Evolution question.

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Hating haters is still hate. Justifying your hatred doesn't change what it is.

I remember an ironic dark-humor joke that may apply to both of you equally -- and me even more, since I fall afoul of the same thing myself more often than anyone I know: The comedian Tom Lehrer once quipped --

"Now I know there are some people in this world who do not love some fellow human beings, and I HATE people like that!";-)

Operacast

[wil]

Originally Posted by Operacast

I remember an ironic dark-humor joke that may apply to both of you equally -- and me even more, since I fall afoul of the same thing myself more often than anyone I know: The comedian Tom Lehrer once quipped --

"Now I know there are some people in this world who do not love some fellow human beings, and I HATE people like that!";-)

Operacast

Yes I am intolerant of intolerant people, judge judgemental people and predjuced agains predjudiced people.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

It is not the proper place of government to dictate religion to families--EVEN IF THAT RELIGION IS ATHEISM.

How fascist can you get!! Government should serve the people, all the people, not dictate to them.

tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Operacast

I remember an ironic dark-humor joke that may apply to both of you equally -- and me even more, since I fall afoul of the same thing myself more often than anyone I know: The comedian Tom Lehrer once quipped --

"Now I know there are some people in this world who do not love some fellow human beings, and I HATE people like that!";-)

Operacast

Originally Posted by wil

Yes I am intolerant of intolerant people, judge judgemental people and predjuced agains predjudiced people.

Interesting. I dont quite see it that way. At least not here. But how dare I raise the possibility of religions doing a disservice to our children!! As part of a debate!! Then I am a vile hate filled fascist. I get the picture. Loud and clear and it ain't me that is the hate filled fascist.


tao

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Then censurship is an acceptable paradigm? I mean, after all, the scientifically educated are of the mind that theirs is the correct way, and all other thought is "pagan"? Therefore the errant ignorant thinking must be erradicated?

My word! Just substitute a few words in the above paragraph and what do we have? Let's find out:

I would have to agree, evolutionism has no place in the public school. Inasmuch as we trying to present a sound education, we should teach the current understanding of creationary theory ... keeping in mind that `theory' isn't the same thing as a hypotheis, or belief, or educated guess. What we know about the development of the earth ... the creation of various species, the diversification and complexity that have emerged from a much beginning, and so forth ... all of this needs to be taught as fact. Dating methods, as we know, are only approximate, and always subject to later reinterpretation and correction.

Sounds eerily familiar...and just as scary...

one more point: "...all of this needs to be "taught" as "fact"."

Says who?

I see. Trade a few words around, sure, but I don't quite think you've accomplished what you were after.

Virtue should dictate the choices of the heart, as well as guide the mind along its way ... and even lead our actions.
Excessive vice should be avoided, as too much of this will weaken our character.

Now let us turn this around:

Vice should dictate the choices of the heart, as well as guide the mind along its way ... and even lead our actions.
Excessive virtue should be avoided, as too much of this will weaken our character.

How is this different? Only because the appeal is to something beyond your mental faculty. Our very Soul knows the difference between virtue and vice, even when there are times that we are in doubt, or confusion, or uncertainty. This is not the same as an argument about the method and nature of the process of evolution ... yet you are back to presenting the oversimplistic and distorted false dichotomy, Q.

But there was certainly an earth, rotating here (granted along a shifting axis, as the fact of precession indicates to us), many billions of years ago, and at one point enormous creatures, the dinosaurs of the Jurassic, Triassic and Cretaceous periods, inhabited the planet as we do.

This fact is not up for dispute, or question. We may ask questions about when exactly such and such a species lived, or what a particular species ate, where it lived, and so forth. To suggest that our planet is objectively some 6,000 years old, and that all opinions or notions to the contrary are the lies of the devil ... is not rational, it is not correct and it is entirely inappropriate to present this kind of thing to real, live schoolchildren in 21st Century educational institutions.

I think what saddens me is that there are grown adults who feel it is not only their god-given right, but that it may also somehow be their obligation to teach their children such nonsense -- either via homeschooling, through other forms of home education, or even in Sunday School classes and Bible School.

Am I surprised that we are not all on the same page yet, as far as exactly what the symbolism is behind myths like the Garden of Eden story, or the bit about Jonah and the Whale, the Burning Bush, etc.? No, of course not. But I am saddened that we think it is okay, and just "freedom of speech, freedom of religion" when what we are really doing is brainwashing our children.

I am just as saddened by the withholding of information, plain and simple fact for some, but at least tenable, plausable ideas and beliefs for others, regarding the very real, obvious possibility (likelihood, actually) that yes, an Intelligent, Loving Creator (and Guide) is "Directing" this all ... and as best we can tell so far, Evolutionary theory is a very important part of an evolving understanding of how this Creator and Guide Works with us -- or vice versa.

I underscore very important part because there are many ways to understand our relationship with God, but Science is no less valuable and vital a way of approach as art, or politics, or religion. The great lie, is that only in the churches dwells the Divine. Accept for a moment that the Divine dwells in every human heart ... and you have immediately set in motion a transformation of your entire worldview. But how long can you live with this kind of thinking, before it's back to basics ... and god knows, if "that's not what my religion teaches," then heaven forbid we should try to ponder the idea for ourselves and come up with a new realization that can hold ground on its own!

Nevermind that science may be a little smug with its conclusions, and attempt to dictate to us that things are just so based on the limited understanding and presentation of reality which has thus far been gained, or won. Religion is 10 times as guilty with its holy wars, its crusades against those who dare to believe different, and its OPPRESSION of anyone who -- with fervor and in utter harmlessness, even utter privacy -- seeks or sought to practice other forms of prayer, or of honoring the same, Divine Source.

Yes, let us rattle our saber and demand our FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and when the blood stains our sword-hand we will simply wash ourselves free of the inconvenience.

I will not bore you with ideas about the constellations if you are not interested, but do not teach my children (if I ever have any) the tenets of your religion, from your holy books. This is exactly what Creationism is. It is not more than yet another effort to shove Jesus down people's throats, since god only knows, if we just beat them over the head enough with this holy-roller mumbo jumbo, they'll come 'round to our way of thinking sooner or later. I mean, after all, the Bible sez, and in case you haven't noticed lately, it's all about the numbers, getting more folks to bury their head into this here holy book, and warm our pews, and bow down to crucifix, our statue of Shiva, our proscribed direction in which the Holy One abides. We need another clank in the collection plate, or perhaps just a wad that makes a good, solid THUD when it hits the bottom.

If the desire is to make sure children are left to form their own conclusions ... then I am all for educational reform, such that kids are encouraged to ask more questions, and even allowed to discuss the various possibiltiies. Time could be taken for this as early as grade school, so long as teachers are trained in how to lead a discussion without interjecting their own beliefs and religious viewpoint ... or allowing a particularly vocal child in the classroom to dominate. Most teachers are capable of leading this type of discussion, and the opportunity it would provide is something that many students don't see nowadays until the college years.

I have an anecdote that may bring what I'm saying into perspective. It goes back more than 30 years.

When I was in kindergarten, I recall a day when a neighbor of mind visited the classroom. One of daughters was in my class, and the occasion of the visit was to allow students to learn something about Judaism, since most of the students were almost certainly Christian, or of no obvious religious background like Sikh, Muslim, and so forth.

What I remember are songs sung and played on the guitar, learning about a dreidel (and spinning one that was given to each of us), and that's pretty much it in terms of factual content. Yet there was something I learned during this visit that went way beyond so-called fact, and was probably even far more important than anything else I've ever heard specifically about the Jewish religion -- or about any other religion, for that matter.

I learned that my friends up the street were, and are, no different than me. They have a different form of worship, and of honoring the Divine. They believe in the Divine, and I like that. Personally, I think it helps give us a starting point in relating to others, yet not if we labor under the delusion that somehow we are better than others, or that our religion is fundamentally more important, or more deserving of recognition than that of others. If that is what we've been taught, we would be better off as atheists, agnostics or on the swift road of recovery from this unfortunate affliction.

