Jim Higgins wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:47:30 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:38:53 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

It's [evolution vs creation] a battle between objective science
and those who believe the Bible is the literal word of God.
Those who believe the Bible is often allegorical tend to have
no real problem with evolution once they understand it never
said that man descended from apes.
One of the most interesting things is that the allegorical nature of
the Bible was an accepted notion, and the so-called fundamentalist ideas
are a relatively new thing, originating in the late 1800's early 1900's.
So I guess it took most of two millenium for them to get it right? Old
time religion apparently started a long time after it started.


Not having studied much of the history of religion(s) (I suppose
Christianity in this case) this comes as news to me... especially in
light of the Bible declaring itself to be THE word of God and that if
any Man shall add to or take away from it God shall add unto him
plagues and take his name from the book of life. (Revelation 22:18,19
broadly paraphrased.)

And yet so much has been added and taken away over the years that it is
pretty hard to determine what is what.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all - and if I were I darn sure
wouldn't cite a Bible that declares itself to be THE word, and because
it IS THE word it's accurate on that point, as my reason. I do
understand the concept of circular logic and the pitfalls of self
authentication. But it seems to me that the basis for fundamentalism
is very firmly embedded in the Bible in far more places than
Revelation 22 and I'm a bit surprised to hear it emerged only
recently. Perhaps it did so as a reaction to so many other
denominations (for lack of a better word) within Christianity seeming
to blow with the wind on matters the Bible seems to hold as absolute.

There was/is a movement called modernism (kind of a lumped category) in
which a major part was called "liberalism" - not to be confused with
liberal in politics, but the coincidence is juicy. The main strengths of
that movement were that there was no need for elaborate explanations of
where the floodwaters came from, or where they went. Or why we have so
many flavors of the bible, or the other little inconsistencies in the
book. The disadvantage of this liberalism or modernism was that there
are a lot of people who *want* to be told "this is exactly how it is,
there is no wiggle room". Religions in which the adherents set
themselves apart from society - like the Shskers or Amish want every
aspect of life examined and a determination made as to if it is permissible.

At any rate, fundamentalism arose in opposition to modernism. It has
the advantage of a person believing that "this is exactly how it is" and
it needs interpreters to wriggle around the inconsistencies and
contradictions. Of course there is one nasty flaw, in that an exact
interpretation is impossible, due to all the different versions, strange
consequences of trying to explain things like the biblical flood (where
did the water come from, and where did it go to. Did the kangaroos swim
to the Middle East from Australia to get on the Ark so that they
wouldn't drown?

So much better to just look at that as a wonderful story about trust,
doing right against ridicule and planning ahead to save innocents in
harms way of Karma visited on evildoers. We can all debate Karma, but
it's still a darn good story that people should know.


While I don't hold the Bible as being THE word, I look at those who do
and wonder why they aren't all fundamentalists. More to the point, I
think the Bible is clear on that point in many places so I wonder why
any Christians who profess to believe in the Bible as the word of God
- as almost all do if asked - AREN'T fundamentalists.


The fundamentalists have largely succeeded in getting everyone else to
stereotype all Christians as fundamentalists with the only difference
being in degree (yeah, I know it seems a contradiction to have degrees
of fundamentalism


I'd tend to call the whole thing scientific tinkering vs evolution
(natural selection) and I'd characterize Cecil's objections as a near
total non sequitur. You can force fit it if you wish, but I consider
it more charity than anything else to do so. ;-)

I think Cecil's point was more along the line of look at the issues
with this stuff, so how can you be so sure of what you are talking
about. I think that was in response to my noting the interesting
universe we would live in should the law of conservation of energy not
hold sway. (my best guess is that such a universe would be incompatible
with anything living in it, and would immediately destroy itself)


I have no clear idea where Cecil is coming from except that it doesn't
seem to be consistent other than to consistently throw semantical
monkey wrenches into the works.

There might be some here that would say that Cecil enjoys a "bloody
good row". 8^)


Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some
point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of
course! That's how science works! Not all scientists are correct and
this is resolved by peer review. Peer review is trail by fire. Weak
theories die or are reforged to correct the parts demonstrated to be
wrong and then retested. It's an iterative process designed to get at
the Truth (emphasis by capitalization intended) and in the process a
number of inadequate or totally incorrect theories are expected to
fall by the wayside. Cecil seems to me to be gloating on the
sidelines that there be dumbasses amongst scientists holding competing
points of view because it's obvious they can't all be correct.

At the risk of sounding like a cheerleader, I think the scientific
method is just about the coolest thing to come down the pike. When I
watch someone passionately defend a wrong idea, then have it proven
wrong, then accept a more possible idea without remorse, that is
exhilarating. It's even a thrill to have it happen to ones self.

Who was it that said "Everyone has an idea that is just plain wrong"?



The process is designed to figure out which is which and Cecil seems
to be taking a snapshot in time, criticizing the status at that point
as unresolved and with mutually exclusive components, when the
emphasis of science isn't on the instantaneous status but on applying
the process to make progress.

Pretty good analysis.



But that conservation of energy law is just about as foundational as you
can get.


Conservation of energy AND matter.

As I think you said earlier, if that weren't The Law, I think the
universe would be a very unstable place to the point that it would
VERY rapidly go to the lowest possible entropy state and cease to be a
changing universe.

Aha, that's a much more eloquent assessment than mine. I keep getting
stuck on the idea of a big kaboom, hehe



It's [string theory] a work in progress. Even the paintings of the masters looked
like hell at some point before they were finished.
Perhaps. My gut on this is that there are so many flavors, all designed
to "correct" something else. So I'll look into it from time to time, but
I'm not going to hold my breath. 8^) And that math.....


Aye... the math is incredibly complex and just properly understanding
the concepts at the cutting edge of research today - *minus* any
meaningful understanding of the math - escapes the vast majority of
people close to the field let alone the far larger majority on the
periphery. Those fully understanding both cutting edge theory and
cutting edge math are indeed extremely rare.

Needless to say I'm not in either group. ;-)


I often hope for an eloquent and simple explanation of everything.
Eloquent because it seems like that is how it should be, even without
the idea of symmetry, and simple because that is what I do best.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -