine.

All life is designed to die, too, eh. Poorly designed? Are you sure?

prostates, not prostrates, of course.

Truman:

"It is not possible to imagine that the genetic code does not have purpose."

Of course it has a purpose. To store genetic information. Who would disagree with that?

"Darwin lacked the intelligence to understand..."

Steady on, Truman! I wouldn't compare myself to Darwin, unless you've been awarded a Nobel prize and haven't told us.

I assume your post was directed at me as well...

"Placement of the vessels in the eyeball... probably just as intended.
And Book, why is your "poorly designed' not just flawed creationism?"

It does not make *any* sense to put arteries, which absorb light, in front of the light sensitive apparatus. It also leaves a gaping hole in our field of view where the veins and arteries pass from the outside of the eye to the inside. In eyes of other types of animals the arteries are behind the light sensitive regions.

You could say that maybe the designer sometimes made mistakes, but then nothing is falsifiable. In other words, there is no evidence that could, in principle, be found to diisprove the hypothesis. If I say "look at this example of bad design" you say that it was a mistake or it was "probably just as intended" and don't explain further. Otherwise you claim "intelligent design".

Truman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable

So what causes speciation? Can it occur spontaneously, as a result of co-factors not accounted for in Darwin's natural selection and Theory of Evolution?

Or is this where the intelligent design argument kicks in....that species reach a certain point and something "times out", in a manner similar to the degradation which occurs with the progressive shortening of the telomeres in cells as they replace themselves (i.e. Watson and Olovnikov's 'end replication problem'), leading to incremental failure in the body's systems as we age?

Hey, Jimmy Laroux, I think you're getting close. Okay, you admit that, "Of course the genetic code has purpose--to store genetic information."

You better be careful, once you accept 'purpose,' which predates humans you're getting close to thinking about intelligence in nature. The systems are in place for reasons which predate the products that they're in place to construct.

Sounds like some kind of planning to me, Jimmy.

So...the code preexisted the organisms it constructed. Its 'intent' is to do something; to devise a set of dna sequences for the construction of proteins of which all the cellular raw materials are comprised, and everything else that is needed for the micro and macro developement of organisms.

At some level the system has come into existence in order to construct organisms and 'knows' exactly how to sequence, in unbelievably complex combinations, all of the products needed to construct molecules, cells and organisms. KNOWS, Jimmy, eh. KNOWS. See what I mean?

Something related to the system has AWARENESS of future events and has constructed a program comprised of sequences to, if not guarantee, then at least to increase the probability of specialized organisms coming into existence.

The system is intelligent, Book and Jimmy; It KNOWS what it is doing. There's planning involved. Did you read Sahtouris' "A message to us from our genome," yet?"

My eureka predated my discover of that essay, but what a revelation it was when I learned that evolutionary biologists were coming to the same conclusions as I.

As far as falsifiability--well if you keep looking you might arrive at a lack of falsifiability as one of the major contraindications for 'natural selection,' as anything that happens can said to be 'natural.'

Truman:

"You better be careful, once you accept 'purpose,' which predates humans you're getting close to thinking about intelligence in nature. The systems are in place for reasons which predate the products that they're in place to construct."

If someone asks you what your legs are for, what do you say? You would likely say "getting around" or something similar. I bet if I asked Dawkins what his legs were for, he'd say the same thing. Clearly the word "purpose" does not imply design.

I don't know what you mean by the second sentence in the quote above.

"At some level the system has come into existence in order to construct organisms and 'knows' exactly how to sequence, in unbelievably complex combinations, all of the products needed to construct molecules, cells and organisms. KNOWS, Jimmy, eh. KNOWS. See what I mean?"

This sounds to me like the joke about the thermos:

http://www.billsbest.com/thermos.html

It just KNOWS!

I'm not sure about what you mean by "anything that happens can said to be 'natural."

"As far as falsifiability--well if you..."

As I've said before, I am not a biologist, and to be honest all I've read about biological evolution is the book by Dawkins I mentioned above, "The Blind Watchmaker". So I won't comment about natural selection. But it does not change the fact that "intelligent design", as you've described it, does not seem to me to be falsifiable.

That goofy old Karl Popper and his falsibiability again, eh. Of course intelligent design is not falsifiable. We're talking major red herring here. If it is a true description of the creation of the world and the evolution of life, there are no exceptions to it and no special antitheses by which it can be disproven. Popper claims: If you say all chickens are stupid and you can find a smart chicken, then that proves that you're wrong. Therefore your theory about all chickens being white is at least falsifiable, therefore reputable. But this hardly applies to the universe, the creation of which we know nothing. We only have only suspicions, our own and those of others, which we hope are arrived at by good faith observations, devoid of religion, ideology or agenda.

Who made Karl Popper, God, eh. Jimmy? Falsifiability, like Occam's Razor, is highly overrated, anyhow.

And Jimmy, you say, "Steady on, Truman. I wouldn't comare myself to Darwin."

I've got a challenger for you. Go out and find a complete copy of Darwin's, "The Descent Of Man" and read it. Then come back and tell me that it's not one of the silliest books you've ever read. Did you ever wonder why no educational jurisdiction on earth has ever had it on the curriculum?

Some of his brilliant Forrest Gumptions: Pg 230 in the Thinkers Library edition:

Talking about the 'races':

"But since he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, SUB-SPECIES. (My emphasis, Jimmy) Some of those, such as the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as GOOD AND TRUE SPECIES."

Being black myself, Jimmy, this kinda stuff tends to choke my chicken a bit, eh. And no 'presentist' excuses, either, by which we're advised not to judge the past by today's values. Few of Darwin's contemporaries were this stupid.

Beyond my self-interested bias, Jimmy, Darwin wasn't all that bright, honest. His goofy theories were accepted by a world desperate for some suitable mockery of religion, and Jonathan Swift was long dead, and too timid, anyway. You know, Popes and Raptures and like that.

Recommended reading: The Descent of Man. His book on the Emotions of Animals is hilarious too. And trust me, Jimmy, "natural selection" is easily one of the silliest ideas ever imagined by human beings, unless you're considering it for a more mundane occurrence than the evolution of species--like picking straws to see who goes first, or something, or choosing up teams for a softball game.

Truman, you start with sentience, and then move to purpose and finally causation. You put the cart before the horse. Developmentally it happened in reverse. That is where all the scientific evidence points. Again, and again you anthropomorphize natural processes. Why? What purpose does that serve other than as a mental reinforcment for your desire to believe in a creator? It is a fundamental error you are making. There is not a shred of support scientifically for your notion that sentience lays behind the creation of DNA. It also begs the question, if there is a creator, what created it?

Ultimately it comes down to the notion of order, and why it exists. From Corning's perspective, to massively oversimplify, order occurs because it more effectively utilizes ambient energy than less ordered systems. Natural selection then favors ordered systems that utilize energy more effectively than other competing systems. The genesis of ordered systems were synergistic effects of the physical properties of matter that accidentally combined. Subsequent ordered systems, however, are not necessarily accidental. Why does complexity tend to increase? Because more complex systems tend to be more effective at utilizing energy due to the effects of multi-level synergies.

I'll go back to Corning again:

and a little later Corning writes

http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/holistic.html
So what underlies biological co-operation? Why is it there? Well I included it in my summary above, but Corning calls it Thermoeconomics or Bioeconomics.
(continued...)

(continued...) the following from:
http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/pdf/thermoecon.pdf

So finally what is this "control information", Corning refers to in the quote above. It something that Truman seems to suss out, but that he mistakenly anthropormorphizes with sentience. Well here is Corning's definition:

For the full article:
http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/pdf/control_info.pdf

For anyone who really wants to take the time to understand this stuff, I'd highly recommend reading Corning's publications. He does a very good job providing illustrative examples. And his citations of other research is extensive.

Truman wrote:

Ah ok, now I think I understand a little more clearly. You have a political problem with Darwin's natural selection, because Darwin may have been racist?

You quote from the Descent of Man, but you don't provide the full context of Darwin's passage:

That doesn't read like someone supporting a notion of racial superiority Truman. Darwin did after all include "Europeans" as a sub-species, and he doesn't seem to indicate one is inferior as far as I can tell from that passage. In fact, he says in the passage above:

So I don't really understand where you're coming from with the racism angle. If anything Darwin seems to be indicating that modifications, such as so-called racial characteristics, were a result of fitness adaptations for their environments.

Your dismissal of Darwin also doesn't present any argument from a scientific perspective. You label him as racist, and you just repeatedly call him silly. Sorry but that doesn't cut it.

the brain:
"Numbers CH 31 describes a spiritual war, not a natural one."

Sorry, brain, don't think so. You need to study a little more Torah dude.

Nothing figurative or satirical about Numbers Ch 31.

Modern Torah analysis never makes the claims you have. Occasionally you'll find a kind of half-assed apology like this:
A war fought thousands of years ago – against the Midianites. The story told in the Torah about the war against the Midianites presents a battle plan that no moral nation today would undertake. Let no one accuse me of ignoring the troublesome passages in the Torah.

Those are the words of Rabbi Barry Leff by the way. I’ll post a link to his Torah commentary on Numbers 31 if you’re interested. It has some interesting things to say about a nation that gets involved in someone else’s quarrel

G West:

This "apology" from the Rabbi Barry is useless, if he would ever have understood this passage correctly. Most modern "interpreters" as you say, know jack about their craft. As I was saying, and will repeat myself, there are two ways to interpret Chapter 31 in Numbers. One is natural and loosely goes like this:

"Moses commands his Levites and warriors of the other 12 tribes of Israel to go to war against the Midianites to avenged the God of Midian. His warriors proceed to kill all of the men, slaughter all of the boy's and women who weren't virgins, and take the virgins for their own to "pass around". Then, the city was looted and sacked and burned and the spoils were divided up amoungst Moses favorites." And to this, I say its a complete crock.

The spiritual version goes like this. Moses summons his spiritual warriors from All the 12 tribes of Israel to a spiritual war against Israel (telling is 31 verse 6). The men die a spiritual death, slain with swords (telling in itself. The spiritual definition of sword is truth of which there are a good 50 or so usages of swords in the bible, perhaps more and if you get this one wrong, you aren't ready for spiritual definitions 101 and aren't ready to interpret oh, much of anything). The cities were burnt with fire (this could easily indicate that it went through a fire ritual, not a natural burning). The virgins are spared because they are spiritually pure (and no, not in a "biblical sense") and are to be kept alive (spiritually alive) as so they should. the cities and all of their idols go through a fire ritual for cleansing (gold, silver, iron, tin, bronze, lead, and keep in mind, these metals have their spiritual meanings. Gold is wisdom, as an example). The rest goes through a water separation ritual (preps it for a spiritual death). The spoils of prey and "booty" are distributed among the warriors and the congregation, 50/50. Whats interesting is the prey and "booty" being talked about are the Midianites themselves... and they aren't slaves. So the spiritual war is over, but the teachings have just started.

This sadly confused spiritual war for the natural, is nothing more than a religious conversion that isn't to far off from say,Jesuits conquering natives in the Phillipines or Latin America? Only Moses writes about it descriptively in his spiritual meanings fashion of most of his words and goes about it in the way it should be. Warring with truth and holy instruments and trumpets and such... And the proof? Of 5 Median kings that are slain three of the names of those kings appear in later works of Moses and the major and minor prophets. And one of the Kings slain son's, Balaam, is also alive and well in later works (which is interesting, as individuals are usually later given a new name after a spiritual death that leads to a new life/identity). G West, I shit you not. I don't care if some Jewish priest doesn't get it right. Most don't get this one right. Most don't have the wherewithall to intrepret these scriptures properly. But when an Eagle from the East does a flybye, you might wanna pay attention to what the eagle has to say. ;-)

"This "apology" from the Rabbi Barry is useless, if he would ever have understood this passage correctly. Most modern "interpreters" as you say, know jack about their craft."

So, your argument is that the rabbi is wrong because your interpretation is correct? And you wonder why people are confused when every priest, rabbi, and minister comes up with completely different conclusions from reading the same text? Obviously, the bible is so unclear, with so little clarity, it is pretty much useless in helping me lead a spiritual life. The brainwashing that happened to me as a child, complete with a baptisim against my will, shouldn't be seen as a good thing.

I leave this discussion not being convinced that there really is a god, but know that I cannot dispute the possibility altogether. If there is a god, and the First Testament is a literal truth, I wouldn't want much to do with him anyways. I believe that there is just as much chance of the christian god existing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Hard to prove he doesn't exist either.

I hope everyone has a happy christmas. It's all about friends, family, and giving. I don't need god to share in that.

Brain,
The OLD TESTAMENT is a Jewish text. There are a variety of Jewish interpretations and Christian interpretations but, on balance, the Mosaic books, Deuteronomy and Numbers are books of JEWISH history and law..

The point the Rabbi was making is that no civilized nation would today behave the way Moses commanded his people to deal with the Midianites. You can accept whatever fundamentalist spin you want to put on these historical events but I can show you all kinds of learned Jewish exegesis and history which confirms the Torah version.

There is a huge difference between the "God" of the Torah and the God of the New Testament and no learned Jew or Christian would pretend it wasn't so.

That's one of the reasons people with minds of their own and an ability to think for themselves 'turn off' religion. So much of it makes no sense in a world where what’s obviously needed is more empathy and understanding and a lot less ‘spiritual’ interpretation.

In short though, I’ll go to Rabbinic sources to interpret Jewish writings. Dawkins chose his reference well.

Tuman wrote:

"Besides, being a tautology, (fittest survive, eh, so what) Problem is Darwin interpreted this exactly backwards."

Natural selection states that traits advantageous to survival allow an organism to reproduce more successfully than organisms without that trait. That trait, over time, can spread throughout the population. There's nothing tautological about that. The term "survival of the fittest" is not a very accurate term to describe the process, and evolutionary biologists don't use it.

Natural selection is what causes us to get the cold virus each winter, and it's what causes antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It has been OBSERVED.

Truman wrote:

"The strongest wolf was best example of a genomic archetype, a super wolf, if you like, which got to breed with the females IN ORDER THAT INFERIOR INDIVIDUALS would be kept out, at least statistically, from the mix"

There are no genomic archetypes. If there is a "superwolf", there must be "superhumans". This smells of you-know-what. This could be from the mind some German philospher, but it hasn't a thing to do with the real world.

You still have not explained why the "designer" srews up so badly and makes basic "design" flaws that any mere human engineer would never make.

Nightbloom wote:

"So what causes speciation? Can it occur spontaneously, as a result of co-factors not accounted for in Darwin's natural selection and Theory of Evolution".

No, species don't pop into existence magically. Organisms change over time because of a variery of factors related to survival pressures. When two populations have diverged significantly so that they no longer breed or exchange genetic information with each other, we say the have become different "species". "Species" is a term we use to describe two different populations. There is no immutable "species-dom". Species are mutable and ever-changing according to the pressures placed on them by the environment.

Well James, Darwin thought blacks and whites were not entirely in the same species and he was positive that Europeans were vastly superior. Read his nonsense about 'savages' presented all over his 'Discent.' You must be kidding.

I figured you'd claim that my view of Darwin's racism had inspired my suspicion that 'purpose' existed in the world before humans, knowing how your mind works, but no, this has nothing to do with my suspicion that there was some kind of purpose in the world even before human beings got here. To me it's just obvious, regardless of what the insipid religionists have tried to make out of it for their own purposes. (Believers get special salvation or get to be among a group of special people, etc) Do you really imagine that there's a single scientist who who not be labelled a racist for believing that blacks and whites represented sub-species?

More of Darwin's crap: pg. 202-203 Descent of Man, Thinker's Edition

"The American aborigines, Negroes, and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, showing how similar their minds were to ours..."

Some more crap: pg 194

"A certain amount of absorption of mulattoes into negroes must always be in progess; and this would lead to an apparent dimunuition of the former. The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy work as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a different consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a roof of the specific distinctness of the parent races. No doubt both animal and vegetable hybrids, when produced from extremely distinct secies, ae liable to premature deaths..."

And more: "Even if it should hereafter be proved that all the races of men were perfectly fertile together, he who was inclined from other reasons to rank them as distinct species, might with justice argue that fertility and sterility are not safe criterions of specific distinctness."

The whole book reads as though it was intended as a comedy, James.

Try this: "From these several considerations, it may be justly urged that the perfect fertility of the intercrossed races of man, if established, would not absolutely preclude us from tanking them as distinct species."

Or, even if live, fertile young can be born from crossings between the races, it does still not prove that they're not two distinct species.

I would venture to guess that in the history of the world there has not been a more racist sentence written, or at least published by a serious scientist.

The guy was an idiot, James. Read the whole book.

