I think the buddha must have been 49'ers fan.....THAT'S suffering!

THOUGHT SHAMAN,

And Yes, I was collecting the posts to later go back and attempt some synthesis.

The Buddha says

Life is suffering

Therefore, while alive we're suffering

Namaste
__ __ __ __ We must be the change
__ __ __ __ we wish to see in the world __ Gandhi

nspire: "Were you expecting each of us to clarify that 6 of these were, and 10 of those weren't? I do question the underlying issue of your question, as it was broadcast to a group — what was your intention?"

Ah, I see the reason for your discomfort. Communication can be a bear - I meant the content of your posts, not the collection of individual entries. While much of the content has little to do with evolution as a biological field, it expressed some underlying connection. I wanted to see if any of you had thoughts other than my earlier summation.

"Regardless, I am sorry that my "off the page comment" was received in anything other manner than my own guess (intention) that you'd rather some of our comments were not on the page, in the 1st place."

Tangents are a common occurrence in discussions. It is useful to orient/relate back to the original topic periodically. Rather than intending to remove content, the idea is to add more.

Yes, defensive in response to your mild question of how the posts related to evolution.

As for me, by participating and reading the posts, I can see that some had very little to do directly with evolution, per se. To most reading herein, I expect that that is self evident, so no explanation or questioning is nominally "expected".

Were you expecting each of us to clarify that 6 of these were, and 10 of those weren't? I do question the underlying issue of your question, as it was broadcast to a group -- what was your intention?

Regardless, I am sorry that my "off the page comment" was received in anything other manner than my own guess (intention) that you'd rather some of our comments were not on the page, in the 1st place.

nspire: "Although I would hardly consider speaking for others so well versed in discourse, it does occur to me that this thread is demonstrably EVOLUTIONARY, just not in the manner you might considered focused. Each of our thought streams are liken to novel life forms looking for sustainable niches to flourish…"

To rephrase your position, evolution in the biological domain is similar to the evolution of thoughts and ideas in the context of knowledge representation and abstraction. Ideas, when exposed to critiques (external stresses), adapt and refine within the agent (compare to adaptation). Additionally, such a process may yield a collection of similar concepts with characteristics distinct from other forms of knowledge, which over time may become a separate field of study (compare to speciation).

Are there any other thoughts, comments, etc.?

"…but successful adaptation and synergistic collaboration for many of us, apparently goes straight off of your page."

From whither does this come? Alternatively, is this just a defensive reaction to a perceived attack?

THOUGHT SHAMAN - Although I would hardly consider speaking for others so well versed in discourse, it does occur to me that this thread is demonstrably EVOLUTIONARY, just not in the manner you might considered focused. Each of our thought streams are liken to novel life forms looking for sustainable niches to flourish, but successful adaptation and synergistic collaboration for many of us, apparently goes straight off of your page.

We are evolving, and if not yet obvious, LANGUAGE and mutual communication is the fully most highest expression of BE'ing human, all else is but dust on the winds (over the stretch of evolutionary time).

BTW, the topic of this thread started with "Bugaboo", and little has gone into that either, right?

Namaste
__ __ __ __ We must be the change
__ __ __ __ we wish to see in the world __ Gandhi

Aymon, nspire, starofthesea, Siouxrose, et al: In what way do your posts relate to the topic of evolution?

turk fowler: Materialism posits no deity (I am unclear on the strict adjective you use). How did you arrive at a notion of god for it?

"AYMON: You know I think you are a genius, and am in awe of the expanse of your Aquarian intellect; but no sign knows the heart more so than Leo… and you, as air sign, hold command of the communication powers; but I resonate with John..." Can I borrow this for my "Blog-umentary"? Monty Python, here I come!

If Intelligent Design is "religious" because of the implication of it's possible conclusion of an extra-material designer, is evolution "religious" because of it's possible conclusions of a strict materialism? Both are belief systems with a god...

Blessed are the peace makers

Namaste

Sometimes truth is less than pleasant to speak but I am willing to do so here and now. Aymon is a very sad and probably a very lonley human being. But that is his CHOICE. No one who speaks as he does has tasted the love that only IS. A child could sense that easily because love is always accompanied by something glaringly absent in Aymon's attitude...simple humility..the desire to never belittle another. Children have to deal with that all the time. Far too many adults talk down to them as if they can know nothing. Of course, I'm not trying to suggest that anyone here can't see that. I know you do, and I hope you may have said something that might just happen to pierce his amazingly, and I mean amazingly, inflated ego. But sometimes I believe you just have to kick the dust off your feet and turn away, which is what I've done concerning this person. I will not speak of him any further beyond this post. Karma will be his teacher or his undoing. Either way he will eventually see his erudition as the obstacle that is for him and him alone. Then he may encounter the Light that cannot be seen and know THAT which cannot be known. May it indeed be so with us all, no matter how many times around the wheel of samsara it takes. Better, may we all simply step off the wheel NOW.
And by the way, I have really enjoyed meeting you folks here my first time out on CD and look forward to further exchange in other topics when time allows me to do so.
Peace and Blessings to ALL, no exceptions.

AYMON: My subjective experience of India is MINE. Your claim to Truth is yours. You and I have probably studied many of the same Masters. You are taking on the semblance of authoritarianism in presuming there is a singular perception that I must have about India or Nepal. I was not talking about the politics of Nepal, I was mostly LIFTED by my experience there with Buddhism, spending 10 days in a monastery. I saw a great deal of suffering and economic privations, but NOTHING compared with India. I made it a point to take a 40 hour train ride to Bangalore to SEE what all the computer-age prosperity purported to bring to that land. It sickens MY SOUL to see India as it is. I have never heard you speak on the subject of sexism. Perhaps as an academic that is your blindspot? When I speak about the chasm to the UNITY of creation, you speak about LIGHT but LIGHT is a dance of particles, Light is an attraction between Yin and Yang. Regardless of your superior background in science or physics (status I will concede to you), I have been gifted with MY visions, and I have had MY teachers, and I have been validated. So this is not about anger. I was sharing a perception, and giving MY reason for why it might exist: in the absence of love. As I made it a point to add later, I am fully aware of the earlier traditions of India, and that it's gifted the world with many Masters and Seers. However, the caste system, the low status of women, the poverty, despair and LACK OF LOVE FOR THE LAND as the GREAT MOTHER was what I was sharing. I have an ego, and so do you; the proof is if either of us did not, we would not be wearing a body. NO ONE has a monopoly on truth. It filters through our minds, and even with much research we are imperfect channels. I concede that, and so should you, friend. Many mistake my fiery passion for anger. Perhaps you are mistaken.

Sisters SIOUX ROSE and STAR OF THE SEA:

You have good souls and do seek the LIGHT.

Paths of LIGHT (I follow the path of HERMES/THOTH/MELCHIZIDEK)are difficult for those whose egos are frail. There are truths on these paths tha come to us as balms and trials. We cannot indulge the Ego and dispense with inconvenient truths; that disrupts onwards progress and points the traveller towards self-loving darkness.

It is also very harmful to your Karma and try to kill the messenger, especially an Adept. It hurts not the Adept but swiftly rebounds on you. therefore always submit to Truth whether it be agains ourselves. none of us is perfect. All make errors, conscious and unconscious; it is the mark of a person who has progressed much on the path of the LIGHT to accept truth that comes from others nearer to the Light than ourselves.

I spoke the truth on India to SiouxRose. It was not in anger and there was no ill will in it towards my sister SiouxRose. And Siouxrose, it does not become you not to respond truthfully to the message but to direct "praise" at the messenger in a husk of sugar with a kernel of venom.

If you do this, the LIGHT will lead you further astray as it has in your praise of Nepal. It reminds me of the millions of Euro-Americans in Reagan's America who had a great time in Capetown, the centre of apartheid south Africa. To add insult to injury, these revellers when Mandella was in jail, came home to rave about how great South Africa was.

If you did not know, you should. nepal is a brutal monarchy in which abject poverty is as bad or higher than in India, and the infant mortality rates higher than India or Pakistan.

For a person on a path to light to put up ignorance of history as an excuse but talk a lot about Karma is a contradiction in terms, isn't it.

As for anger, did not the western icon of supreme love and peace throw out the money changers from the temple in anger?

Righteous anger is not bad because it undergirds justice without which there is no foundation for social and spritual life, and no backbone to speak 'truth to power"

Persons of LIGHT are not to portray anger in the service of ego and self-love as I am seeing above and are so are all who are truly on the path to LIGHT.

Peace

We can might all benefit from (re)reading Issac Asimov's Nightfall short story, here
"about the coming of darkness to the people of a planet ordinarily illuminated at all times on all sides", and see also here for an on-line study guide (if not interested in reading original).

which so poignantly illuminates what might happen when an Earth-like society is periodically shattered (as if an automatic Dark Ages were programmed into it), and burnt to the ground - through a naturally occurring combination eclipse causing month long periods of total darkness every several thousand years - and humankind's primal fear of darkness.

I love this story's astronomer character, who breaks with authoritarian line and is empowered to serve as a (life-line) bridge to future generations, and thereby save needless suffering and death - but the mobs and fires are coming so much closer now - and my time has come.

Namaste

Ignorance is bliss...... ?
After spilling blood to separate church from state here we go back again into the dark ages.
All religions are making a comeback. Encroaching on our lives. When are we going to start burning witches again?
Crusading is making a comeback, soldiers (all faiths) pray before battle??? May my god be stronger than your god.
I am glad I am 60 years old and will not see the rest of this maddness.

STAR OF THE SEA,

Thank you for authentically BE'ing vulnerability, wisdom, and

_ L _ I _ G _ H _ T _

Namaste

Wow! Tuned in again, and late enough to watch an explosion of powerful ideas, as well as the creative tension such ideas can generate in the process. Another thing that is clear to me in reading this thread, is that what we ALL really want is to be heard, to have our individuated selves, our contribution find a place in the tapestry, that enhances its beauty and its complexity. So many ideas to ponder, much on this thread should be compiled into a book.

SIOUXROSE---thank you and bless you for your unapologetic and articulate expansion of your well-rounded view. Every esoteric discipline I familized myself with offers an uncanny combination of simplicity that has as a seed within, amazing complexity. The paradox nearly escapes the seeker until that aha moment when one realizes that there are many paths to the same destination, and many maps offering intriguingly similar, Universal, for lack of a better word, directions.

A word of caution to all who post here since I feel more and more, that we are becoming a cohesive community.

When we choose our words, we must be aware that words can be a weapon or a caress. They can divide, or they can fuse us. They can invite, and they can exclude.

If we choose our words knowing full well that we suffer a common disorder----the delusion of separation from SOURCE and thus,from each other, perhaps we are more likely to speak as much from the heart as from the mind. If we can temperour words thus, we will cultivate compassion and connections with their utilization, and break down the thoughtform of separation and isolation.

NSPIRE---your LIGHT just gets brighter. Shine on

AYMON-----anger and impatience with those you deem less worthy for whatever your reasons, causes you to sometimes hurl your words like accurately thrown spears.They hit their mark, but what do you achieve? While the ancient teachings have clearly been given short shrift, do not forget that seekers start from.....where they start from. Being too limited in one's scope eventually leads to expanding one's horizons. People resonate with different frequencies of the LIGHT, and when one values service to others, one offers compassionate assistance, even, AND especially when one senses another's ignorance. There is enough woundedness on the planet without us adding to the load, especially in a teaching role.

All I need to do is be briefly in the presence of an Ascended Master to know humility and simultaneously to know A LOVE THAT SURPASSES ALL UNDERSTANDING. If those who can hold such great amounts of LIGHT, love us strugglings students of the LIGHT as they do, and offer their unlimited assistance unconditonally, can we not do the same for each other?

How in the world can anyone believe in the 'intelligent design theory' with the likes of George W. Bush in power?

AYMON — Although I'm spiritually living near Rishikesh, I've too seldom been blessed with its presence, and instead my reverence is from afar.

STAR — your clarity and perspicacity about our existence is a revelation and our blessing. I would be honored some day to share an enLIGHTened podium with you, and cast aside the darkness.

Namaste

AYMON: You know I think you are a genius, and am in awe of the expanse of your Aquarian intellect; but no sign knows the heart more so than Leo... and you, as air sign, hold command of the communication powers; but I resonate with John, "And the greatest of these is love." I can FEEL love's absence. THAT was the basis of my statement on India... usually to heal a wound it must be recognized for what it is. For all the brilliant rhetoric, it really comes down to LOVE, doesn't it? Isn't that the invisible weave in which the whole cosmos has been woven? Isn't that what we all need to find? We humans can get lost in our egos, in the boundless fury and expanded panorama of our thoughts, our beliefs, what we learn. But the open heart, gateway to all that is? Then all that we labor to learn is given to us, the jewel of heaven. And as you well know, when the soul reaches that level of integration, it carries its seed in every lifetime thereafter. I bear witness to the sign-kingdom that opposes yours, and these are not antithetical, but rather complementary positions. Hail the circle, that empowers NO side! In-light, Sioux

Good morning AYMON. I am in the "purple islands" and just did a triple set of Yoga facing the open oceans. I was not planning on channeling a response to you via this venue, but it came through. First of all, I would not venture to challenge you on your breathless scope of history. Although I attended all advanced classes in an elite HS, and kept an "A" average, I HATED history and still do. Why? To me it seemed the arrogant recitation of one war after another, indeed HIS(the Mars exalation of war as mankind's tale to tell, and pass on son to son, daughter to daughter as wounds must get mended) STORY. I turned off the subject!

I am well aware of India's mystical tradition. Yoga has kept me centered in a wild world for 2 decades. I also am in awe of the concept and practice of Tantra. But as Rajneesh pointed out in his controversial, indisputably insightful books, India has been Christianized, or rather, brought under the yoke of patriarchal belief systems. My OBSERVATION that the land reflected the same dearth of love that I believe generates from marriages taken on the basis of mercantilism. India, a Capricorn nation, has allowed the marketplace assumptions to touch and control the most sacred aspects of life. I believe the dowry murders, the murder of baby girls, and the still respected caste system aborts the FLOW of love.

When I returned from India to Singapore (I spent time with the local sages) they asked my "opinion" of India. I loved Nepal, resonated intensely with the monk life at the monastery, but India seemed like a commercial banquet to spiritual aspirations. Visiting Sai Baba to watch the multitudes sit at his feet seemed grotesque to me, a left-over Piscean Age remnant that places power on OTHER, not the awakening of the Divine self. It was like worshippers of Elvis in an ersatz Graceland. I agreed that the BEST spiritual heritage has evolved out of India, that inordinately high adept masters have elected to enter that nexus as their POWER, LIGHT and TRUTH was needed more there than perhaps anywhere (short of Rwanda) on this planet. I am at best a mid-level mystic, and I could not countenance the enormity of the pain I witnessed there, FELT there as an open-channeled empath.

I am sorry if you take my Truth as an insult. It was not meant to demean the rich history of India, it was a comment on what I saw of India now. I traveled many hundreds of miles and my eyes were wide open. Thankfully my immune system strong enough to withstand the varied insults.

SEXISM is the first break in the Divine chain, and many male intellectuals pay it short shrift. It is this dismissal that blindsides many when it comes to not realizing HOW we have fallen into hierarchical societies. Money forms the faux basis for these hierarchies, and the arguments on CD that expose capitalism for the beast it is (or has become) are quite valid. My role in these forums is to bring the mystical component into play. WE must return to the circle, for without this design plan implemented in our world, the balance can never be regained. It begins with the binary code in which life was wrought: YIN and YANG, he and she, braided elegantly in and through every DNA molecule, seen in the magnetic trance-dance that is the motion of atoms, stars, planets, galaxies; and I am grateful that a few men resonated with this idea of Creation as ecstatic communion, rather than some male god having an ejaculatory big bang, all by his lonesome. Peace, Sioux

Merely a belated historical note. The basis for "intelligent design" is the argument from analogy: some/all features of the natural world are similar (to some degree or other) to the products of human artifice; human artifice has its source in intelligent design; therefore the natural world wholly or in part has its source in intelligent design. The multiple fatal flaws in the argument were laid out by David Hume in the 18th century in a delightful little tome called "A Dialogue on Natural Religion". The book is short and intelligle enough (despite its archaic English) to be accessible to even the most anti-intellectual person of religiofascist bent. I would suggest the current sub rosa creationists give Hume a couple of hours but for the suspicion that misplaced faith has blurred their intelligence.

AYMON---I add my humble acknowledgement of your considerable, might I say, awesome contribution to this site. Your observations about our provincial and self-centered ignorance are sadly accurate. This is a very young country---we are viewed I suspect, by many in older, richer and wiser cultures, as very selfish, opinionated, destructive and self-absorbed children. We hide our ignornce with bravado, even seem to revel in it at times. George Bush, I fear, is an all too accurate representation of what we look like to the world. Please keep adding your voice. There are people here who listen, and you have much to teach us, if you are willing.

NSPIRE:

Pranam. Peace be with you.

Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy and Light.

Thanks for your comments. I have read your posts and they are inspired by LIGHT in one who is compassionate.

Reality is One. As the Bhagavad Gita says so eloquently:

"The Unreal never is. The REAL never is not."

The dichotomy between "science" and "religion" that is the ruling doctrine of the modern Western world attempts to divide Reality into two artificially distinct parts - - one that is the province of "science" where "religion" should not trespass and the other is the domain of "religion" where science should not trespass. Whenever the priesthoods of "science" and "religion" dare to trespass in the "other's" domain, a turf war erupts as is going on here under the rubric of "creationism" (whatever that means) and "evolution".

For an Easterner like me (and perhaps you), for whom Reality was never partitioned to begin with, and who knows as the Gita says, that no intellect, finite or infinite, can partition it, this turf war in the West between two equally vain and self-serving priesthoods is nothing but a storm in a teacup. It can never be resolved satisfactorily and thus the two factions will always be at war, because they have never examined the initial assumption that Reality can be partitioned.

I have cited Gödel, Heisenberg and Crick because they broke out of this turf war by the use of logic and scientific fact.

This is inevitable because Reality can only be perceived by those who use logic and facts as they are and with an open mind advance to additional knowledge of Reality. As great philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his magnum opus, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", great advances in knowledge of Reality which is what fundamental science is in search of come not continuously but in quantum leaps called PARADIGM SHIFTS.

When that happens, those who are heavily invested in the defunct paradigm, that he calls "NORMAL SCIENCE" resist in the socio-economic-political spheres in addition to in the literature of the sciences the new paradigm. The "REVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE" is pursued by those who bravely seek truth in Nature to understand and know Reality as it is.

All revolutionary science appears mystical and "metaphysical" to the old guard who cannot make their minds to conceptualize the new form and complexity which Reality presents itself.

Let me recount an anecdote from Heisenberg after he had propounded his Uncertainty Principle. There was fierce resistance from the hardcore "empiricists" of "normal" science by this vast paradigm shift. Accepting Heisenberg's thesis would at one fell swoop snatch the carpet under their feet, so to speak, because the entire determinism of Newtonian Mechanics would be imperiled. The most affected group was the Vienna Circle of "Logical Positivists" of Austrian/Prussian extraction which was the dominant philosophy underpinning all "empirical" science (sense observable science).

Even Einstein could not accept the paradigm and he declared that "God does not play dice." He then devoted the rest of his life to "disproving" an established mathematical theorem that was confirmed by the spectacular successes of Quantum Physics since the 1930's to unravel the mysteries of matter and energy.

The anecdote from Heisenberg is that an outraged young lady, a follower of the Vienna circle came to argue with him that he should repudiate his discovery because it renders all Reality as indeterminate beyond certain limits. That would mean that Reality cannot be fully grasped by science ever and that would unleash a horde of religious nuts claiming that what is beyond science is God.

This was of course a valid point as you can see the constant turf battles in the West between "science" and "religion". Heisenberg had of course thought through the ramifications of the Uncertainty Principle. However, like many cosmopolitan intellectuals of his time in Europe, he had had exposure to Eastern belief systems such as Buddhism and Hinduism. Further he was not a believing or practicing Christian. But he was gracious enough to formulate an answer for the young lady that would let her lay to rest her fears, in as much as a Buddhist master would do for an acolyte after a particularly difficult koan.

He told the earnest empiricist that one must accept Reality as it presents itself. Of course that is THE fundamental principle of any truthful science. But he said that the uncertainty principle does not repudiate the determinism of Newtonian Mechanics at the "classical" or "macro" level. The reason is that at the macro level, the classical measuring apparatus simply collapses the cause of the quantum uncertainty from a "probability" wave into a certain event consistent with the apparatus. To see this, consider a coin toss. Whilst the coin is in the air, it is a probability wave, as it were, with either head or tail becoming certain when it comes to rest on the floor which acts as the classical measuring apparatus.

Thus Reality is a "superposition" of potential certainties at any point in space-time in as much as a coin toss is as long as the coin is in the air. The certainties which the previous "empiricist" paradigm in science measured were simply one facet of Reality and not its entire face.

ALSO THIS UNCERTAINTY IS THE BASIS OF MODERN QUANTUM COMPUTING, A REAL PRACTICAL APPLICATION.

At the micro atomic and molecular level, Reality is never determinate - - it is always potential to OUR intellect, but is TOTAL IN ITSELF.

This is precisely what Immanuel Kant meant when he coined the phrase"

"DING AN SICH" or "THE THING IN ITSELF". This epistemology means that nobody can know a "thing" in its "totality" except for the thing itself.

So back to science versus religion. To me, this is a false debate since Reality is as it is (remember "I am That I am"). LIGHT is Reality. It cannot be reached by some mystical leap of faith or meditation technique, or mumbling something incoherent about "love" as a lot of western new age con artists do claiming authority from various Eastern belief systems.

The path to the LIGHT runs through the mansions of science and reason founded on compassion for human life. There are no shortcuts to it. Reality cannot be reached to the full extent of the LIGHT anyway, as Gödel has already shown. But it cannot be reached from outside of science and reason in delusions of false mysticism and religious or scientific orthodoxy. Because the latter are OUTSIDE Reality.

Is the story of evolution fully told by Darwinian determinism in the "survival of the fittest"? It is doubtful since the full expression of phenotypes is susceptible to random mutations in the molecular structures partly brought about by quantum uncertainties and partly by human mind interventions.

Om tat sat

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EBONIV:

I am glad that you click with LUCKY LEFTY. I would expect no less after reading a few sentences of your transparently condescending Euro-American prose.

Good of you to be "evolving" towards the "Light" American style. Keep at it and you might actually do that. Meanwhile can you Americans leave us easterners in peace?

By the way, I am out of the Euro-American love-fest between you and Lucky Lefty. That's not my cup of tea as you may have noticed in my first post.

Peace

LUCKYLEFTY:

Thanks for a good laugh, I really enjoyed that.

AYMON:
There are many of us here who are painfully aware of the atrocities committed in body, mind, and soul (spirit is incapable of such)by our civilization throughout history, and many of us have spent years critiquing them and trying to purge ourselves of their origins within ourselves. But we also understand, my friend, that these things are not merely western in nature...they occur in one form or another in all human cultures, old and new. We ARE evolving toward and into the light, even if you can't percieve that, it is so. Many drag their feet and cling to old paradigms and self-identities out of fear. In, fact, to some degree, we all do that, don't we? The laying on of guilt and blame is exactly why many of us (not all by any stretch) have walked away from, or simply outgrown the judeo-christian myth. Doing that, especially to excess, invariably points to one's own unconscious shadow. "Cast the beam out of your own eye and then you can see clearly to cast the mote out of your brother's eye" are words that cut to the quick if we can receive them. I, for one...an American-born man, offer the hand and heart of peace to you, but I do so as a flawed, still-evolving human being. Have a good weekend, fellow traveler, and may the reality of SATCHITANANDA rest upon you.

Hi AYMON,

Please share more, your perspective is invaluable for world's peace.

Perhaps much of the Western mindset is cast into a Godelean paradox, where from the sacred truths so easily accessible (and lived) in the East, those simple ideas can never be validated as TRUTH (from within the Western Box)? Of course while nonetheless being verifiable true from within the Eastern "box".

I see that Eastern (and southern neighbors too) are far more likely to stomach the new world, without the overweight and indulgent losses seen here in the US. I don't see that the European culture has aligned as close to the hedonism of the USA, as you suggest, likely because of the influx of crossroad cultures of mid-East and Africa.

Balance is now challenging everywhere.

I wonder how well the new-rich techno-talented and culturally diverse upwardly moving youths of India are integrating within the mini-Western boom of outsourced capitalism? My guess is that they're doing far better than native Westerns do, even with the cultural demise of historical marriage patterns (so many more Hindus and Muslim working closely together during the day, and choosing to break with tradition and marry).

Perhaps it is this new generation that is far better suited to be a rallying point for the world's change, after additional time to field another generation and see the world's circle's immensity and vulnerability?

Although many barriers remain, the world is no longer large enough for small minds and consumptive disorders (regardless of the chimes of billions saying that they too want their own refrigerators, video, and iPods - and chance to be over-consumers).

I am pained in knowing that this is seriously un-fair and grounds for future confrontation, but we ALL must strive to achieve the LIGHT, and let the dross of materialism settle to the bottom of history.

Namaste

I'm LOL, sir DrBN:

You've hit the so called 'nail on the head', then into the coffin's last, buried it, planted a beautiful carpet of flowers around it, and then raised a memorial to remind us for many future generations!

Here HERE, and now. "I look forward to the coming revolution in all fields of biology."

Namaste

To the several regular Euro-tribals of America who follow my earlier post above.

Thanks for proving my point about Euro-American narcism and latent super-race psyche ladden posts. The style, the "humour", the soundbite self justifications, and, above all, never addressing any serious argument that questions your in built propensity to generalise globally to all belief systems the crazyness of Judeo-christian theology.

See, all the Eastern readers will now have empirical proof of this by juxtaposing my post with yours.

LUCKY LEFTY: What a fantastic sense of nerdy American "wit". I guess your post is some sort of Euro-American "classy" argument(??) in response to my citing the current scientific consensus on the non-terrestrial origin of life, yes?. observe that I explained it with the help of Euro authority - - Francis Crick. Ah but that does not help a closed mind, especially of the Euro-American species, does it?

What does your argument say? It says:

"THE ALIENS DID IT!!!" See? Simpler than you ever thought possible. As far as they're concerned, the Multi-Verse was hatched from the Cosmic Egg, 7 megazillion epochs ago and has been staggering drunkenly on its long uncertain walk ever since. Our BIG BANG was merely a localized 2-Pane event when an oversized Black Hole in a separate Pane entirely took an enormous dump and the detritus ended up here. The Good Knews is that we didn't get the worst of it. You ever see what comes out of the back end of a Black Hole? Not Pretty in Pink."

Wow. What a splendid demonstration of the Euro-american mind, what "eloquence", what panache!

SIOUX ROSE: Greetings sister. Your post is as usual lucid. But was your gratuitous insult of India and the one billion people of India with their 5000 year old civilization warranted?

They more or less invented sexual freedom-- KAMA SUTRA, the carvings on ancient India temples etc. You visited India for what? One week and with that you formed a fast-food Euro-American opinion (which probably still remains in your mind as it seems):

" This may seem farfetched by the actual topography of India did not seem that different to me than other Asian regions, and yet India seemed the most maimed by poverty and despair. My intuitive grasp of the situation (spending time there) was that the lack of LOVE played a role. "

The depredations of British and other Euro imperialism in India stole the wealth of India and transferred it to build Euro-America (YALE UNIVERSITY, the railroads etc.). In the process it wiped out of the native American populations and their cultures and civilizations resulting in tens of millions dead, children maimed and psychologically devastated for "manifest destiny" of the Euro-american, the fruits of which you are now enjoying in Florida.

Did you know that before the British colonization of India, as late as the early 1700's, India was 60-70% forrested with enormous hardwood wealth,and with a climate about 10 degrees or more cooler than now - - temperate on the plateau in the middle and snow winters in the North starting from Delhi? India had abundant water and very productive agriculture, the most advanced textile and silk manufacturing industry in the world, master craftsmen and architects and masons (TAJ MAHAL), etc etc. Indeed, China and India together produced 60% of the worlds GDP by the middle 1600's.

Abject poverty, maiming of children? Are you kidding? That was Europe- - even as late as the late 1800's. Charles dickens anyone?

Sexual freedom and the rights of women? Try comparing Victorian England with 3000 years of Egyptian civilzation (have you seen the wall paintings in Egypt?)

Enough said.

As I said, I already feel out of place in a place where ignorance generates so much bliss.

Hopefully some of you will take up some of the points I have made above and in my original post.

I am not a supporter of the rank anthropomorphism that goes under the name of orthodox Judeo-Christian theology and their creationism that seems to agitate mostly Euro-Americans. It is intellectual trash, not worth the title "theory". Secondly it is nonsense from the deepest roots of Jewish gnosticism as found in Kabbalah which parallels Plotinus' cosmology of emanations from LIGHT. By the way Plotinus, despite his Greek name, was an Egyptian though Hellenised in that fabulous place of East-West symbiosis, Alexandria, which gave birth to "Hellenism", meaning Egyto-Greek synthesis.

But I DO defend the existence of the profound, beyond determinate thought, the sublime, and for those who have experienced it, the ineffable, joyous and mysterious LIGHT.

I have yet to hear one coherent argument against its existence. If There is one, then it would have to overcome three of its boundaries- of- thought mysteries I have cited in my post - - Godel, Heisenberg and Crick - - or LOGIC, QUANTUM PHYSICS, MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF LIFE's ORIGINS.

Easterners believe in these easily because it is analogous to their belief systems.

So please don't generalise your local Euro-American quarrel with Judeo-Christian creationism as a world -wide problem for all belief systems.

And stop degrading the current poverty and backwardness of non-western peoples as if it arises from their cultures, belief sysytems, and inherently from their biology, completely ignoring the most plausible and proximate cause - - Western militaristic imperialism over the last 200 years.

Use your own "Occam's Razor" principle.

Peace

Context for consensus and connection (and beyond to transcendence):

I love reading HYBRIDOMA's quoting of Kant, and in some ways, that that is excluded from science and reason is the literally its heart and soul. Disregarding religion and feelings for a moment, a seemingly Faustian bargain was made to accelerate physical understanding at the cost of the metaphysical.

We are on a road to soon die as a species, unless we can reverse our course -- and as AYMON describes so well -- meld into the luminous spiritualism of the East.

I've so long questioned how Buddhism (etc) could ever be subject to discussions of comparative religions, as there are so few. As I mentioned elsewhere, any elements of Western spiritualism can only exist in safe isolation (monastery) from the edificial religion that cherishes its heart is secret, while fronting for whatever power structures exist to hold the masses (ha) in check and subjugation. The most sequestered being those mystics interspersed within the Muslim world, where one misplaced word was likely followed by instant death

Please note, that I jubilantly rejoice in the good service to humanity that organized religions have provides over the millenniums (that is a great start, but hardly all that is needed to free the spirits so deeply subjugated otherwise).

Our consensus must consider throwing off 'organized' religion and anointing ourselves in light, not patterns of control that bind and perforate our otherwise joyous celebration of the sacred feminine/masculine, leaving the circles center empty (inside of passionate alive and inspired).

STAR OF THE SEA:

Your own example of stewardship of Gaia, is likened more to a QUASAR more so than a mere star, which beyond a supernova that outshines and entire galaxy of stars (for weeks), the transcendent iridescent quasar warps space and time to simmer continuously with prodigious and unwavering brilliance from the vary edge of the cosmos - still unbelievably bright in our sight (and insight). And then melded to the vast SEA of unconsciousness and transcendence too!

OK, ok - only metaphorically so, as getting burnt-out (or put out, maybe even boiled alive) doth happen all too often to our sages. I have lived decades of lurking, in terror and fear of standing out above the crowd only to be removed from this physical existence by those FEAR'ing more the all too likely demise of their flimsy scaffolding and illusions of reality - would I alight the passionate essence that fills my soul.

Namaste

Goodness gracious, I'm surprised no one picked out this little gem from "Free Don":

"For me to now be convinced of evolution, after I did my own mathematical research, I would have to see a half fish half dog animal, something different and a combination of animals now existing." (from post 6:52 PM Nov 22)

Are you serious? Well, if we actually did see a half fish/half dog, that would disprove evolution, not prove it. You've shown your primary ignorance of the vast literature of evolutionary biology (not to mention elementary biochemistry) with this one statement. I'm sorry to be harsh, and I would prefer to be kinder, but that is the primary crux of the matter.

Fish and dogs have completely different phenotypes and places on the phylogenetic tree; so that's not how evolution works. Fish and dogs have a common ancestor from which the paths to each of these organisms diverged from each other hundreds of millions of years ago.

Your arguments tend to be based on semantic techniques equivalent with ID trolls, such as the endless spouting about "transitional fossils" (the more accurate term is "intermediate" by the way) and the numbers game with DNA permutations. Others here have pointed out the flaws in this approach already, so I'll avoid that.

You can pretend to be an evolution skeptic, but real skeptics of substance have to ADEQUATELY present alternative approaches that not only refute the bodies of evidence that we have for evolution but also present new data. Where is the new data and what is your proposed alternative to evolution? That's how real science is done. It's not done through illiterate and simplistic napkin equation improvisations.

To provide a better explanatory model for earth's biology than evolution, you would need to not only master but truly confront the work of the following classes of evidence and branches of biology:

The Fossil Record (especially look at work about Archaeoptyrex, and the transitions from Reptilia to Mammals through the cynodonts, also the horse lineage from Eohippus to Equus.)

Morphology and Comparative Anatomy
Phylogeny
Embryology
Homology (similarity of structures or other inheritable features through the fractional passing down of genotype from the common ancestor, such as what is found in mammalian forelimbs)
Biogeography
Molecular Evidence (inluding the convergence of data from the molecular clock and the fossil record)
Genomics

All of these various fields of biology are unified and underpinned by the theory of evolution. All of this evidence is presented in more detail in Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is" (2001).

If you think your little equation and "principled" stand against transitional fossils (which you've conveniently turned into a moving target, of course) can overturn the 100+ years of work in the international field of biology, submit a paper to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. If it's real science, you will be anointed a greater position than Darwin in the biological sciences. I look forward to the coming revolution in all fields of biology.

HYBRIDOMA: Metaphysically yours, Sioux! (I try to bring THAT dimension into this forum!)

As Immanuel Kant explains, any discussion of Creationism has no place in a biology class; it should be dealt with in a philosophy course.
To quote the first page of "A Critique of Pure Reason": Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind.
It falls into this difficulty without any fault of its own. It begins with principles, which cannot be dispensed with in the field of experience, and the truth and sufficiency of which are, at the same time, insured by experience. With these principles it rises, in obedience to the laws of its own nature, to ever higher and more remote conditions. But it quickly discovers that, in this way, its labours must remain ever incomplete, because new questions never cease to present themselves; and thus it finds itself compelled to have recourse to principles which transcend the region of experience, while they are regarded by common sense without distrust. It thus falls into confusion and contradictions, from which it conjectures the presence of latent errors, which, however, it is unable to discover, because the principles it employs, transcending the limits of experience, cannot be tested by that criterion. The arena of these endless contests is called Metaphysic.

I want to thank all of you for this fine thread. 98 Comments when I started reading. It is very obvious that all of you have thought deeply and long and this is a subject of major significance to you. Brava! Bravo! Apart from that however, "YOU'RE ALL WRONG!!"

"THE ALIENS DID IT!!!" See? Simpler than you ever thought possible. As far as they're concerned, the Multi-Verse was hatched from the Cosmic Egg, 7 megazillion epochs ago and has been staggering drunkenly on its long uncertain walk ever since. Our BIG BANG was merely a localized 2-Pane event when an oversized Black Hole in a separate Pane entirely took an enormous dump and the detritus ended up here. The Good Knews is that we didn't get the worst of it. You ever see what comes out of the back end of a Black Hole? Not Pretty in Pink.

Didn't you folks know that? It's posted at the Public Info Kiosk in Sedona, next to the "Walk-In" Closet Shop and the Exo-Biology Taquieria. I thought everybody knew that....(and for those of you with the magic decoder rings, well, the coordinates for the next landing Par-Tay are clearly noted in the text.)

Peace!!!
Gobble Gobble Gobble Gobble Gobble Gobble

What a great thread. Glad it's a holiday so I can spend time here!

PEACEMAKER: There is a subset of individuals who truly fear life, thus they seek control, and gravitate towards an authority figure, or authoritarian paradigm. It is THAT mindset that has owned much of religious rhetoric for centuries. I have explained in earlier CD postings that the denigration of sex to create a chasm between the genders has resulted in a great and grave wound. It has literally set mankind's vessel on an asymmetric course, that has devalued the contribution of feminine context & sentience for centuries. The result has been an overemphasis on force, control, "big bang" power, and what I term MARS RULES.

EBONIV: By Jove, you've got it, my man! If people really loved eachother, and sex can play a big role in that, at least as healing the wound set between the genders... it WOULD be a different planet, indeed. This may seem farfetched by the actual topography of India did not seem that different to me than other Asian regions, and yet India seemed the most maimed by poverty and despair. My intuitive grasp of the situation (spending time there) was that the lack of LOVE played a role. When individuals cannot marry those they FEEL affinity for, but rather marriage (love) becomes the basis for a financial contract, the basis for a high level of energetic communion breaks down. Marion Zimmer Bradley defines this energetic in her marvelous take on a time that preceded Christian rule... THE MISTS OF AVALON. Adorned in masks, the people set forth in a sex frenzy (who doesn't love sex outside? Not in a subway, I'm talking about in some great natural place when no one is around, and it's just you, your beloved and THE elements... the perfume of flowers set to romance us, the percussion of insects, the origin of rock and foll to move us to the oldest rhythmic dance of all!) to fertilize the land. India needs that!

NSPIRE: You are amazing! If I ever get back on TV/radio, I'd love to have you as my debate partner when the multitudes taught to see anything REALLY spiritual as "devil worship" start calling in! I would have advised Free Don to also introspect, and revisit his own basis for paradigmatic thinking.

RADICAL CONFUSION: Although there are many powerful symbols for polarity, I prefer Venus (Love) to Mars (self-interest, aggression, strife). Venus, in the persona of Aphrodite was Ms. Gorgeous and had her choice of cosmic lovers, but she PREFERRED Mars. This is quite fascinating. I have to say, I have met men who were warriors and unbelievably gentle and considerate in bed! Seems this is where they allow themselves tenderness. I prefer the circle as the Zodiac carries a direct corelation with Christ choosing 12 disciples and Abraham founding 12 tribes. Ritchie Havens gave a concert in Athens, Georgia the very night I drove up to do a summer sabbatical working on my book on that topic! Synchronicity! He said, "there is a great secret to life... that there are only 12 of us, and they are... ARies... Taurus.." etc. Let me remind readers the sun sign is a fraction of the total stellar portrait, but a significant one. I believe we are patterned to follow specific paths, and each have very strong gifts and related weaknesses. The circle is a perfect structure: it is the womb, the shape of planetary spheres, the shape (if elongated into an oval) of the orbital destinies of things whirling ranging from electrons to entire solar systems. It is the shape of the bird's nest, the woman's breast, etc. And it is the symbol of PEACE, for geometry points out the angular relationships that exist among each of those 12 celestial positions that constitute the Zodiac's mansions. Polarity is transcended through the circle, as there is always a 3rd point/position/sign set to mitigate what otherwise seems to represent irreconcilable opposition between any 2.

This discussion makes me feel bonded to all my cyber friends today. It deepens my sense of appreciation for all that we may give thanks for being, sharing and giving.

A gifted humorist once observed that if intelligent design was real then it wasn't a design-ER but rather a "Design Committee" that was the only viable explanation for all the goofy, inefficient, flawed, and useless parts that make up the human body.

As a nonscientist I'd like to make two observations:

1) There is no scientific alternative to the theory of evolution; only mystical/supernatural explanations.

2)Prominent skeptics of evolutionary theory include George W. Bush and Pat Robertson. These two are proof positive that Intelligent Design does not occur.

What worse than someone without the intelligence to understand what a theory is? Try someone who has the intelligence but refuses to understand.

All critical thinkers question evolution? Why don't these same people ever question religion? There is no actual proof of evolution but there is even less proof of the existence of a supreme being known as God. All of these critical thinkers have to draw upon is a book that was written several thousand years ago - the Bible! A book that has been rewritten, edited, added to, corrupted by Priest's, and changed so many times it no doubt lost it's real meaning way back in the time of supposed Christ! But, they believe every last word in it implicitly. Without once looking at it and questioning it's duplicity. A book of very dubious origins. Which does not come close to proving the existence of a supreme being. But,yet they willingly teach their children such spurious belief's and present them as truth! Never once questioning their origins. Religion is based upon FAITH and nothing more! The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word as 'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.' I have often found it amazing the very people who question evolution so adamantly have taken a book of dubious origins and bought into it completely. There is more proof that evolution took place (fossil's and etc) than there ever will be the bible! The biggest problem these critical thinkers have with evolution is that most times it flies in the face of their religious belief's. They can't tolerate that. It questions what they have been telling themselves for years. It proves their religion is based upon conjecture. So they spend their time trying to destroy science instead of questioning what they probably should be questioning...their religion.

To all CD readers who are open minded. Here is something for you to ponder on. You will need some concentration power and patience. It is not sound bites.

You may wonder what, if anything, I am going to say in the next few paragraphs has to do with the topic of the article, namely science (i.e. "Evolution") versus religious beliefs such as "Creationism." Everything.

I will get to the immediate topic of Creationism and Science soon enough. My perspective is that of an Eastern intellectual completely at ease with Western intellectual tradition. But that will not be understood without some background as to where I am coming from as I do not belong to Euro-American group that regularly congregates on CD to have conversation on the topic du jour.

I am a person of Eastern origin living in the West for the last 35 years. Although my school education was in a country in sub-Saharan Africa, my ancestors are from Asia. My advanced University education - - Ph.D. - - has been in North America. I have been an academic (now chaired professor) for the last 30 or so years at leading universities in North America such as Stanford. My academic expertise is in the mathematical sciences and in the economic sciences. My other or hobby intellectual interests include world affairs and their dynamics; the frontiers of the natural sciences, logic (propositional, predicate, modal...), analytical linguistics; and the origins of fundamental knowledge of reality and the scope, structure and fabric of perceived reality and unperceived but only imagined reality. The latter IS REALITY but it projects itself onto our minds in flashes of intuition and mystical insight. Such flash knowledge occurs all the time; in fact most of the mind boggling discoveries of science such as Einstein's curved space-time, black holes, dark energy etc. are such spontaneous "Eureka" moments. They obviously do not arise from any previous data entering via the five material senses. If they did, then computers would be able to spin out such insights by the dozen. People who are masters of literature and art are well acquainted and at ease with unexplained intuition. They thrive on it. Who has ever seen a unicorn?

A very profound but well known example from science is the shape of an electron "wave" in vacuum (such as space). Any good illustrated book or DVD on molecular physics or chemistry will give you a beautiful "picture" of an electron wave with peaks and valleys. However, that is not observed reality - - it is an artistic rendition of unperceived but imagined reality.

I have absolutely no interest in organized religion, although I was born in one. My hope is that they (especially the clergy) would just go away and let humans live in peace without relgio-fascist wars and other mind/logic destroying ritualistic mumbo-jumbo. Humans only need compassion, reason, and knowledge and an open and imaginative mind to arrive at TRUTH/LIGHT on their own without any clerical or ritual intervention. I say this from personal experience. As Mulder of the X-Files would say - - "The truth is out there."

I am well versed in the history and culture of the Western World; but I cannot say the same of my Western friends and colleagues, especially in North America. After decades of trying to enlighten or excite them about the world outside America and Northern Europe, I am simply resigned to the fact that it's a hopeless task. The cultural, racial and narcistic hubris and pompousness is so deeply embedded in the minds and psyches of the majority Euro-peoples of North America, from ordinary folk to the "educated elite", due to centuries of Judeo-Christian and materialistic brainwashing and tribal rituals of Euro/super race provenance, that it is futile to try change that mind set in a few years. It will take major upheavals in the world over the next 20-30 years for that to happen. During that time, the world is therefore always in danger of Euro-American imperialism and brutality towards non-white peoples, and the current world situation bears testimony to this fact.

It is not that many Euro-people in America behave like that consciously; most of it is unconscious, almost reflex action and simply taken in stride as the natural order of things.

Sorry to say this but the CD site is case in point, though obviously not as extreme as a Rush Limbaugh site. I do not want to acknowledge liberal political correctness - - it is mostly condescending and far more irritating than the honest, ignorant prejudice of a Fox News watcher. There is a lot of PC here at CD because most people here are liberals, even if progressive. But if you care to notice, except for a few such regulars such as Saila, Gandhi and Lillulu and a few original American peoples, most others belong to the class of Euro-people. And having observed this site for many months now, you should also notice as I have that it hardly attracts anyone of intellectual substance outside the Euro-class of people who congregate here regularly. Most non- Euro people in America, let alone the world, even those born here such as African Americans, Latin Americans, and persons of the original Native American Nations, soon feel out of place in the same sense as a celibate Catholic priest would feel at a Playboy party at Hugh Heffner's mansion.

Nevertheless it is interesting (in fact amazing) to see that most posters here don't even realize that representatives of the countries and cultures of the East where most of the world's major events today are taking place hardly ever make an appearance either as posters or writers of articles. You are so narcistically engrossed in yourselves and with your Euro-tribal kindred spirits that you do not even know the "other" who may occasionally put in an appearance. Even if they say something which is important and not the usual Bush/Chenney/Clinton/ Democrat/ Republican/ American Constitution/ Thomas Jefferson /Bismarck or England/France/Germany stuff ad nauseam, it is promptly ignored and the gab fest of the Euro-tribals resumes as if the other does not exist.

Even though most of the discussion concerns lands, peoples and cultures of non-Euro peoples, hardly any acknowledgement is given to these peoples' own intellectuals' viewpoints about themselves.

Pakistan and Musharraf are talked about without a single quote from leading Pakistani news media. You do not even understand the conflict between the Sindhis who support Bhutto and the Punjabis who support Musharraf. Got you there didn't I? Be honest to yourselves - - most of you did not know there were Punjabis in Pakistan did you? You thought they were all in India.

To you "democracy" is just of one kind - - the Westminster model. Did you know that a true representative democracy was put in place by the Buddhist king, Ashoka the Great in Northern India in the area that is Kashmir and its surrounds in 500 BC? Did you know that the great cities (hundreds of thousands of people) of Mohenjo Daro and Harrapa on the Indus that lasted from 1500 BC to 500BC had fantastic city planning, lots of economic activity but no moneyed or military aristocracy? In fact there were no standing armies and socio-economic decisions were taken apparently by some sort of town hall gatherings. Nobody seems to have attacked them even though they were prosperous.

For a person like me, this ignorance and hubristic insouciance is very disorienting, and also very disturbing. I fear for the innocent little children of my ancestors' homelands at the hands of people who do not know anything about them and who also do not want to know anything about them, especially their humanity. Yet Euro-Americans believe in a divinely ordained inherent right to trash the lives of Eastern peoples and then gab about it on the internet without any visceral feelings of outrage to do something about it. Has anybody here read anything about the Eastern peoples, their vast and ancient history and immense contribution to human intellect and knowledge? Have you ever made a conscious decision to study at some depth social structures of the peoples of the ME except what has come to you from third hand and third rate Euro-American sources?

I know a lot about the Renaissance, Paulinist Christianity, the American and French Revolutions, the major differences between Catholics and Protestants and so forth. How many here know anything about Shia and Sunni Islam to make any rational judgments as to what to do vis-à-vis Iran? It is this vast and impenetrable ignorance of Euro-Americans I fear most. It can and was (on Iraq) easily manipulated by jingoistic propaganda against the "mullahs" of Iran as "terrorists" and "thugs" out to nuke Israel/America because they hate "our- way- of- life" into fascist militarism against an innocent people of 70 million souls. Of these, 15 million are children under 6! Iranians have lived peacefully and not attacked anyone for nearly 250 years! Can you get your minds around that number? The Shia Mullahs have always been influential among the masses - - but in 250 years thet have not incited a single war against their Sunni Arab neighbours. How many wars have Judeo - Christian clergy incited or blessed as "holy" wars in that same period?

Those brave enough like me who dare to stick it out at CD for a few months, soon feel out of place in the Euro-tribal love-fest of sound bites and American 'intellectualism". The idiom, the daily and life -experiences, the "humour", the literature cited, etc is all Euro-centric North American. Then we "outsiders" get censored by the thought police of the CD website if we speak in a bit in outrage as I am doing now.

Now lets on to the topic of this article. What I have said above will be seen to be relevant to my Eastern/Western cosmopolitan perspective

First and foremost, every Eastern belief system (it is difficult to call Buddhism a religion in a sense similar to Christianity) subscribes to some form of evolution over billions of years. For example, in Hindu cosmology, the world began nearly 4.32 billion years ago (one KALAP ago) and will take a similar time to become dead again and to be absorbed back into the Sun.

Right there, all the absurd generalizations made by Euro-tribal "liberals" that just because Judeo-Christianity is hung up on some anthropomorphic god who looks like a muscled and bearded old white barbarian warlord as in Michelangelo's painting in the Sistine Chapel, that Eastern belief systems also have an identical conceptualization of the Supreme Entity.

They don't! Eastern conceptualizations are much closer to the hidden Reality that Quantum Physics ASSERTS exists beyond the reach of current or future human instrumentality because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Thus an electron exists, but even one electron is spread out throughout the universe in parallel universes, yet can manifest itself whenever its multiverse existence is disturbed by a measurement device. This is hidden Reality because nobody has actually ever seen or photographed an electron in its primordial state.

Whilst I do not want to go further than this on the electron, suffice it to say here that if one BRIEFLY considers just three major mysteries of Reality, the "rational" science - - meaning empirical science - - true believers who attack and ridicule all people who believe in hidden Reality as most Eastern people do, are as dogmatic as the creationists.

I do not support the ridiculous and absolute fairy tale Judeo-Christian creationism. But I cannot in all scientific and logical honesty, given my background, support these "rationalist- empiricist" dogmatists who dismiss out of hand without any logic or reasoning all things mysterious and sublime in Reality. It is evil and very much offensive to Eastern people like me.

Let me now describe these three great mysteries of science and human knowledge so that my reaction is not considered reactionary.

1. Kurt Gödel, the world's greatest logician of all time, proved his "Incompleteness of Human Reasoning" result (the so called 'Incompleteness of Logic Theorem') in the 1930's. Paraphrasing this discovery, which turned the scientific world upside down, into general knowledge terms, it says:

There are truths for which we have no proof AND there will never be system of human reasoning by which we will be able to prove the truth of entities that exist in Reality from a finite number of first principles by a process of deduction, even though we know that entity exists because it has manifestations that we can verify.

Therefore I believe that there is a Supreme Being whom Easterners as well as Hermetic Western Gnostics such as Plotinus of Alexandria call the LIGHT. I can't prove by deduction it exists, but the fact that I know certain truths that are absolutely impossible for me to have known from any sensory data I received before coming to know these truths is for me sufficient since Gödel's theorem tells me this not unusual at all. It is common place. That is, those who experience LIGHT are not deluded as the rationalists would have us believe. The LIGHT is.