When what is taught is that other religious perspectives are wrong, less valid or in need of removal from our planet ... or even when it is subtly implied that -- it's okay for the religion to stay, just so long as it's "kept in its place" -- then there is nothing but a lie, however subtly veiled, and however we choose to spin it.

Evolution is not a religion. It is science. Christianity is a religion. The latter may inform our choices and actions, but we have no right to PREACH in the schools, and dictate to others (especially impressionable children) what or how they must believe. End of story.

If you want to rail on about the woes of how science does not yet meet with religion and these two do not well integrate with philosophy in our current educational system, thinking, understanding of self, God, other and Cosmos ... or pervade our zeitgest -- then yes, I am QUITE interested in that discussion. As a student of The Secret Doctrine, and of Theosophy, I believe that such integration is not only possible, but has always existed upon our planet ... and that in fact, our understanding is evolving to a point where we will increasingly see the connections.

We are one people, with one history or collective past, and also with one, wonderful Destiny. It would be naive to suggest that there is no diversity within our oneness ... yet grade school is not the place to teach the Abrahamic mythology, or the Hindu, or the Egyptian, or any other -- save AS a mythology, and in the kind of context or scenario as I described above, wherein my neighbors were so kind enough to introduce us all to something different.

Creationism is not just something different. It is not simply another way to see things. It is certainly that, and that is a starting point. But if you cannot see past this starting point, then you will fail to also see how your efforts (whomever you may be, even as the devil's advocate) to advance or defend Creationism in schools is like shoving in a TROJAN HORSE ... with all of the results that inevitably follow.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Ah! Someone does understand.

It's kinda hard to take someone seriously who is guilty of the same crime "he" is accusing others of...

Again, my reply is long-winded as usual ... but I am surprised you are taken in by what Q has attempted to do, Juan. Surely you can see the fallacy in it. Fortunately, I address that very early in my post.

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Evolutionary theory is a very important part of an evolving understanding of how this Creator and Guide Works with us -- or vice versa.

T H A N K
Y O U !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Operacast

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Reaching for the light?

Oh I like this best, so I'll start here!

Precisely. No, I mean more like ... business as usual, or life as we know it -- but I so like the reminder that this really is "reaching for the light," either more or less consciously.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

With the exception of a belief in a Gaia type theory of super organism, in which man is utterly expendable, I see absolutely no evidence anywhere for such a "plan". Where is the evidence?

... until science proves that there is some real evidence for "Diving Planning", it is only philosophy. And, crucially, should be regarded as such.

As for patterns, I'm speaking of things like the Beauty that is to found both in the natural world and through human creations and contributions. I am speaking of the Guidance that has been received by a 1000 sages that this world has recorded, and 10,000 more who have been forgotten or carefully erased. I am thinking of the chambered nautilus, and the Golden Ratio in the stems of plants and within our bodies. I would ask you to consider the Majesty of the Heavens, as we find orbits within orbits within orbits within orbits ... and are left to ponder what amazing coalescence of materials, entities, conditions and timings have been necessary to create life on this planet alone.

This is just a beginning, but the Divine Order I speak of is what I think is being worked out through every Kingdom of Life upon our planet (in the lesser Cosmos, or microcosm, with man as one of the least reflections of the Whole). This Order has to do with how the very Kingdoms interrelate, symbiotically benefit and are supported by each other. It is witnessed by the unique, delicate balance of conditions which you invoke in the Gaia hypothesis ... yet as we are discovering, mankind is not just a scourge on the face of the planet, or a disposable, unnecessary part of what is happening.