If either Truman or Nightbloom or anybody wants to read a great book for the general reader on evolution, try "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: the New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom, by Sean Carrol. The author is a co-blogger on the terrific Cosmic Variance, here:

http://cosmicvariance.com/

"The guy was an idiot, James. Read the whole book"

The guy was a typical Victorian, which meant being racist, imperialist, sexist. Nevertheless, he was pretty progressive for the age. He abhored slavery, which still existed when the Origin was published, and that issue caused a great rift between he an Fitzroy on The Beagle.

You can't condemn modern biology by attacking what was thought 150 years ago.

Truman,
That's unfair. I'm not excusing Darwin's ethnocentrism - he was a Victorian and the product of a colonial mentality.

You have to consider when he wrote and what kinds of things were current at the time.

His role as a seminal thinker in the history of science and knowledge is secure.

To call him an idiot because he doesn't conform to your early 21st century notions is nonsense.

People are of and in their time - very few of them transcend it in every respect.

"People are of and in their time - very few of them transcend it in every respect."

Yes, and I wonder how we will be viewed 150 years from now?

No Book, my 'superwolves' (archetypes) meant only those fastest, and most aggressive, or those with the most impression antlers or colouration, like male peacocks--exactly the ones that Darwin claimed would lead to genetic alteration. I think you know what I mean, Booker. Right?

More specifically the idea is that speciation occurs because certain varieties have characteristics that are accidently best suited to environmental change and an acccumulation of such beneficial characteristics over millions of years accounts for the continual alterations of species.

The main problem with this is that the varieties must by virtue of the genetic stability, be constantly overridden by the preponderance of genetic information in the vast preponderance of individuals, and accidentally-arising mutations are more likely to be overcome than continued.

Booker, a species is a group of organisms which can successfully mate to produce live and fertile offspring.

I do suspect that because of the exponential rate of reproduction that bacteria are capable of, it is possible to create 'superbugs' with the overuse of antibiotics. Binary fission in bacteria, for instance can increase a population of E-coli or enterococcus from a few individuuals to millions with hours. This is probably why a normal benign bacteria like hemolytic streptococcus can infrequently morph into a deadly form that causes necrotizing fascitis--flesh-eating disease. Some unknown environmental change has allowed a mutated sequence and binary fission has allowed it beome viable within the streptococcus genome, instead of destroying it, as is usually the case with 'higher' life forms.

This is where natural selection makes sense, because the altered sequence can be so rapidly dispersed among an emerging population.

However, nothing like this will ever occur among animals that reproduce sexually, and eventually this failure will be seen as the fatal contraindication for the idea that natural selection accounts for the progression from procaryotes to human beings. Sexual reproduction is just too slow, whereas bacteria, because of their exponential reproductive technique (binary fission) are able to immediately share genetic information, even repair mistakes in sequencing.

So, natural selection in bacteria? Yes.

Hi, G. West. Yes, and that's exactly why I would recommend that people not take Darwin's ideas too seriously. Get a copy of the "Descent of Man," G. and study the entire thing, especially all his stuff about 'savages.'

This was not a serious thinker for whom we should hold such reverence, G.

Not sure why you call the most successful individuals (i.e. "superwolves") "archetypes", but, whatever.

"The main problem with this is that the varieties must by virtue of the genetic stability, be constantly overridden by the preponderance of genetic information in the vast preponderance of individuals, and accidentally-arising mutations are more likely to be overcome than continued"

That's not how genetic iheritance works. And natural selection works on all living things, not just some species. Mutation is not the only factor leading to change, but neverthelesss, mutations have been observed to spread through populations, and study of DNA has confirmed that over and over. The science is extremely strong.

Evolution among sexually reproduicng organisms is slow in terms of the human lifespan, but life has had an almost inconcievalbe amount of time in which to evolve. A lack of appreciation for "deep time" is the biggest barrier to understanding evolution.

There is no need for an Intelligent Designer. It's an unparsemonious hypothesis. It's a religious concept, not a scientific one. As James said above, you have a habit of anthropomorphizing nature.

Disagree Truman. Profoundly. What do you think you'd have been writing if your dates were - 1809 – 1882? I've read it. Along with a lot of the stuff his contemporaries wrote. He was a seminal thinker to whom we own a great deal.
Abraham Lincoln didn't fight the Civil War to emancipate the slaves - despite the press he's gotten ever since. I’m sure you know that too, Truman.

Oh and here's a journal article you should consult - relative to the statements you've been making just above. There are many others that talk about speciation in animals.
Unfortunately I can't give you access to the whole thing and it's way too long to post:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0147(197911)114%3A5%3C719%3AAMFSSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z

Booker says, "Mutations have been known to spread through populations."

True, but they never cause speciation and never become universal within a species--only degradation--such as birth defects, such as aneuploidal representation of chromosome 21, (trisomy 21 Downs Syndrome) and inherited illnesses like Huntington's.

This is an intellectual stretch, I admit, but I know that if mutations cannot cause speciation, environmentally 'selected' variations will not, either, unless the sequencing alterations that caused the variations becomes universal within the genome.

So how the evolutionists figured that mutations could ever cause speciation is a mystery to me. I admit I just don't understand it.

In fact, evolutionists wary of finding none by a few controversial 'transitional species' have now given up the hunt and taken to claiming that all species are transitional. Not only a massive cop-out, but uniquely in science (almost) dihonest. No transitional species, yet, eh. "Missing links," for instance. Not to mention the problem with falsifiability.

The natural selectionists adopted mutations because they couldn't find the transitional species which would have proven not only 'evolution,' but also its claimed mechanism, 'natural selection.'

Stephen Jay Gould rationalized huge anomalies in the fossil record, with species seeming to appear suddenly, so he invented his 'punctuated equilibria,' one of the better jokes around evolutionary theory. Even a certain UBC conventional evolutionary professor, Dolphe Schluter, with whom I had a long email discussion (read argument) on natural
selection figured Gould's equilibria were, in fact, quite unbalanced.

Whatever causes evolution has not yet been discovered.

I have an idea that it has something to do with the saturation of variations, but I can't get beyond it, and that would merely be another mechanism, anyway, not an indication of how it came into existence--like all the evolutionists ideas from Edward Blyth and Russell Wallace (from whom Darwin 'borrowed' most of his ideas, of course--trust me, the idiot who wrote the Descent of Man could never have come up with all those billiant speculations on his own) to Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould who made tons of money with their descriptive analyses.

G. West, redo your Edward Blyth and Russell Wallace, maybe. Darwin's contemporaries. How much do you think Darwin stole from them?

I've come to the conclusion that he stole most of his stuff from them, but it's probably impossible to know. One thing, though. The guy who wrote The Descent of Man wasn't all that bright, G. Don't you agree?

G., It's hip to say that Lincoln didn't fight the war for the slaves. Certainly, he could get up a fair amount of ethnocentrism himself, depending on the location of his speeches. (As when he said that he just couldnt't imagine a world in which blacks and whites were treated equally. Probably noticed some of Darwin's writings) However, it's pretty hard to speculate on peoples' main motivations for doing things. I tend to think that Lincoln was pretty grossed out by slavery but wasn't above a bit of machievellian pandering at times.

Truman wrote:

"True, but they never cause speciation and never become universal within a species--only degradation--such as birth defects, such as aneuploidal representation of chromosome 21, (trisomy 21 Downs Syndrome) and inherited illnesses like Huntington's"

This is simply a wild assertion. You have a model in mind, the Intelligent Designer, and you have to fit all the evidence to fit that model. You don't deny that evolution takes place, while at the same time you say it doesn't cause speciation. You can't have it both ways!

I'm not interested in playing word games with you. If speices are always in flux, then you can legitmately say that all species are "transitional". If you want an "intermediate" species between land animals and aquatic animals, for example, look at Tiktalik. For other intermediate or transitional species (if you must so name them) look at Australopithecus Afarensis, Homo Erectus, and on an on. True, humans were not around to see these species and to take DNA samples from them. But a REASONABLE person, open to evidence, can actually make deductions from observations. A scientist can't say "I declare that species aren't created by natural selection, therefore all the vast body of evidence pointing to just that, is wrong." You sound like someone form the 19th century when only a few fossils had been found. The evidence since then has been literally piling up, pointing to one thing, speciation by natural selection. DNA studies and evo devo only confirm this.

Some biologists still hang onto god-belief, saying that a god started everthing off and then let it all unfold. They are a minority and I don't understand how they can reconcile the two opposing views, but they do try. Perhaps you should read Ken Miller or Francis Collins.

ID creationism is as dead as a Monty Python parrot.

It's pretty obvious that evidence won't convince you, all the best, and see ya later.

