ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (09/03/84)
--
The creationists' notions as to how life got going (heh, I almost
said "evolved") on earth are perfectly acceptable notions. BUT
THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE. All creationist propositions need one or
more gods to work the machinery. But if the explanation is not
naturalistic, it's not science. By definition! This does not
make creationism wrong, merely unscientific. Indeed, the literal
Biblical account could be completely correct, and science--restricted
to natural explanations of things--would never stumble across it,
even if every point in current evolutionary theory were proved false!
Science doesn't explain everything--perhaps that's why so many
scientists are very religious.
So, creationists, why do you feel the need to demean your theology
with axiomatically unattainable scientific legitimacy? I mean,
belief in the Bible is nothing to be ashamed of. It's nothing to
put in public school science curricula either.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 03 Sep 84 [17 Fructidor An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***ethan@utastro.UUCP (09/07/84)
[This space is blank]
Well .. actually scientists are not very religious in any conventional
way, significantly less so than the surrounding society. I think that
the reason for that is related to the reason why creationism does not
strike most scientists as a "perfectly acceptable" if unscientific
belief. The pursuit of science involves a preference for verifiable
hypotheses. Solipsism is perfectly acceptable from a philosophic
point of view, but anyone who takes it seriously is not likely to be
a good scientist.
I suspect, but can't prove, that most scientists are agnostics
(*not* atheists) because they are temperamentally uninterested in having
faith.
Ethan Vishniacrch@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (09/17/84)
A very interesting explanation of the nature of the "natural" world and
the nature of miracles. My biggest question at this point, though, is
source. Where did you get all that from? *I* never saw that in the
Torah. (Again, this is more a matter of interest than sneering cynicism
[albeit I've been known to be sneeringly cynical in my time]).
As for my theories, let me defend them just a bit-- but let it be understood
that I am not claiming that these are necessarily my personal beliefs. Just
possibilities.
If I understand you correctly, you dismiss that possibility that such stories
could get started without being grounded in truth, and moreover such truth
could not reasonably be twisted through time (declaration of independence,
etc.) You go on to say:
> If we can accept the histories of the Greeks and Romans, why do we not
accept histories that date a mere additional 1000 years further back in time?
<
To defeat your argument, I simply turn it against yourself. I ask you to
live by your argument. If you are going to accept the Bible as clearly
true for the reasons you mention, then you must accept all such works, by
the same reasoning. "If we can accept the histories of the Greeks and
Romans...." Really? Then I assume that you believe in Zeus and Apollo,
etc. And of course you must accept ALL biblical works, Old Testament
*and* New [which leads to amusing contradictions] as well as all of the
apocraphal works. In addition, there is Gilgamesh and any other ancient
texts [do you fear the wrath of Humbaba?], there are the Islamic writings,
there is simply a wealth of understanding from many sources from these
ancient times. Thousands of Egyptions witnessed the power of Ra, and
observed that their Pharohs [ok, I can't spell] were gods. No way that
*that* could be twisted.... Well anyway, I think you see my point.
And I don't think it that farfetched to see people believing the Dec. of
Ind. to be divine in a few thousand years. I don't think it likely
because as time marches an and scientific awareness increases, people are
less likely to resort to the supernatural to explain historical events.
But the world of a few thousand years *ago* was much more susceptible
to such things because they had so much less science to explain their
world.
Even today, though, it is easy to see that people are gullible and will
often beleive anything you tell them. Not all people, of course, but
many. Tell them that a million people saw something and they may well
*not* ask to talk to them. How many people with "Enquiring Minds" read
and believe the National Enquirer? Enough, at least, to make it a
profitable venture for the publishers. Yet shall people two thousand
years from now accept that tabloid as historical truth? How about political
propoganda that has been spread by various governments at various times?
Shall history *really* believe everything that the Communists, or the
Nazis, or even our own government says?
In short, I feel that you have yet to demonstrate any real reason that the
bible cannot be seen to be fable or initial truth twisted and distorted.
Zeus be praised.jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (09/19/84)
In response to Ken Perlow: >The creationists' notions as to how life got going (heh, I almost >said "evolved") on earth are perfectly acceptable notions. BUT >THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE. I agree that this "notion" is not science; IT IS HISTORY. Whether you accept creation as the Bible tells of it or creation as the theory of evolution (Origins of Man, specifically) would have you believe does not change the fact that all notions of "The Beginning" are history and not science. The matter in either case is merely conjecture (or belief) based upon the evidence available. The things that can be called science are the methods of investigation into the origins of life for a better understanding of the natural world, and the application of evolution as an ongoing process. >All creationist propositions need one or >more gods to work the machinery. But if the explanation is not >naturalistic, it's not science. By definition! God seems natural enough to me! Of course, that's just because I believe in God (the Creator). >Indeed, the literal Biblical account could be completely correct, >and science--restricted to natural explanations of things--would >never stumble across it, even if every point in current evolutionary >theory were proved false! >Science doesn't explain everything--perhaps that's why so many >scientists are very religious. I couldn't have said it better myself! >So, creationists, why do you feel the need to demean your theology >with axiomatically unattainable scientific legitimacy? I mean, >belief in the Bible is nothing to be ashamed of. It's nothing to >put in public school science curricula either. Which is exactly how I feel the theory of evolution should be handled (especially since it is no more valid than the Biblical account). My reason for this is that it is very misleading to children to hear only evolution. They have to assume, until told otherwise, that it is fact. I don't ever remember any teacher making the point that this was only conjecture. I am not opposed to discussing archealogical finds, genetic mutation, or any other scientific evidence that life exists and has existed, BUT don't make it seem like Darwin's theory is the only possibility; BECAUSE IT'S NOT! "All things were made by him: and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:3 Julie Harazduk {ihnp4|linus|mcvax}!philabs!jah "And God said, Let there be Light: and there was light." Gen.1:3
dk@browngr.UUCP (David Kantrowitz) (09/19/84)
Information about the source of my explanations of miracles and nature can be found at the end of this article. As for our latest interchange, I must clarify a point which I hope answers your question/defense: >> If we can accept the histories of the Greeks and Romans, why do we not >> accept histories that date a mere additional 1000 years further back in time? >To defeat your argument, I simply turn it against yourself. I ask you to >live by your argument. If you are going to accept the Bible as clearly >true for the reasons you mention, then you must accept all such works, by >the same reasoning. "If we can accept the histories of the Greeks and >Romans...." Really? Then I assume that you believe in Zeus and Apollo, >etc. And of course you must accept ALL biblical works, Old Testament >*and* New [which leads to amusing contradictions] as well as all of the >apocraphal works. In addition, there is Gilgamesh and any other ancient >texts [do you fear the wrath of Humbaba?], there are the Islamic writings, >there is simply a wealth of understanding from many sources from these >ancient times. Thousands of Egyptions witnessed the power of Ra, and >observed that their Pharohs [ok, I can't spell] were gods. No way that By "histories of the Greeks" I mean *our* histories of the Greeks. By "histories that date a mere additional 1000 years further back in time", I mean *our* histories of that period. I did not mean to accept the Bible as a work of history (although that is a reasonable next step). I mean that we have certain beliefs about the Greeks and the Romans -- we believe they did certain things, such as waging wars -- we do not believe their claims about Gods, but we do believe their own histories of themselves -- e.g., we do believe that they held certain beliefs about Gods, like Zeus. My only conclusion from all this is to believe with equal strength that about 2500 years ago, the Jews for the most part believed in a certain tradition, just as I believe that the Babylonians had a certain tradition then. Therefore my reasoning so far does not compell me to accept any tradition, be it Greek, Roman, Christian, or Jewish, or at least NOT YET. NOW, however, I pose a new question: given that almost all the Jews 2500 years ago believed that something happened to them (Revelation on Mount Sinai) roughly 500 years earlier, HOW did that come about? This is not like the Greeks, because they had no such mass revelation, nor did they claim to. This is like NO OTHER claims in history (*thousands* of Egyptians witnessed Ra? -- I didn't know that. maybe they witnessed the *power* of Ra, but we see the power of creation all the time-- it depends on your interpretation. Also, I was taught in grade school that the Pharoahs were believed to be gods, but never directly *observed* to be Gods. The difference with Mount Sinai is that tradition holds it to be an event not subject to different interpretations -- the revelation of Godliness in the world was a clear sign of spirituality in the world, not a physical event that can be explained away, and that it was heard and seen by a million people all at the same time) Nor is this like people today believing the National Enquirer, because: as you said yourself, the people believing that stuff today will not affect its acceptance as historical truth 2000 years from now. I am dealing with an event or piece of information from 2500 years ago that DID affect accepted historical truth -- the fact that people are gullible only concerns me if that gullibility gets transfered to accepted historical truth. It seems not to be the case. How can you imagine a whole nation of gullible people? How can you imagine the "Enquirer"-type of gullibility affecting the history books? Furthermore, the acceptance of the New Testament or of Jesus, to name a few examples, is not as astonishing a gullibility as the one you'd need to explain away Mount Sinai -- it's easy to convince people that you alone have seen a revelation. The acceptance of Ra and Zeus does not relate at all to revelation or historical events; rather they relate to an acceptance of an explanation of the world that needs no verification at all. Also, you said, in comparison, > And I don't think it that farfetched to see people believing the Dec. of > Ind. to be divine in a few thousand years. The key is a *few thousand years*. We are not dealing with a few thousand years. We are dealing with 500 years, for if you accept the histories of the