Some might think we have done more harm than good here, but this is a premature conclusion, albeit tentatively accurate from at least some points of view. To ignore the future that is before us (assuming that we wisely choose and allow the future to work itself out) is like saying, "I am 36 years old, HERE is what the purpose of life is. I have no more to learn, and nothing more to accomplish. I understand all mysteries, both lesser and Greater -- and I am ready to snap my fingers and lay everything on the line." Though I would usually argue against Pascal's Wager altogether, I invoke it here because I think God really does matter, whether we are theists, atheists or agnostics. Belief changes nothing. Things are as they are ... {and this gets back to the real heart of the discussion I think! How are things? Metaphysics does have its place.}

Science often seems to make the same mistake as religion, by looking at the temporarily-animated cadaver in the mirror and saying, Ecce homo! And by so pronouncing, there is not simply a lie or a misunderstanding, there is also a subtle expression of pride, and this is the door of vanity, of self-delusion, and the root of confusion over our true identity. The way this comes off, you might think I'm suggesting there's some kind of conspiracy ... and the religion of science is being consciously, carefully forced upon us by sinister minds bent on world domination. That notion is perhaps slightly exaggerated.

What I mean by science as a religion is more the kind of role that scientific belief plays in the lives of many Americans, and Westerners. In short, we idolize it, and regard its pronouncements as authoritative. In the East, I think this is also the case, but less so, because there is still a fairly strong tradition and ability to see the world holistically. Science is not set so far apart from spirituality as a valid means of enquiring about the world, and the mind is not so compartmentalized. In the Western world, as part of our quest for Truth, we seem to be willing to sacrifice any real synthesis of what we really already know about life, ourselves, each other and the modus operandi of the Universe (both locally, and at large).

We have a fragmented psyche, individually and collectively, and it is very much in need of healing and better integration before we can make such sweeping statements as "there is no tangible, empirical evidence of a PATTERN, or Order, that guides or steadily and faithfully influences all Life and events here upon our little planet." There is even a distinction, whereby sometimes and in various ways there is Guidance, both direct and seemingly indirect, or behind the scenes ... while at a deeper or perhaps more remote level it might be more accurate to simply speak of influences in the abstract. An equally valid approach would be to acknowledge the Divine Principles (even Principalities and Powers, as some might choose) Whom and which are responsible for these influences, just as a nature walk through a quiet forest may awaken the curiosity of a nest of newborn squirrels, or otherwise affect vast hosts of insects.

We are certainly a mystery to these insects, and probably quite a spectacle for forest animals unaccustomed to human visitation ... but if we could overhear these animals saying to themselves, once we have left, that they probably just imagined us, since after all, there is no real evidence that we were ever here -- and certainly nothing which provides direct and objective contact ... if we could hear this conversation, don't you think we might feel inclined to correct the error? I mean, just for the sake of poor little squirrel nutkin?

Ah, what a squirrel doesn't know may make him happy, right? I would much rather the little fellas enjoy a happy, productive life without having to face the grim fate of the highway ... or become the victims of "sport."

I just say, in this silly little world of my imagination, where animals do talk, and the insects do have some inkling, we have a responsibility to them, an obligation ... even if much of this is easily fulfilled simply by not stepping on them! Imagine how much more wonderful the relationship can be where we seek to cooperate with our tiny little companions, and cultivate them, help them to be of service, even protect them from our human-created disasters, as much as reasonably possible.

Those Who Guide from behind the scenes are every bit as conscientious as the humans in the above silly little scenario, except that tremendous Wisdom, unfailing Love and due measure of Divine Empowerment (to serve the Plan) are Theirs. They use the means at Their disposal to fulfil Their obligation not only to us, but also to each other, and to Greater Kingdoms in the Great Chain of Being.

We ask too much when we demand that this supposed Plan be chiseled into stone. We tried that. Look what happened.

We have books. We have the Internet. We have discussion forums. We have the UN, and governments which have the capacity to cooperate and serve world need, just as we have the the same capacity with respect to smaller groups and each other as individuals.

The point is, the Plan is not some kind of neatly codifiable, static and inflexible dogma to be firmly grasped like a pontifical scepter for the convenient cudgeling of little, ingrate humanity into shape. Religion that does not enshrine the Truth, in whatever form and means of expression, has nothing to share, no way to benefit Humanity ... and so we become reduced to holy wars to determine who will have the right to blindly rule, herding our followers like sheep.

I find I have more sympathy than ever for those who believe that simply by abolishing all of the superstitious nonsense, we may get back to the task of creating a world that's really worth living in, worth sustaining, and worth shaping into a place that other civilizations would be honored to visit ... and wouldn't need to be assigned to for Emergency Duty, and SALVAGE work.