Cheeky:

FOOLPROOF:

Mathematical proof is foolproof, it seems, only in the absence of fools

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/54428?&print=yes

Truman simply repeating ad nauseum your misinterpretations of evolutionary science isn't going to make you right.

Your decision that mutation can't result in speciation flies in the face of observed evidence. You acknowledge that natural selection can occur in bacteria, but that it can't in more complex organisms, because it doesn't suit you.

Your alternative explanations to natural selection, frankly, make no sense, and you present no scientific evidence to support them. First of all you totally oversimplify natural selection, and notions of competition. But you also go on to create this notion of genetic stasis that reads simply like the semantic opposite of your misinterpretation of natural selection. All of course, as needs emphasis, without a shred of scientific evidence to support it.

You latch on to old criticisms like the so-called lack of transitional fossils and species like it disproves the whole notion of speciation.

You may have read a lot about science, but you give your own personally formed opinions priority over the painstaking research of others. I'm afraid that makes you look like a nut. If you're going to disagree with the established body of scientific knowledge, the very least you can do is present scientific evidence to back your hubris up. You don't, and can't without a simply huge amount of misinterpretation, selective reading, and selective out of context quotation; not to mention a liberal amount of pure unadulterated speculation, that, because it was something you dreamed up, you assume must be correct.

Maybe you should read up on something else, a little psychology maybe. You seem to have a knack for delusionary thinking. Because, honestly, on this topic, you aren't worth talking to.

I'll stick with my impressions of Darwin, Truman - and my high opinion of Lincoln too for that matter. I don't thing either of them was a saint but they each occupy a deservedly high status in the history of thought, politics and humane letters.

And no, I don't think Darwin was kinda stupid.
best wishes, nontheless,
GW

James Burns, your ad hominem attacks are not evidence.

Narcissists usually believe that the fact that they disapprove of something bears the same weight as evidence. It doesn't. It might be considered to be a very evidenciary example of the delusional thinking that you attribute to me reegarding my opinions about natural selection and Darwinism.

Whatever you think of my conclusions, I've supplied detailed reasons for why I have come to them, from my philosophical speculations on the existence of purpose in the genetic code to why mutations will 'burn out' before speciation will ever occur, to why natural selection cannot work because the 'fittest individuals' have no way to have their unique sequences spread into the entire genomic community of their species; to examples of why the 'fittest' carnivores or deer cannot cause speciation as evolutionists have mistakenly interpreted the role of competitive selection and predation; to acquiescence of the idea that 'resistance' in bacteria can be achieved TEMPORARILY by mutational natural selection; to why anomalies in the fossil record and the non-existence of transitional species suggests that something is wrong with the idea of gradual selection of small variations as a precursor to speciation.

Regardless, as I've said several times, even if some of the theorists, Dawkins for example, have correctly identified evolutionary mechanisms, it is merely an intellectual error to extrapolate that there could not be a 'purpose' in the existence of such mechanisms, and a purpose that existed before the mechanisms came into existence.

Otherwise the speculation is that, left alone, atoms, over time, morph into self-regulating and self-replicating organisms. And they self-invent systems--Mandlebrots, genetic drift, natural selection and genetic codes for replication.

This is massively in contradition of the second law of thermodynamics--even if you believe that life in this particular planet, solar system, galaxy or universe, or any specific delineation of cosmological dimension, represents a closed or open system, available or unavailable to the workings of entropy. Things do not convert themselves in a positive arrow of time without being affect by other things--THEY always tend to revert to chaos, not fantastically complex genetic codes and predictable hydrogen bonding of nucleotide bases.

Which, of course, is what you're really claiming whether you realize it or not.

If you prefer to think that the genetic code came into existence by natural selection, although its very components themselves are comprised of the same materials as the code itself, then my opinion of your intellect is that it is quite limited. I don't think you're a nut though--just one who accepts without question, conventional thinking as though it is cast in stone.

I'm not claiming any understanding of the motives, purposes or identity of 'god' --just that I think there's something going on beyond our minds.

Incidentally, I suspect that your ranting and raving and name calling might just be freudian slips. I think you suspect that 'life' came into existence for a reason that predated non-nucleated cells too. Anyone with a serious intellect will eventually allow it at least a 50/50 probability.

Did you read Elizbeth's Sahtouris', "A Message To Us From Our Genome," yet?

She's a huge intellectual force. What do you think of Gene Myer's conclusion when he completed the computer presentation of the consortium's human genome?

"There's intelligence here," he figured. It really is quite obvious, James.

I agree with you on Lincoln, G. West. I detect a sincere idealism in his writings.I've posted nothing to the contrary, and I'm sure the 600,000 dead soldiers contributed to his chronic depression.

But my take on Darwin is that he borrowed much of his 'natural selection' from Wallace and Blyth. Come on, he's been outed for many years. Don't you have ANY problem at all with the stark contrast between The Descent of Man and the Origin of Species? I don't know how this is possible. The 'Origin' writer is quite brilliant and original. (Supposedly) The 'Descent' writer is quite the oppositve.

Minimum, Darwin's been massively overrated, I think. Of course, the fact that I think 'natural selection' is mostly a delusion might have something to do with my diminished opinion of his intellect.

One more thing, James. If mutations could really cause speciation--even among 10 kilobase (or so) RNA viruses--H5N1 or some resistant strain of bacteria will probably be killing us all off some time soon anyway. But not to worry, it's just more silly natural selection hype again, eh. Viruses, no matter how specialized, are never a permanent match for the human immune system, which according to your program--invented itself in order to confront viruses and other pathogens. Totally without teleology or purpose though, of course. NOT! Get my point about the connection between replication mechanisms and immune systems? We always do immunity near the apex of the infectious bell curve, eh. And so mutations are nasty, but their effects are local or temporary.

It's a very elegant thing. Even the binary fission, exponential replication of bacteria cannot permanently overcome the human immune system. What an invention!!

Bacteria should have easily wiped our species off the face of the earth thousands of years ago, and they would have if Darwinian-type selection had even a smidgeon of validity. Think of the replication speed of binary fission, James. Without some kind of 'purpose' (teleological contingency) in our immune systems, we're actually no match for them at all.

And so something decided organisms need immunity.

I'm thinking something might just click in your mind, James, which will make you see the light. Booker's eyes are too smudged over by blood vessels in front of the retina.

"Booker's eyes are too smudged over by blood vessels in front of the retina"

Yup. IDiot Designer.

Now, about this Santa Claus-belief....

Hey Booker. Okay, let's suppose for the sake of argument, that you are correct; that the placement of blood vessels in the eyeball is a mistake.

Can you let us have your rationale for believing that such an error is more indicative that the eyeball came into existence by purely mechanistic, blind forces --'natural' selection, that is--than by some kind of teleologically, purposeful design?

Mutational errors are, after all, supposedly determinants of nascent speciation in all biological evolutionary theory.

So why do you accept the reality of errors (mutations) in your program, but not in mine? Isn't this, at best, an error in judgement, and at worst a bit of intellectual bigotry?

Have you really thought this through, Booker?

Okay, I'll give you the answer. Perceptions of mistakes in evolution are purely subjective.

The preponderance of the evidenciary import of 'errors,' is that they imply the reality of intent or purpose, which fits at least as well within the intelligent design paradigm as within that of blind evolutionary, self-designing and replicating mechanisms.

proof: evolutionists accept--no relish--sequencing errors as part of their adaptive selection program, so why shouldn't intelligent designists? Did anyone ever claim that intelligent design could not go wrong occasionally?

Certainly not me.

Truman - As always, your output on this thread surpasses your critics. Whatever else you are, you are no laggard. Your kind of constructive skepticism is a much-needed purgative for dogma of all kinds.

Cheers.

Final word from me: the perception of design in biological structures is purely subjective. Organisms respond to their environment and adapt to it…simple all the way to complex. This kind of feedback loop is as elegant, properly considered, as any theory of intelligent design. I doubt if penguins see themselves as bird failures.

Some experiments work out, others not so much. Just like in the lab. The problem for human analytics is the difficulty of contending with the clock. We’re simply not capable of imagining the role of time because we want results right now.

I’m aware of those who question Darwin’s originality. I’ve read a couple of biographies and critiques. I’m pretty much of the same mind with those who, mutatis mutandis, don’t accept the contributions of Mileva Marić as critical to that other great man and his theories – even though he did give her the Nobel cash.

Thanks so much, nightbloom, particularly as you and have certainly had our disagreements on the forum. Best wishes!

God Dam Booker you sound like one intelligent S.O.B. Your apparent knowledge of blood vessels fascinates me, possibly you could help me out with a little ( modestly speaking ) problem, What Im about to ask you is in confidence ok, on my dork there is this main vein ( blood vessel) occasionally this dork gets hard and this main vein gets huge, almost to the point that I think it will explode, at this same time the skin on my fore head really tightens up, now this is my question, when God designed these dorks why didn’t he put this main vein on the under side of my dork, that way if it explodes the blood will fly down ward rather than up, possibly into some ones face, Do you think God screwed up.

"So, your argument is that the rabbi is wrong because your interpretation is correct?" - Chris H

Quite right. Very confident in my interpetation. A good assessment.

"And you wonder why people are confused when every priest, rabbi, and minister comes up with completely different conclusions from reading the same text?"

Don't wonder about that one at all. I fully expect confusion. Lets face it. While some believe the bible is pure nonsenical gibberish junk, the bible contains some of the most highly complex doctrines in the world. It could be compared to the complexities of physics and Quantum theory of which a good number of people believe it to be nonsensical jibberish as well simply because they don't get it. These subjects are not subjects that every mind will obviously pick up and understand. But... there are good teachers out there. There is a way to simplify the teachings, but the only way to do so is to define each and every spiritual definition to each and every noun and verb found in the bible, just as you build the alpabet of numbers and formula's to apply to theories in physics.

Quite frankly, there isn't a noun or verb that doesn't have a dual spiritual/natural interpretation and Moses works, like most of the other works of the major prophets, used words, phrases and stories that were definitely intended to be taken in some cases, almost entirely in a spiritual way. So if this is the case, where is the dictionary for these spiritual words? Where are the true born interpreters? Who knows these teachings? I know a sampling. I know just what I've told you, and have had maybe two or three words in five figured out in terms of what the spiritual meanings are? And where does that leave me? Incomplete. Still a student. But when I look around and see how little those who pass themselves off as teachers know, I am left shaking my head at the ear sores and eye sores of just how nonsensical it is to continue to naturalize intended spiritual meanings of not just a few words, here and there but entire stories like Chapter 31 in Numbers as well known preachers and Rabbi's do.

"Obviously, the bible is so unclear, with so little clarity, it is pretty much useless in helping me lead a spiritual life."

Until you run into a destined teacher that shows you the ropes. As it is with growth of any kind, we need help until we can help ourselves. Did I build the schools or come up with the cirriculims of those schools? Did I build the roads to get me there? Did I teach myself the languages that are used, the ways to communicate, or provide my own classmates for company and shared experience? None of us can do it alone. And blind faith? Didn't help those who are trapped in cults, Jesus was right. Be careful what you put your faith into. If he would have jumped off of that cliff Satan would have told him to jump off of, he would have been nothing more than a bloody pile of smashed up bones.

"The brainwashing that happened to me as a child, complete with a baptisim against my will, shouldn't be seen as a good thing."

Quite right. I'd be somewhat bitter and put off, if it happened to me. Who enjoys having their own free will snuffed, forced into some deluded illusion others wish to play. We shouldn't come to these events (if they were ever even done properly to begin with) by being forced, but by choice and anyone who believes God himself doesn't believe in Free will or believes God has it for himself but has a different set of standards for his own creations... well, who has time for some authoritarian God like this? Such adopted hypocritical standards make for bad parents. Or some freakshow group of nutters who practice the opposite of what they have been shown to do? (allow free will for themselves and control everyone else) And if its generational... and that's the ugliest truth of all... because sometimes and often, it is. Except with individuals like yourself, and I thank you for it. I like those who have a taste for freedom as long as it doesn't come at the expense of others. I haven't got much time for deluded pretenders myself, unless when shown to be such, they change.

"I hope everyone has a happy christmas. It's all about friends, family, and giving. I don't need god to share in that."

Quite right. Its far moreso about intention and action than it is about words. But (theres always that but) our existence dictates that there a possibility that there's more to it than spagetti, that our family could be larger than we've bargained for. We could be the very extention of such intentions and actions. It doesn't hurt to think outside of the box just a little with keeping alive the possibility that all things are possible. I believe you such an open mind. Anyways, Chris, have yourself a wonderful happy holiday and to all the rest, the same.

And Nightbloom, Truman:
Learned a ton from you both. You've debated... admirably. :-)

I feel for you (in an emotional sense), woody. :-)
I can relate. Just hope a guy doesn't blow a gasket when the pump's putting out. Later, dude.

Heh, while the god-squad congratulates itself, I think I'll end with this. Fantasizing is a wonderful tool, as Einstein once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." In many ways Einstein was right, because imagination is the genesis of so much it. Yet imagination and desire are not necessarily the same thing. ln the words of Rumi, a 13th century Sufi poet, who may have been unlikely to agree with evolution by natural selection, or any other mechanism:

Be careful what you wish for, or at least try to be aware of it.

Were just going to end up disagreeing, today, James Burns. :-)
The quote is true for some, not so true for others (those darn generalizations just don't fair well in debates). Anyway's, I do agree with the rest of it, and for the most part, appreciate your efforts to explain where you are coming from as well, James. Learned a good deal on this thread. Thanks, all (and that includes you too, James. Sincerely. Happy pagan holidays!

Truman:

"That goofy old Karl Popper and his falsibiability again, eh. Of course intelligent design is not falsifiable."

I'm glad we agree.

"We're talking major red herring here."

No, it's clearly not. Although I find it delightfully ironic that you call falsifiability a red herring (which it is not, but is rather fundamental to scientific enquiry) and in the same post bring up Darwin's opinions on race, which is a *true* red herring.

"If it is a true description of the creation of the world and the evolution of life, there are no exceptions to it and no special antitheses by which it can be disproven. Popper claims: If you say all chickens are stupid and you can find a smart chicken, then that proves that you're wrong. Therefore your theory about all chickens being white is at least falsifiable, therefore reputable. But this hardly applies to the universe, the creation of which we know nothing. We only have only suspicions, our own and those of others, which we hope are arrived at by good faith observations, devoid of religion, ideology or agenda."

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Because you say so, we should throw falsifiability to the wind?

"Who made Karl Popper, God, eh. Jimmy? Falsifiability, like Occam's Razor, is highly overrated, anyhow."

Oh boy. I don't even know where to begin.

"Otherwise the speculation is that, left alone, atoms, over time, morph into self-regulating and self-replicating organisms. And they self-invent systems--Mandlebrots, genetic drift, natural selection and genetic codes for replication.

This is massively in contradition of the second law of thermodynamics--even if you believe that life in this particular planet, solar system, galaxy or universe, or any specific delineation of cosmological dimension, represents a closed or open system, available or unavailable to the workings of entropy. Things do not convert themselves in a positive arrow of time without being affect by other things--THEY always tend to revert to chaos, not fantastically complex genetic codes and predictable hydrogen bonding of nucleotide bases."

As I've said, I don't know much about biology. But I know themodynamics a little bit better. Energy is always being added to the earth by the sun. So if you're writing about the earth, this statement is false. The fact that you would make a statement like this about a topic I know about leads me to discount what you have to say about topics I don't know about. Not to mention what you say about fasifiability...

Jimmy, thanks for your contribution, though I'm sure it will make no difference. The term "not even wrong" was invented for the ID claptrap we've seen in this discussion.

Truman:

"Can you let us have your rationale for believing that such an error is more indicative that the eyeball came into existence by purely mechanistic, blind forces --'natural' selection, that is--than by some kind of teleologically, purposeful design?"

If there was an intelligent designer that could create so many amazing biological structures, why would it screw up on something so obvious? You would expect all structures to be competently designed. Evolution, on the other hand, makes no claim that biological structures should be "well-designed".

"Perceptions of mistakes in evolution are purely subjective. "

Nope. Again, why would god (or the 'designer or whatever you like) put arteries in front of the light sensitive part of the eye? There is nothing subjective about it.

"The preponderance of the evidenciary import of 'errors,' is that they imply the reality of intent or purpose, which fits at least as well within the intelligent design paradigm as within that of blind evolutionary, self-designing and replicating mechanisms."

If I understand you, you are now claiming that biological structures that don't work well are actually evidence *for* intelligent design?

"Did anyone ever claim that intelligent design could not go wrong occasionally?"

And we come back to falsifiability...

:-) Thanks, Booker.

"I'm sure it will make no difference."

I think you may be right :-)

Jimmy the vessels--veins and arteries--cross the retina like tree branches. The light goes around them because the nerve cells transmit the light around them.

Quite an accomplishment, eh.

Otherwise, you'd be blind.

The big issues regarding the possibility of a design flaw is the placement of the nerve cells in front of the retina.

The answer is that the nerve cells, themselves have a photoreptive capacity and modify the photons in a way (that is not remotely understood) so that they will be more usable by the retinal cells.

Now Jimmy, in order for this to happen SOMETHING must have known exactly what would be the synergistic result of specific sequencing needed to construct all of these components. Remember all of this stuff is manufactured in the ribosome--the factory--in the nucleus of every cell. (Well except red blood cells which have no nuclei)

Something knows exactly how all of this stuff works and how the amino acids must be sequenced to construct it. (Things are made out of amino acids, Jimmy. Remember the building blocks your biology teacher told you about.)

Which is, of course, absolute proof of intelligent design. Without intelligence it would just all revert to chaos. Nothing would ever get done.

Placement of vessels and nervs a contraindication of intelligence? Not! We're not peregrine falcons, which have better vision, or octopuses, eh. (which have their nerve cells behind the retina, as you prefer, by the way).

Each species has its own requirement for vision and our blind spots--created by the fact that light must go through the retina from the nerve cells, are almost completely overcome by the fact that we have TWO eyes, and are the result of some engineering tradeoff, anyway.

Not to mention the fact that the nerve cells are almost completely transparent.

If SOMETHING didn't know that blind spots in humans are inconsequential, it wouldn't have let it go.

Anyway, engineering is always about tradeoffs. The fact that octopuses have their nerve cells behind their retinas--the opposite to ours--means that SOMETHING was perfectly aware of the different requirements for vision among the species, and that peoples' brains to tend to have capabilities octopuses can't even dream of in their wildest imaginations, eh Jimmy.

Design flaw? Are you serious? Dawkins was just being silly.

Here's the point: Something knew how to build things and understood the capabilities of all the components constructed in the ribosome--the factory, that is.

Have you guys ever studied the cell? It's a warehouse with machines and even has its own heating system--mitochondria--and a pile of blueprints and a code for reproducing, not only itself, but all of the organisms it constructs.

And why would each of our 200 trillion cells have the equipment to build a complete organism? Answer: in case sexual reproduction ever fails. We can all be cloned from any cell in the body. Clever, wouldn't you say?

But imagine the overkill: 200 trillion times 200 trillion. (200 trillion cells with 200 trillion blueprints) That's the number of individuals we each have the blueprints to build.

Whatever built us, and all life, (same genetic code) doesn't want to waste all of the knowledge gained and the trials and errors it had to go through.

Get real! This is intelligence! I think you better go read, "A Message To Us From Our Genome."

Truman:

"the vessels--veins and arteries--cross the retina like tree branches. The light goes around them because the nerve cells transmit the light around them."

So nerve cells now "transmit" light? What the hell does that even mean? I'm no biologist, but...

"SOMETHING must have known exactly what would be the synergistic result of specific sequencing needed to construct all of these components."

"Something knew how to build things and understood the capabilities of all the components..."

Why? Check it out (I should have added these links earlier...):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Life

This guy evolved virtual creatures that learned how to move:

http://www.genarts.com/karl/evolved-virtual-creatures.html

This is particularly fascinating stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

People use evolutionary algorithms to design antennae for communication systems, robots, neural networks, airplanes... and there are many more applications. You can optimise manufacturing lines circuit board layouts, as well, using this method.

"Placement of vessels and nervs a contraindication of intelligence? Not! We're not peregrine falcons, which have better vision, or octopuses, eh. (which have their nerve cells behind the retina, as you prefer, by the way)."

If god could do such a great job for falcons, why did it do a crap job for us? Oh right, this crap job is "overcome by the fact that we have TWO eyes". But, hold on, I think falcons have two eyes as well! Check it out:

http://www.peregrine-foundation.ca/

"Anyway, engineering is always about tradeoffs. The fact that octopuses have their nerve cells behind their retinas--the opposite to ours--means that SOMETHING was perfectly aware of the different requirements for vision among the species..."

I've addressed the falsifiability issue several times.

"Design flaw? Are you serious?"

Less light gets to the photosensitive cells. That's what I call a design flaw.

"Dawkins was just being silly."

Wasn't it you who wrote: "James Burns, your ad hominem attacks are not evidence."

"Something knows exactly how all of this stuff works... Which is, of course, absolute proof of intelligent design."

What you are saying here is that, your bald assertion that "something must have known" is "absolute proof".

"Without intelligence it would just all revert to chaos. Nothing would ever get done."

This is just meaningless.

Jimmy, if you don't know that the design flaw in question is primarily about NERVE cells being in front of the retina instead of behind it, you're not really up for this discussion.

And yes the nerve cells which run in front of the retina are photoreceptive, specialized to receive light--that's what so fantastic about them, and what makes their placement completely understandable, not to mention INTELLIGENT.

And their transparency compensates for their placement. The light is not, therefore blocked or degraded, which is what the evolutionists claim would be a design flaw.

You've wrongly identified the issue--its about the placement of NERVE cells primarily, not blood vessels.

Maybe just google; "nerve cells in front of the retina."

And I'd google: 2nd law of thermodynamics too, if I were you, Jimmy. Evolutionists claim that it isn't really trashed by self-replicating complexity, but I don't think you understand the issue.

It's a question of closed or open systems. Know what I mean? Not to be rude, Jimmy, but I'm thinking you might need a bit more biology, here, eh.

If you were really on your toes you would have pounced on my reference to "trial and error,' Jim. I figured you would have and was all ready for you.

This has been good experience in debating theology/Intelligent Design. I can see why most scientists perfer not to waste their time doing so, but I'm glad there are some, like Dawkins, who try to get correct information about the natural world out to the general public. Such scientists are doing a great service to society.

...and making a killing in book sales, Booker. Let's not forget this little bit of self-interest...

"...and making a killing in book sales, Booker. Let's not forget this little bit of self-interest..."

Hey, few enough authors make any money at all -- more power to him. Your comment is not relevant to the "one long argument".

Just posted:

THE YEAR IN "INTELLIGENT DESIGN"

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/12/the_year_in_id.php

Bummer year for IDists.

Truman:

I did not know about the nerve cell also being a design flaw, but thank you for bringinng it to my attention. My point about the blood vessels stands, though. Bad design, as I've repeated so many times before.

"...nerve cells transmit the light around them."

I know enough biology to know that this statement is false. Nerve cells transmit light, do they?

"...you're not really up for this discussion. "

Oh, this is jut too easy...

"...2nd law of thermodynamics too, if I were you, Jimmy..."

As I said above, I know thermodynamics. And I know that it poses no problems for evolution.

"It's a question of closed or open systems."

I agree.

Did you like the artificially evolved systems, though? I thought they were pretty cool. Natural selection in action! I love it!

Booker:

It's the one year anniversary of the US court case dealing with intelligent design (i.e. creationism):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Only problem is I ain't no creationist, Jimmy. The evolutionists love to call believers in ID 'creationists,' but it just ain't so. Now, creationists are all intelligent designists, but intelligent designists don't claim to know anything about god--whether its a Jewish-Christian-Moslem construction--you know, there's no god but allah type stuff; whether god is loving or just a big puke; whether god is pantheistic and representations of teleology exist in every cell; in every molecule and every organ. We're totally awstruck by it all.

I don' know about yours, but my liver knows how to do 500 different things, and makes decisions on how to process unlimited numbers of products that circulate around the body, not to mention the digestive tract.

My immune system--so far--is really smart, too. It knows how to manufacture immunoglobulins for pathogens it has never even come into contact with before. And it's gotta make this stuff according to a precise genetic code and algorithms for the construction of all the complex kilobases of the antigens before it attacks them. In fact, the immune system is so smart I sometimes get a headache just thinking about it. Honest!

This is the part evolutionists tend to ignore; the expression of genes into products and organisms according to stored information. I might even accept that some organisms are selected by some kind of algorithmic selecting process, but building things from a plan, Jimmy. I dunno, eh. Seems like a stupid idea, to me.

Maybe it's just me but I really think anyone who doesn't recognize this is just plain...well...you know.

Now, if this isn't intelligence I think we might just as well pull the word out of the dictionary.

Most of us claim to be preceeding from what we've learned about science.
And the most any of us can really say for sure is that it looks like there's something going on here besides random events.

But what I can tell you is that the work of the pop-evolutionists has absolutely no bearing on whether there's teleology in the world--or not.

I honestly think it's just insipid intellectualism to make such a claim. If if every single word Dawkins says is correct, there could still be a teleologic entity involved.

Meanwhile I'm going to have to apologize for the world's top scientific IDer, Dembski, with his imagined formulae and stuff.

He's just a Dawkins in reverse.

There'll be no formulae to prove Intelligent Design. The designers are too smart for that. The tend to hide a lot. Anyway, that'd take all the fun out of it.

Come on...you guys gotta know that self-replicating mandlebrot fractal patterns are one thing, but knowing exactly how much insulin to produce... This requires math and going back and building products in a reverse arrow of time. Go back and read your "A Brief History of Time."

Intelligence is basically knowledge of the past.

I think you're mistaking metaphor for reality Truman. Our way of understanding biological processes fits nicely within the 'labels' of the model you defend.

But it's just a model - a creation of the human mind and an attempt at understanding. It may describe reality to your satisfaction at this time but it is only a description and an approximation. One can do a lot with it but it may well be deluded and profoundly deficient.

For ID theory, the elegant beauty of your 'design' explanation seems very provocative. That's not surprising - it's a human creation – but it is not a creation of any ‘outside’ intelligence or ‘intelligence’ in the way we understand it itself.

Just remember, I'd say, the lessons of Skinner's box and conditioned behavior.

We see what we've been trained and conditioned to see - that's all; and it is through a glass darkly.

Your last sentence is far more prescient than you intended it to be.

Good one, Alcibiades--about intelligence being knowledge of the past. (I'm just old fashioned, I guess) I actually laughed out loud at that one. hee hee ho ho. This discussion needed a joke or two--you rascal. (kidding)

I determined I'm going to convince all you guys, eh.

I know where you're coming from with your 'metaphor" stuff. But I'm saying...and I think this is my best point: if the immune system can manufacture antibodies to antigens with which they have no experience, doesn't it follow that they must extrapolate the composition of the antigenic proteins of the pathogens BEFORE they can manufacture the appropriate antibodies?

Eureka!!!!! You guys might not get it, but I've now proven intelligence in the immune system.

No metaphors involved, Alcibiades, ole buddy.

From Stephen Hawkings' "A Brief History of Time."

"The increase of disorder or entropy with time is one example of what is called an arrow of time, something that distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time. There are at least three different arrows of time. First there is the thermodynamic arrow of time, the direction of time in which disorder or entroopy increases. Then, there is the psychological arrow of time. This is the direction in which we feel time passes, the direction in which we remember the past but not the future. Finally, there is the cosmological arrow of time, This is the direction of time in which the universe is expanding rather than contracting."

Get it? This is absolute proof! The only possible contradiction is that the immune cells become aware of the complete genome of the antigens exactly simultaneously in time as they find the danger presented by the antigens. The antigens are proteins and must be built from their amina acid sequences.

Or that the laws of physics are somehow suspended for antibody construction.

Non-intelligent systems might flow towards complexity in a thermodynamically closed system, but to think that they can examine the past and pick and chose products from the past is really pushing past the limits of possibility, I think. The amount of entropy in the antigen-antibody system is mind-numbing to consider, as all the components are genetically-derived by sequencing.
Unless these events take absolutely zero time, I've proven the presence of teleology. (check it out; it means intelligence!) Cool! Okay, I'm being coy--simultaneity doesn't really cut it, either.

Hawkings got it a bit wrong--entropy doesn increase; it just TENDS to increase in a closed system. The mountains don't collapse; they just tend to, but the rocks are temporarily bonded together. The rubber keeps air in the tire. The air just wants to get out--always. That's the direction everything tends to go in; from dense to less dense; from organized to less organized. Human life is cool but it will be extinqished some day, long before the sun burns out; which it will.

Left alone, that is!

You can reverse maybe one of the arrows of time in the antibody-antigen system; especially the psychological one, but to think all three can be reversed, including the thermodynamic one in which entropy tends to increase, is beyond the capacity of my brain--I admit it.

"...but I've now proven intelligence in the immune system."

TO your own satisfaction Truman - whatever that's worth - you're still dealing in metaphors.

Not that there's anything wrong with that – one just can’t extrapolate from it too freely.

Comparisons and analogies are powerful learning and explication tools - but you can get overawed with their applicability to such ‘human’ concepts as 'design'.
Perception also has an awful lot to do with point of view…and our human point of view tends to channel our thinking along very predictable lines.
My view only.

I admire your perseverance though.

Alcibiades, you just don't get what I'm talking about. It's in the immune system. The immune system. I don't know why I've missed this. It's been staring me in the face for months now.

And really, if you've got some good contraindication , why not offer something substantial, like falsification, for instance.

Even a 9 kilobase virus like hiv has 9 thousand nucleotide bases that first or second stage immune response has to contend with. And the system's immunoglobulins know the molecular weights of all these proteins--especial stuff like p24, p55 and p17--supposedly hiv-specific. This is pure CREATIVITY in action. So they know how big a guy they're going to have to fight off. (metaphor alert.)

Thought I'd throw in a few metaphors for you to pounce on.

Creativity! NOT NATURAL SELECTION, eh. I don't think so.

The human immune system is, by any definition that human beings can come up with, INTELLIGENT.

The elegance of my proof is downright breathtaking!

That damned smart aleck, Einstein, got it right. "God doesn't play dice with the universe."

There's only one possible contradiction: The immune system works with MAGIC.

Which it doesn't!

There's not a single analogy or metaphor in my proof, Alcibiades. That's part of the elegance of it. Show me one!

The immune system is SELF-AWARE! Whoopee!

This is reducible to mathematical formulation.

H5N1's don't wipe us out because immunoglobulins (antibodies) have even smarter CYTOKINES.

Check these guys out, if you want to be dazzled! They're sorta like those bicycle couriers you see darting through traffic--messenger cells--informants. They make judgements about the potential threat of antigens in the neighbourhood and advise other components of the immune system accordingly. Like stool pigeons.

Now, THESE are metaphors, eh.

Truman
Like I said, you're very enthusiastic and I like that. However, one’s understanding of the science still doesn't have to involve an intelligence of the human kind or a design of the kind humans like to use to describe and analogize with. It’s our problem – and it’s not inherent to the system involved – we just apply it as a device to help us explain what we don’t understand fully.

Even Einstein was speaking in metaphor when he coined that little aphorism.

A Victorian, confronted with a modern jet airplane would think it a miracle or an act of God. Just as the natives of Melanesia incorporated explorers ships and foreign goods into their millenarian cargo cults.

What we don't understand, we assign to creative intelligence - or magic – or God - that's all.

E=Mc2 a metaphor? You haven't got a clue, Alci. It's about the equivalency of matter and energy. Unless, of course, you've got a falsification for it.

I was hoping someone with a serious IQ would jump in here and show me how the immune system attains negative entropy without teleology.

Booker, James Burns, where are you guys?

You're really in here over your head here, honest Alci--nothing personal. But you aren't even beginning to respond intelligently.

Did you really say, "E=Mc2 is just Einstein's 'little aphorism?'

I bet the victims at Hiroshima would beg to differ with you.

"My immune system--so far--is really smart, too. It knows how to manufacture immunoglobulins for pathogens it has never even come into contact with before."

"Even a 9 kilobase virus like hiv has 9 thousand nucleotide bases that first or second stage immune response has to contend with. And the system's immunoglobulins know the molecular weights of all these proteins--especial stuff like p24, p55 and p17--supposedly hiv-specific. This is pure CREATIVITY in action. So they know how big a guy they're going to have to fight off."

Why do we need flu shots, or measles vaccinations, then? And why does the flu vaccine have to differ each year?

Nope Truman, now you're playing politics.
This is the Einstein quote:
"God doesn't play dice with the universe."

Moreover, you're the one who cited it.

Not a word from me about E=Mc2 being a metaphor.

Your other comment was uncalled for, and you know it, eh!

If you think I'll succumb to that kind of bait and switch I'd have to respond - even though I don't really want to, with something like the ad hominem remark that initiated your post.

Cut it out!
Believe in Intelligent Design all you like. I just don’t think it’s very intelligent.

See what I mean? Anyone can play that kind of chump game.

And, on the Einstein note, I'm pretty certain he WAS speaking metaphorically.

Why? Because he also wrote this:

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Which accords with what I've been saying about incomplete understanding and the role of 'outside' intelligence.

But, go ahead - call it what you like Truman - I just don't think you've been very convincing, my friend.

To say Einstein was speaking metaphorically re. E=Mc2 is the height of stupidity, which means you're an idiot, Alcibiades-G.West.

You wouldn't know if I've been convincing or not.

I've said more than once on this thread that I think the idea of a personal god who allows 'believers' salvation by grace, is entirely at odds with the real world--in total agreement with Einstein. As if you didn't know...

As usual you're up to your old tricks--baiting with strawmen; changing the subject around to something you imagine you've got a grasp on; ridiculing out of sublime ignorance; making totally unsupported pronouncements on the worthiness of ideas you don't understand.

Quite a piece of work, G. West.

I've presented a good case that the immune system is self-aware--intelligent.

Let's hear your case that it isn't.

You've really outed yourself on this on G. West. How can you possibly fantasize that Einstein was speaking metaphorically about his relativity revelation?

You're being incredibly stupid here. I'd like to comment without ad hominems but there's really no other way to comment on what you've been saying, and by not trying to show you how stupid you are I would, in fact, be abusing you, as we each have a moral responsibility to enlighten those with whom we come into contact.

E=Mc2 is not a metaphor; it's a real representation of the real world--equivalency between matter and energy, brilliantly expressed in terms of light.

How Einstein ever came up with his general relativity I admit I'll never understand. I truly think relativity, both general and special, was a 'savant' experience.

I think you should stick to issues about which you have genuine knowledge and understanding; you're extremely competent in many areas of history and politics.

That would be quite an indictment if I’d actually said or written or implied what you alleged. I didn’t though.

You brought up Einstein. You dropped his little quotation about God.

I said that little quotation was a metaphor.

Then you implied I’d made some comment about relativity.

I didn’t.

Please roll back up and read what I actually wrote.

When I look back over the last few posts of our dialogue I can't find a single ad hominem remark under my name.

I do see quite a few under yours and I'm disappointed Truman.

Surely I don't have to copy and paste them for you to acknowledge what's been going on, do I?

I think Einstein's relativity relation is brillant too. How much credit for it do you think should go to his wife Mileva?

"That damned smart aleck, Einstein, got it right. "God doesn't play dice with the universe.""

This is what YOU wrote. And that aphorism is the one I was talking about when I said Einstein had coined a metaphor.

Look back over the exchanges Truman. My intent was perfectly clear and you're being disingenuous to imply it wasn't my friend.

Excellent question, EIGHT-- and right on the topic, too.

There are two kinds of vaccinations, therapeutic and preventive.

Preventive vaccines are the ones we all know about. They are developed in order to get the immune system to manufacture immunoglobulins BEFORE a disease antigen ever gets into the neighbourhood. This is accomplished by introducing a live or dead, attenuated or weakened part of the pathogen from which protection is being sought into the body of the subject.

In this way the immune system will make antibodies which will be able to recognize the antigen in question if contact is ever made.

I was a bit confusing above because I said that the immune system could make antibodies for antigens they had never yet been in contact with, and I think this is what inspired your question. (WHY WOULD IT NEED TO, RIGHT?)But this is true. The immune system will manufacture the antibody to the antigen whether from a real, intact antigen from the virus or from the vaccine, even if it has never come into contact with either. So when you get a vaccination, you're actually being purposely infected to trigger antibody production. Occasionally recipients of vaccines are not prepared for this prepared concoction and will become ill or even die. Their immune systems were overwhelmed.

Individuals with antibodies to antigens that are miles away are pre-armed, but a battle still may ensue if the antigen comes into the neighbourhood.

All of this is a bit epiphenomenal to the question of whether the immune system is self-aware, but I understand your question.

The immune system is self-aware, BUT NOT PERFECT. Remember, the second law of thermodynamics requires that everything will eventually break down.

Therapeutic vaccines are intended to bolster the immune system. My claim of proof for intelligent design has to do with the manufacture of antibodies for real infections or preventive vaccines.

.

Truman:

"I don' know about yours, but my liver knows how to do 500 different things, and makes decisions on how to process unlimited numbers of products that circulate around the body, not to mention the digestive tract."

You keep anthropomorphising. Your liver "knows" about synthesizing chemicals no more than the thermos (I posted the joke above) knows to keep hot liquids hot and cold liquids cold.

"This is the part evolutionists tend to ignore; the expression of genes into products and organisms according to stored information. I might even accept that some organisms are selected by some kind of algorithmic selecting process, but building things from a plan, Jimmy. I dunno, eh. Seems like a stupid idea, to me."

This is vague. Are you talking about morphogenesis?

"Now, if this isn't intelligence I think we might just as well pull the word out of the dictionary."

If what isn't intelligence?

"But what I can tell you is that the work of the pop-evolutionists has absolutely no bearing on whether there's teleology in the world--or not.

I honestly think it's just insipid intellectualism to make such a claim. If if every single word Dawkins says is correct, there could still be a teleologic entity involved."

Clearly, if there is a god, it is irrelevant whether or not we believe that there is a god. But in order to believe that there is a god, we should have evidence, shouldn't we?

"There'll be no formulae to prove Intelligent Design. The designers are too smart for that. The tend to hide a lot. Anyway, that'd take all the fun out of it."

One word... Falsifiability.

Truman:

"Come on...you guys gotta know that self-replicating mandlebrot fractal patterns are one thing, but knowing exactly how much insulin to produce..."

Where did fractals come from? What do they have to do with insulin? You've lost me.

"This requires math and going back and building products in a reverse arrow of time."

What the hell does this mean?

"Intelligence is basically knowledge of the past."

Intelligence is a contentious idea still being debated today. Ask ten cognitive scientists this question and you will probably get ten different answers. But regardless, intelligence is just a *little* more than "knowledge of the past". Most people would include abstract reasoning as a fundamental aspect of intelligence, for example.

Truman:

"Remember, the second law of thermodynamics requires that everything will eventually break down."

I'm pretty sure that this is *not* the official definition...

Jimmy, 'arrow of time' refers to the direction in which thermodynamics proceeds; entropy always 'tends' to increase. That is, in all closed systems the degree of disorder tends to increase.'

I'm not making this up! Go study it. Human beings are only a temporary abbrogation of this requirement.

Go read the Stephen Hawkings explanation of arrows of time and how they relate to the progression of organization. Three arrows, basically; thermodynamic, psychological and cosmological.

Jimmy, your lack of understanding of these issues is seriously impacting your ability to comprehend why I have identified the locus of intelligence at the point where the immune system is able to use information from the past, as well as the universal algorithm known as the genetic code, to manufacture proteins called immunoglobulins which are, by way of lock and key assemblages, able to mount an attack on antigens, identified by their molecular weight, measured in daltons; as I said an hiv core antigen is said to be p24, which is a protein having the molecular weight of 24,000 daltons. The immune system will manufacture an antibody for this specific protein regardless of the fact that it might never have heard of such a critter, but RECOGNIZES IT.

I think any intellectually honest evolutionist would feel a certain moral compunction to accept my word, "know."

We need words to describe events. I used the word "know" to describe this 'awareness." You rejected my use of the word, as merely metaphorical or anthropomorphic.

I don't think your rejection is warranted.

And yes, Jimmy, the fact that everything will eventually break down is a well known aspect of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Remember, entropy is the tendency towards disorganization. Human life may have evolved from non-nucleated cells, but eventually the sun will have no more hydrogen to convert into the stuff like heavier metals and such, eh. We'll be toast, unless we can escape this solar system.

I'm sure you understand that I know that intelligence is more than just a knowledge of the past, but I bet you also agree that a knowledge of the past is a prerequisite for the presence of intelligence, Jimmy.

Jimmy, fractals, like 'Mandelbrot's set' are derived by mathematical formulation. You can make one yourself using your mouse. Go here:

http;//mathforum.org/alejandre/applet.mandlebrot.html

My reference to insulin is that it could never be designed by algorithm, in this case mathematical formulation, because the construction of insulin requires a certain level of creativity. Fractals are not creative; they're repetitious, like the patterns on the wings of butterflies.

The complexity of fractals increases infinitely, which would never do in building amino acid sequence-derived proteins such as insulin. The pancreas would also have to know exactly how much to make even if the construction had been algorithmically mandated.

So you don't like my word, "know," eh Jimmy. Tough beans! I think it fits, perfectly. In fact, my entire program of teleology depends on it being approprate.

try this:

http://mathforum.org/alejandre/applet.mandlebrot.html

When are you publishing your theory in a peer-reviewed journal Truman?

I'd like to follow its progress and see the reaction of other academics to its ground-breaking synthesis of ideas from such diverse sources and applications.