Jewish people 2500 years ago, then you accept that they have a belief about events dating 3000 years ago, or 500 years before their time. That is what you have to explain. Also, I retract my use of the Declaration of Independence as a good example, because it does not involve a large group of people all witnessing an event in the same place and the same time. In fact, I cannot imagine any significant historical event or scientific fact that even compares to Sinai, except for the sun rising and setting each day (and similar ones). To summarize, it is an event that is unparalleled, in scope or in nature, by any other historical events, real or claimed. It is historically evident that this event was claimed about 500 years after it happened. I still feel there is no reason to reject the event's verity, and no better explanation of the accepted events, than to accept the Bible as being true. I hope my arguments are a little clearer. I welcome all further comments, arguments, etc.. By the way, I like the way you put this: >because as time marches an and scientific awareness increases, people are >less likely to resort to the supernatural to explain historical events. >But the world of a few thousand years *ago* was much more susceptible >to such things because they had so much less science to explain their >world. The only thing I don't like about it is the word "susceptible" which implies a disease. Otherwise, it is a nonpartisan statement. You can view science as having enlightened us, or you can view it the way I do: it has had the opposite effect of enlightenment, making us think that our models of the world are all there is to the world. Indeed, I see this world as a very dark age, and no difference in susceptibility between then and now. But this is a different discussion from the more important one. ---------------------------------------- The source for the explanations of nature and miracles that I sent before is from Kabalah (mysticism), which is by all means part of the Torah, though not the part that most people are familiar with. In fact it is wholely consistent with the rest of the Torah, including the Written Law, or Tanach. (Hebrew Testament). This version of the explanation I learned by reading various works (Tanyah, and others) within Chabad Chassidus, which is derived from the Kabalah of Isaac Luria (first name may be wrong), who lived in Ts'fat in Israel in the 16 century (I believe). The earliest written source of Kabalah is the Zohar, which was written about the 2nd century C.E., by Rabbi Shimeon Bar Yochai. The information in the Zohar and Lurianic works are accessible to the layman only through more lucid explanations such as those of Chabbad Chasidus.
krista@iham1.UUCP (krista anderson) (09/22/84)
<Is this really necessary?> >From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) >I am not opposed to discussing archealogical finds, genetic mutation, >or any other scientific evidence that life exists and has existed, >BUT don't make it seem like Darwin's theory is the only possibility; >BECAUSE IT'S NOT! Please do not think that "evolution = Darwin's theory". Darwin thought that speciation was a slow and gradual process. Others think that rapid changes may come about due to mutations, neoteny and so on. Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are but two of the theories within the science of evolution. Naturally, a modern biology class would discuss as many theories of evolutionary processes as time permits. History should be taught in history class. Religion should be taught in one's church or at home. Equating evolution and Darwin would be like equating astronomy and Galileo. Science developes over time. ihnp4!iham1!krista
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (09/24/84)
-- [I said] >The creationists' notions as to how life got going (heh, I almost >said "evolved") on earth are perfectly acceptable notions. BUT >THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE. [Julie's response] >> I agree that this "notion" is not science; IT IS HISTORY. Whether >> you accept creation as the Bible tells of it or creation as the >> theory of evolution (Origins of Man, specifically) would have you >> believe does not change the fact that all notions of "The Beginning" >> are history and not science. The matter in either case is merely >> conjecture (or belief) based upon the evidence available. The things >> that can be called science are the methods of investigation into the >> origins of life for a better understanding of the natural world, and >> the application of evolution as an ongoing process. Oh no you don't! Evolution is a theory about a scientific process, *NOT* a statement about "the beginning". Do not confuse the origins of life on earth (about which there is evolutionary theory) with the origin of the universe. Creationism mixes them both together, of course, so I understand your confusion. And it's not necessarily history. I'll buy "mythology" though. [me again] >So, creationists, why do you feel the need to demean your theology >with axiomatically unattainable scientific legitimacy? I mean, >belief in the Bible is nothing to be ashamed of. It's nothing to >put in public school science curricula either. [Julie] >> Which is exactly how I feel the theory of evolution should be >> handled (especially since it is no more valid than the Biblical >> account). My reason for this is that it is very misleading to >> children to hear only evolution. They have to assume, until >> told otherwise, that it is fact. I don't ever remember any teacher >> making the point that this was only conjecture. >> I am not opposed to discussing archealogical finds, genetic mutation, >> or any other scientific evidence that life exists and has existed, >> BUT don't make it seem like Darwin's theory is the only possibility; >> BECAUSE IT'S NOT! >> Julie Harazduk {ihnp4|linus|mcvax}!philabs!jah I'll agree that science is often not taught well, that often kids only get "facts" to regurgitate on tests, and that evolution does not have a pat answer for every question. But it does have an overwhelming body of evidence. And it *IS* science. It gives a naturalistic explanation for the progression of life on earth from the simple to the complex. Creationism is *NOT* science. It claims that a god or gods stepped in and mucked with things. Evolution belongs in public school science classes; creationism does not. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 23 Sep 84 [2 Vendemiaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
rch@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (09/30/84)
To David Kantrowitz, regarding the last posting regarding miracles ad (oops, that should have said "and". damned sticky 'n'-key!) history. An interesting and intelligent response. Your position is now greatly clarified, and although I yet do not agree with it, it has a streak of reasonableness to it which causes me to pause and consider before posting a *real* response. But it is likely that there will be one.... Rich Yampell