I also have much respect for those who do still try to improve the various religions by reform. And I like to try and count myself within some of these groups, since to take the other approach (abolition), in my opinion, is to let the baby slip out with the bathwater. Those drains are really hard to get your hand down ... nevermind how an entire baby manages to slip through!



Everything else you said, pretty much from the first half of your response, Tao, is precisely how I see things ... or close enough. I tend to meander a bit in my responses, I realize, but thank you for taking the time to address my post, and to present your view in such detail. I speak as an Idealist sometimes, and cannot always claim that I fully live what I believe ... and this is the only thing that makes me feel a little bit guilty (or hypocritical) about what I share. The other 93% of me, however, hasn't the slightest doubt of what I'm sharing ... aside form an occasional question of timing, diplomacy or protocol. I guess it makes me wish sometimes, despite all the benefits, that discussions like we have here at CR could be synchronous, and not asynchronous. Oh well.

Peace,

andrew

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

How fascist can you get!! Government should serve the people, all the people, not dictate to them.

tao

You are the fascist who wants to have jackbooted thugs burst into homes and take children from their families for daring to teach religion. YOU are the one who wants to have government dictate atheism.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

You are the fascist who wants to have jackbooted thugs burst into homes and take children from their families for daring to teach religion. YOU are the one who wants to have government dictate atheism.

Rflmao!! You know when I saw your first few posts I actually thought this guy could be interesting. Well you dug a big hole and buried that thought a good 6 foot under. I am that last person here that would advocate that kind or any kind of fascism. You know the type often supported by Greek Orthodoxy that left so many dead and divided in the Greek civil war. Thank you for leaving my mind clear on exactly who and what you are. For making it quite clear early on that talking to you is a total waste of time. Idiot.


tao

[wil]

Appears to be a thread where we can see how far we haven't evolved.

Much like attacking Iraq in response to 9/11, we don't realize that it doesn't take much to end it...just takes one to say, no, I won't respond in kind.

Sure the other may continue the barrage, but how could that be my problem?

We cannot determine the events that lead upto any rant and whether it is justified or not. But we are in complete control of our response and responsible for it...or at least should be.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

Let's choose to evolve.

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I am that last person here that would advocate that kind or any kind of fascism.

So, you are NOT the person who advocated that government seize children who are being taught religion by their parents? This is a long thread, so I may have misattributed. Who did advocate that government take children away from families that taught these children religion?

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Path_of_One

That one would throw out scientific theory because it changes as we gain more information- for example, to throw out evolutionary theory because researchers have not yet figured out the exact percentage that we're like chimps... this is like throwing out one's religion because everyone has a different idea about what it means. In fact, the latter is far more divergent amongst "experts" than the former. It's like the people who reject Christ because Christians can't figure out one unified view of Him and God, and we don't know exactly where all the text from the Bible came from, or when it was written, or what got left out and why.

Both are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

this is exactly what i think.

There are very few facts in life. Most depends on perspective. Even the color of sky could change if one is color blind, or entirely blind from birth.

this is because of the philosophical concept called "privacy of experience" - but it does not work for ideal mathematical constructs, of course.

perhaps the notion of "reliably transfer" is still an overreach, as Banana implies.

yeah, because of "privacy of experience". for me, music is synaesthetic. so is spirituality. so is text and language. what i can't communicate or reliably transfer is that empirical zone where music, text, language and spirituality overlap (POMAs?) suffice it to say that for me, they came together in an *artistic* way. in the way that i could tell a given musical arrangement "works", i could tell that a particular spiritual balance based around dynamic equilibria "works". i can correlate this with how other people have done similar things using the frameworks of the jewish (and other) mystical tradition. i don't *know* if evolution has got the big picture essentially correct or not, but it is the best theory we have at present that fits the evidence available.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

So we share genes with chimps...we also share genes with Charles Manson, the common house mouse, the american cockroach, bananas and yeast. All flora and fauna share genetic material...to me that is such an overwhelming realization.

the point is that, whether dawkins realises this or not, it works on so many levels, regardless of whether DNA is in the picture. i don't claim to be a physicist, but at the molecular and atomic levels we don't just share genes, we share atoms and molecules with not just all living things, but all matter. the issue probably becomes controversial at the point at which the spritual notion of "providence" becomes conflated with the scientific and philosophical notion of "causality". that is why free-will is so crucial.

