Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!paganini.bofh.team!news.killfile.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail From: Richmond Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Belief - I'd like to share this item with you. Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:21:35 +0000 Organization: Frantic Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: <86frww8flc.fsf@example.com> References: <5f09ba95-910f-4814-8c90-85af86ac1a53@gmail.com> <86bk83zbvj.fsf@example.com> <86o7c0fcjk.fsf@example.com> <86frxb8e1h.fsf@example.com> <44ycnd-RzOg5sXz4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <86h6hqt028.fsf@example.com> <868r2oamsy.fsf@example.com> <864jdcahor.fsf@example.com> <86zfv48zcl.fsf@example.com> <86r0gg8n9e.fsf@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89"; logging-data="18581"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:dpZRAoH3zi1+3GZ3v30ubnYD1ns= sha1:xopolJhra3HA+ThbnHr19UGqgRs= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 65E0D22976C; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:18:13 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475B9229758 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:18:11 -0400 (EDT) id 1D6215DCE2; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:21:42 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by mod-relay-1.kamens.us (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D14485DCBE for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:21:41 +0000 (UTC) by pmx.weretis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A873E955 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:21:37 +0100 (CET) id EFDF33E8C3; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:21:35 +0100 (CET) X-User-ID: eJwNycEBwEAEBMCWkNtFOYfov4RkvoOHyvZD8GCxiprVynFRs6589U9GBKrZcwGK59wWi8z+ABjyEN8= Bytes: 13617 Lines: 213 *Hemidactylus* writes: > Richmond wrote: >> *Hemidactylus* writes: >> >>> Richmond wrote: >>>> Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote: >>>>>> Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote: >>>>>>>> Richmond writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Richmond wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erik simpson writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a crank. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, Erik? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to know. I've not heard of the organisation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before. I've read here:- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked around on this group for many years, and has its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proponents. Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propose to re-argue this subject. Check through prior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not interested in getting involved in such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a group whose description is "Evolution versus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject will come up over and over. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has. My impression is that's one reason so many >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't interested. in it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The >>>>>>>>>>>> distinguishing points of ID are >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the >>>>>>>>>>>> creator ("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there >>>>>>>>>>>> is evidence that life was created rather than evolved. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any >>>>>>>>>>>> version of creationism (include geocentrism and >>>>>>>>>>>> platygaianism). ID is a political movement, and theistic >>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionists tend not to share the movement's goals, so >>>>>>>>>>>> they are rare among ID advocates. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single >>>>>>>>>>>> creation creationists (God created the urorganism) * >>>>>>>>>>>> multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple kinds >>>>>>>>>>>> of life) ** young earth creationists *** young earth >>>>>>>>>>>> anevolutionists *** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young >>>>>>>>>>>> life creationists ** old earth creationists * progressive >>>>>>>>>>>> creationists ** episodic progressive creationists (God >>>>>>>>>>>> creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous progressive >>>>>>>>>>>> creationists (God creates species) ** continuous >>>>>>>>>>>> progressive creationism (God creates mutations/selection) >>>>>>>>>>>> ** occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might >>>>>>>>>>>> also consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of >>>>>>>>>>>> creationism. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with >>>>>>>>>>>> the fault lines in society, rather than focussing on the >>>>>>>>>>>> particularities of belief (defining creationism as >>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to theism isn't helpful.) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is >>>>>>>>>>>> "religiously motivated rejection of substantial proportions >>>>>>>>>>>> of the scientific consensus, especially as relating to >>>>>>>>>>>> biology, geology and cosmology, or the promotion >>>>>>>>>>>> thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic evolutionism >>>>>>>>>>>> and progressive creationism is that the former has God >>>>>>>>>>>> guiding the course of evolution but accepts that natural >>>>>>>>>>>> processes can produce the same or equivalent result, while >>>>>>>>>>>> the latter asserts that natural processes cannot produce >>>>>>>>>>>> the modern day biota. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In another context creationism is the position that human >>>>>>>>>>>> souls are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and >>>>>>>>>>>> other positions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which >>>>>>>>>>> made people come up with these theories, and gives them the >>>>>>>>>>> energy to keep persuing them even in the face of >>>>>>>>>>> adversity. Also the idea of another world, which is more >>>>>>>>>>> real than this one, which crops up still in popular culture, >>>>>>>>>>> like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created >>>>>>>>>>> by something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the >>>>>>>>>>> illusion and take our rightful place. I think Jung would say >>>>>>>>>>> that other place is the unconscious, and that it created >>>>>>>>>>> consciousness in its own image. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jung was quite open about being influenced by >>>>>>>>>> Schopenhauer. The whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s >>>>>>>>>> cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to >>>>>>>>>> shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean Baudrillard’s >>>>>>>>>> Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie was >>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The >>>>>>>>> Matrix is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in >>>>>>>>> that context? >> "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by >>>>>>>>> Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it was >>>>>>>>> the first successful theory for quantum >> mechanics. It >>>>>>>>> described the properties of atomic and subatomic particles >> >>>>>>>>> not as precise values, but as probabilities represented by >>>>>>>>> matrices. >> The Math Behind It: These matrices are >>>>>>>>> essentially grids of >> numbers. Each element represents the ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========