glintofpewter

Hourly I invite thoughts that arise within to leave because they will not lead me where I want to go. Sometimes it feels that I must be "subduing" these thoughts and emotions, but greeting the unwanted thought or inclination toward an addiction and then asking it to leave doesn't wear me out as much, and opening the door lets the air and light in. Just a play on words but I think our spirituality makes our daily activities and work holy by lifting them up not by conquering them. Dutch

Gov Hickenlooper, yesterday, said that enough time had passed since the Aurora theater shootings and he thought that in January the Colorado Legislature could take up gun laws. Wonder how this will change the conversation the gov hoped to have in a relatively calm atmosphere. Dutch

I think whoever is insisting on the baby being born should be fully responsible for raising it. Beyond that I would like to see "living" fetuses be protected somehow after the age of viability outside the womb (not the minimum possible but age at which the life time negative impacts are reduced. Dutch

I think it is not fruitful to look for rules about the universe or humanity or proofs regarding God or the nature of God in the Bible. The Bible points us to the questions that humans have been talking about for millenia. I believe there is a positive arc toward respect for the life and dignity of all in the universe, but today's answers are to be discovered in a conversation not in quoting Scripture. Dutch

Myron What home page are you referring to? Dutch

I agree with Paul.

[John] Polkinghorne,[a scientist then Angelican priest who I am told testified against creationism in some school board lawsuits] argued in The Times that there is a distinction between believing in the mind and purpose of a divine creator, and what he calls creationism "in that curious North American sense," with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and the belief that evolution is wrong, a position he rejects. From Wikipedia

While private schools in Colorado have more leeway than charter schools student learning is measured by the CSAP tests which measure 4 areas (including science and math) of the 13 for which the Dept of Education sets standards. Who would send their children to a school which didn't prepare them for the next grade or college? Private schools, which receive no state money, can teach whatever they want, but to get wealthy parents to enroll their children the schools will want to be accredited and meeting such standards will mean that their science classes will not be far from mainstream. They may say that God is the reason but add that the scientific method is how we find out what God is the reason for. As far as actual science is concerned I think the evolution/creation controversary gets more attention than it deserves. The more liberals exclaim about it the more hardened will be the opposition. In polls people tend to vote their identity not their knowledge of science. What does my group think? As I said earlier there is much more science that can be done by creation scientists or non-creation scientists than not. Dutch

George, Paul, I would check none of the above of those three poll questions. What makes sense to me often in telling sacred stories is that God and the universe did it together. The more active the role given to God the less comfortable I am. Of the chance and necessity of evolution God prefers both I think. We should be adding scientic discoveries to the testaments of the sacred not subjugating them to our very limited understanding of other texts. The Sacred will thus be more completely revealed. Dutch

This apathy toward what is taught is interesting. http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx 45% don't care whether evolution or creationism or both are taught in school. 30% would be upset if only evolution were taught. ONLY 18% would be upset if only creationism were taught

This e.coli experiment excites many, including me. Evolution over 13,000 generations. http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/2012/10/bacteria-learn-new-trick/ A creation scientist will say that this is not about evolution because there was no new information created in the organism. This is an example of variation within kind. A telling description from the article: During the second step, an UNUSED GENE that could move citrate within the cell BECAME ACTIVE AGAIN. In the final stage, that gene got busy, and the cell adapted other tweaks necessary to gobble up citrate. Change over time but not evolution by a narrow definition.

Stanley, ------------ And what about when we start theorising or discovering science we currently aren't aware of? ------------ I don't think creation scientists will be doing this. But going beyond the limits of known world is always a challenge. I am just trying to take some of the heat out of this conflict. From what I read I would be 100% comfortable with a scientist who believes in young earth creation working in a lab preparing next year's flu vaccine. The changes in the bug are not examples of evolution to them but variations in kind. I agree in part that understanding evolution as a way in which science connects the dots might be sine qua non for a scientist. My daughter taught biology for a couple years mostly to home schooled kids. The text book had a chapters on reproduction and evolution that were touchy for some parents. She did not teach from the chapter on evolution. She talked about "change over time" and stressed the scientic method and rigorous and critical observation. She felt if any of the kids were interested in science and grasped the scientific method - that would take their minds where they needed to go. I think the reluctance to see evolution as the best explanation for the data as an anti-intellectual response by people who are tired of being pushed around by smart people in a time that authority is not respected by smart people. It is liberals after all who ignore the moral foundation of respecting leaders. Anyway the conflict over text books is political and unfortunately decided by Texas. Whatever Texas approves is what the rest of the country gets to some extent. If we want fewer anti-evolution answers in poll we need better questions, we need to back off, stop calling them stupid. we need to make friends, so we can move the elephant first. Then the rider, who takes the polls, will follow. Dutch

According to a couple serious creation science web sites whether one is a creationist or evolutionist does not affect the science done in developing the flu vaccine, new materials for cars or airplanes, tweaking genes to improve nutritious foods or make mice glow in the dark. Assenting to evolution is not necessary in space flight, driving a one ton vehicle on mars, or laproscopy, or historical archaelogy. It is not necessary in studying the weird creatures in the deep ocean trenches or fighting fungal menigitis. The mental gymnastics of creation scientists will not affect the poll with its simplistic questions. Whether one assents to evolution will be determined by how many friends say they believe in evolution and it will not change how they view science I think. 'Believing' in evolution will not make anyone scientifically literate and that is more important. Dutch

My wife had a NDE years ago. She returned with a sense of mission.