My objection was to defining speciation by cosmetics...you know, color of the skin, size of the nose, amount of intelligence kind of thing? Which *is* one of the primary uses of the term "species," and it was this specifically that led to eugenics and german atrocities during wwII.

i'm sorry, that really wasn't clear. however, by disturbingly similar logic, my objection to some religious behaviour is in defining precisely what is meant by "the Divine Will" - some people, obviously, thinking it means blowing other people up and others thinking it means treating people like non-people. and so on and so forth.

What is science but educated speculation?

the thing is, juan, what is religion but educated speculation about what constitutes the "Divine Will"?

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I don't mind if creationism is taught in religion classes, I just don't want it taught as science on the taxpayers dime. I certainly don't mind if Comparative Religion, or World Religions, or Western (eastern, northern southern...) Religion is taught as an elective provided there is a budget for that and it doesn't take resources away from core liberal arts. I'm not so naive that I don't know what religionists actually want, though. They want the government, if not actively indoctrinating our kids, at least introducing them to religion oriented foundational mythology. That way religion always sets the flavor of nationalism.

that's what bothers me, too.

btw, operacast: i hear you, mate, i think i have something written down somewhere already, i'll try and dig it out.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

if Huston Smith's The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions were required reading for every middle schooler, our children would immediately be tremendously better equipped to deal with just such difficult questions

hmmm. from what i've heard about huston smith, i'm not sure that's entirely true. but i suppose i should read him before i start shooting my mouth off...

Only now, in the past few decades of astronomical observation and progress in the various branches of physics, are some of our "cutting edge" discoveries finally catching up with what the ancients knew tens (if not possibly hundred) of thousands of years ago.

yes, if only there was non-astral evidence of this!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I could go with this for kids over 12 so long as it was 100% unbiased and revealed the many wrongs religion can be held accountable for. I do not think children incapable of thinking deeply far younger, quite the opposite, but as religion throws up such contentious questions that have such wide ramifications a child ought to be able to do a bit of independent learning before approaching such complexity.

really? one of the things i thought was particularly good about my own early religious education was how critical it was of religious short-circuits; kids are never too young to be taught how to treat others. what is more likely to happen is that when they reach the age of 12-13, the heuristic of "treat other people nicely and with respect" will start rubbing up against the "G!D Wants this" message and go into creative tension. it is when the two come into conflict that the wheels come off.

Religions like Buddhism that are heavy on the introversion then often attach a cartload of baggage, ( obligatory text and ritual), and whilst they can in some cases aid a person to as full a perception of their reality as any of us achieves, they are still largely baggage for the majority of seekers.

this is a criticism of organised religion that is a real old chestnut, tao - the way round it is by application of systemic thinking and, you guessed it, dynamic equilibrium.

dogbrain: i think tao has probably conceded that he's not really going to take anyone's kids. let's not get into another fight.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Only Special To God]

Originally Posted by wil

Appears to be a thread where we can see how far we haven't evolved.

Much like attacking Iraq in response to 9/11, we don't realize that it doesn't take much to end it...just takes one to say, no, I won't respond in kind.

Sure the other may continue the barrage, but how could that be my problem?

We cannot determine the events that lead upto any rant and whether it is justified or not. But we are in complete control of our response and responsible for it...or at least should be.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

Let's choose to evolve.

*standing and applauding Wil*

Very good Wil, thank you so much as things are starting to get a little out of hand.

And I am standing by you to say that I admire you for stating what I am feeling, as you have found the words for me! Good job Wil!

God Bless,
Ian

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I see. Trade a few words around, sure, but I don't quite think you've accomplished what you were after...

Ah, but I did.