I think asking if people believe in evolution is not a useful measure of people's openness to the scientific method. From a creationist: Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? --- This is an interesting distinction - and perhaps useful. A "can't we all get along" call to truce. Do the science. Forget the creation/evolution conflagration. What would happen? Can we separate "origin science" from "operational science"? Does the science of climate change depend on a science of origins? New terms to me. I don't know.

Maybe we should look behind the answers to the poll. Personally I did not find my position described. But consider the following if you think that some creationists are weak minded. http://creation.com/...al-distribution

Is this a religious thing or is it an anti-intellectual thing. I don't mean that quite as pejorative as it sounds. Maybe the world seems out of control, and this emotional impulse seeks explanations that are simpler and less threatening. That anti-evolution beliefs are so obdurate in the American public is evidence of the cultural battle going on. As long as 'respectable' people support or hem and haw - seeking any vote - about evolution people will find no need to change their minds. When they feel like an outlier they will change their minds as fast as it takes to want to be part of the group again. It's game theory driven by lowest common denominator politicking. I agree with Neon that the internet is wonderful for persecuted groups or people who must look far and wide for others with the same issues. But I think the internet will decrease critical thinking (I am going out on a limb), increase polarization, and support a politics of power rather than ideas because, whether it is held in our common religious traditions or not, we are loosing the sense that there is something beyond us, but also that we hold in common that guides us and that we can refer to when seeking what is right and good. The internet encourages isolation and hardening of ideas not interaction and development of ideas. For me a good example is the popular election of judges. Special interest groups are targeting judges not for malfeasance but for making decisions that are ideologically wrong. I acknowledge that this is not a new thing. It just has never been so blatant. I think it is a result of loosing that sense of common good, that we are in it together and we can talk about it, Maybe the future is not that bleak but I think the internet will encourage polarization and loss of critical thinking as much as it encourages community and exploration. Dutch PS The evidence suggests that hominins had capacity for rudimentary language 1.7 million years ago. Cheap stuff can be knocked out quickly (10,000yrs) but to get something of quality takes longer.

God (subject) breathed into (predicate) his [man's] nostrils' (object) Are you suggesting God is both the object and subject of this sentence? Maybe a biased misreading of the Bible is equivalent to a biased misreading of science. I will allow you that. But It's not logical and it won't win any arguments - oh, wait it will - just put it in an ad and repeat it over and over again. To be disrespectful and misleading may be fun with your buddies but it takes away from the real issue: how we can we get the most number of people interested in using the scientific method. More and more our identity determines what we will believe to be true and less and less are liberals or conservatives willing to see the results of the scientific method through an unbiased lens. Dutch

then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,* and [God]breathed into his[man's] nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. ----- I'll check commentary. What about light before suns? Dutch

Are you going to try and tell me this is exactly like what scientits believe too? ----o------ Neon, Let's take one flamboyant statement at a time. What about 'boogers'? There are none here. And light before suns? Dutch

Creationist believe that God created light before the sun ------------- So do astrophysicists --------- Out of his own boogers ------------ No they don't. Can we get a little logic or are we just misleading and respectful on the fly? Dutch

FSM is not of the same category as creationist beliefs. So it is misleading. Parody, directed in this case against someone's beliefs is a power play and not logical. As a power play it is disrepectful. It meets the criteria for bullying. Dutch

I currently am of the opinion that there is very little if any room for the word BELIEF in a thinking persons vocabulary. ------------------- I am not sure what definition you are using but the issue is too complex to hinge on a word and the word too rich to be abandoned. If all that we are is pictured as a rider on an elephant, the rider representing reason, rationality,and the mind, it is said that rider SERVES the elephant, that irrational part of us. We may not want to use the word but I think we all operate out of beliefs about the world that cannot be verified. We don't get all our knowledge rationally. The scientific method is neutral as far as beliefs are concerned. Even scientists have failed to recognize results of the scientific method because of their beliefs about the known world. Beliefs are fundamental to our construct of the known world. We couldn't do it without them. Certainly Lao Tze and the Tao point us in the direction of living without beliefs, I think. Jesus, in his encounters with people and flowers, shows us a life lived without expectations (which follow beliefs) but we find the road difficult. Dutch

While I have read and entertained suggestions about various diseases of the saints I think there are two or three errors which should limit our speculations. 1. Each culture and age has diseases which are and are not recognized as disease regardless of the science available. 2. It is an error in evolutionary thought to use today's conditions and knowledge to be certain in evaluating past stages in development. Evolutions repurposes exisitng things into totally new and different things. 3. AnnieG, I agree that pre-modern times provided a better refuge. Myron said something precious to me: maybe the disease allows us to experience something of the Divine. My memory may not serve me but isn't a deep wounding sometimes a sign that an individual is closer to the Divine. Jacob wrestling with God, for example. Dutch

So where does polygamy fall in this discussion? ------------------- Do the relationships contribute to the wholeness of all involved? The weakness of using this as a sole criteria is that often we do not know what is good for ourselves. Polygamy more often than not I suspect is about power and not relationship. I will have to look up the evolutionary view. It does favor the male's genes but I forget what the best stategy for a woman is. Dutch