2. We do not know what "mass" is. Einstein and Infeld first pointed this anomaly out in the 1930's. Physicists had been talking about and using the concept of mass since Newton's Laws came into being, without ever pausing in the 300 years since to ask the fundamental question - - What is mass? As of 2007, we can say very little except that it is some disturbance in some very esoteric entity called the Higgs field. Will we ever determine what it is? I do not know. But I can say this much that if we ever "determine" it, we will do it simultaneously with the spookiest entity yet in the Cosmos (which is filled with this spooky stuff) that is called "dark energy" or "dark mass" since mass=energy by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. What is dark energy? I have no idea what to call something that has no directly physically observable or measurable characteristics and even light gets lost there. Do you?

So much for the Western world's dyed-in-wool "scientific" empiricists.

Would a Buddhist who believes in Nirvana, a Hindu who believes in Brahman, the Islamic Sufi who believes in "Al" and "Lah" meaning "The Total Entity" and "Not Entity" as the meaning of Allah, believe in the above mysteries of Reality? Well you tell me. But I do know that a Judeo-Christian anthropomorphist would be apoplectic.

3. Nobel Prize winner, Sir Francis Crick, discoverer of the DNA double helix molecular structure, a rabid empiricist and evolutionarist in the 1950's to 1970's, suddenly changed his mind and wrote a book in 1980 that shook up biosciences and especially the spontaneous life true believers in Science. Crick in his book made a substantial and eloquent argument to reject on statistical grounds that life on Earth started spontaneously and randomly from non-living matter. This was the sacrosanct received dogma of science - - life is as random as the roll of dice. Crick argued that life "ARRIVED" on Earth on a meteorite or comet from somewhere in the Universe about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago.

Crick's argument turns on the complexity of not only the DNA molecule, but its geometric and information bearing properties. For instance, life bearing amino acids bend light rays through their 3-D molecules to the LEFT. Non-life, that is non self-duplicating amino acids bend light to the RIGHT. Nobody knows why and it is profound mystery in science. Similarly, protein molecules are extremely complex, and the information in the DNA to build them is also complex. But without proteins and enzymes, life cannot self propagate.

For such an immensely complex molecular properties of living molecules to arise spontaneously and randomly from dead matter in a primordial soup of both types of nucleic acids is mathematically impossible. That is Crick's argument in a nutshell. And who in the scientific world would argue with the father of DNA structure?

But from where in the in the Universe did life arrive and what does that portend for humankind? Nobody in the scientific world knows.

But the ancient Egyptians 5000 years ago had some inkling. Their postulated belief system is amazing in its similarity to the scientific facts as we know them today. As far as I know, they were the only ancient civilization to postulate such a belief system and celebrate life as profoundly and reverently as they did. Every one of their major Neteru (rudely translated into English as "gods") is identified by their pictorial representations holding in one hand the KEY of LIFE - - the Egyptian "Cross" - - Ankh - - in which the top part is not straight as in the Christian cross, but is a loop or circle.

Egyptian belief system is as follows - - The Universe started billions of years ago from Nun (chaotic nothingness) spontaneously and instantly in a sort of "big bang" which was the command of the Entity who is hidden in the Nun. It formed an oval egg shaped cavity of light surrounded by the Nun, and this cavity contains all the stars, galaxies (they had already mapped out the Milky Way) and Earth. The cavity that is the Universe is maintained by the thought of Rah (the LIGHT). Life arrived on Earth from the Orion star cluster, sent here by Rah through the Neteru agencies of Osiris and Thoth (Taat). It arrived on a dark stone (meteorite) called the Ben-Ben stone. The apex capstones of all pyramids and obelisks signify the Ben-Ben stone. Muslims believe that Abraham and Ishmael, his first born son, built the Kabbah in Mecca, and placed a "divine" meteorite there. Muslims go on pilgrimage every year to the Kabbah and walk around it praising the Rah-maan (The Merciful, a character "name" of Allah).

Is all this Eastern belief system in any shape or form remotely similar to Judeo-Christian creationism? Obviously not. Can it be as easily dismissed as "unreal" as we are able to do with the 6000 year- universe creationism of Evangelical Christianity?

Today (see the Scientific American or any other major science authoritative information source), Crick's theory of the arrival life on Earth from outer space is the most widely accepted view (but least broadcast to the masses by the Oligarchy as it disturbs their beliefs that they themselves are the highest life form in the Universe) among molecular biologists. The Murchison meteorite found recently in Australia confirms Crick's theory.

Never heard about all these things? Or if you heard them, you most likely in typical Euro-American impatience with "non -rational" (ipso facto as it is non- Western) did not pause to ponder on them to think about these mysteries to put together the jigsaw puzzle, did you? You most likely never thought that those "primitive" Eastern mystics and their cosmologies of LIGHT and NOTHINGNESS may not be as crazy as the religious stuff that pours out of organized Judeo- Christian and Islamic "religions" - - the main proponents of Yahweic creationism.

Peace

"the exclusion of transcendence from the teaching of evolution is perhaps as damaging to education."

The term "transcendence" is itself a loaded term, suggesting that what isn't subject to material investigation is "above" the material world. In any case, what lies outside the subject to be investigated isn't properly part of the study. It's like saying that an English teacher "excludes" biology is her students don't scan the pages with a microscope to detect bacteria.

In any case, the state of scientific illiteracy in the US is a result of over-specialization and the new fetish of standardized testing -- and it's hardly surprising that the political groups that support the latter also generally throw their weight in with neo-creationism: both are procrustean attempts to restore human beings to a former, imaginary simplicity, to relieve us of the burden of complexity and dubeity.

Siouxrose,
Great way of conceptualizing the cosmos...the forces of yin and yang making love! Laozi's Daodejing (The Classic of the Way and Its Power) would be a good read for you! Do you think that the Ancient Greek thinker Empedocles was onto something then by thinking of the universe as basically composed of love and strife? Can Yin and Yang forces be in disharmony of their own accord? Or is this an abberation caused by energy outside of this harmonizing system? Thoughts?

Free Don,
I'm not asking you to give up your integrity or logical acumen..I just wanted you to see that evolution is not necessarily Darwinian or Richard Dawkins "selfish gene" "nature red in tooth and claw" survival of the fittest struggle to the death kind of thing..but can be more fruitfully conceived as a constant collaboration of the "10,000 things" as the ancient Chinese liked to call it. Read Burton Watson's translation of the Zhuangzi and see if the idea of wu-wei (action without coercion) appeals to you.
He Ping

Here's a big that sends the creationist people into fits. It doesn't "prove" evolution, but is evidence of common genetic heritage between species.

Virtually animal life form on this planet possesses an enzymatic process that converts ordinary glucose to ascorbic acid (vitamin C). It is a process that involve four enzymes, the first acting on glucose, the next acting on the result of the first process, and so on. The fourth and final enzyme produces vitamin C.

Except in human beings. Oh, and except in PRIMATES in general. That is, gorillas, monkeys, chimps, etc. In other words, the family tree that humans descended from. And its not that we (and our primate brethern) don't simply have this process. We DO. At least our bodies make the first three enzymes just fine. The fourth and final enzyme though it not present.

Why is this? It turns out that we have the gene responsible that leads to the ability to produce this enzyme, but there's a defect in it. And the defect is EXACTLY the same way in our primate cousins.

Biologists generally agree that an early ancestor of primates was once able to produce vitamin C in its liver just like most other animals. But when the mutation took place, this ancestor survived because it lived in a tropical environment with an abundance of vitamin C present in its food supply. If this hadn't been the case, the mutation would have caused this ancestor to die from scurvy. This ancestor thrived and eventually its descendants evolved into related species -- monkeys, chimps, etc., and humans. And today we all still require vitamin C in our diet in order to live as a result of this.

So here's the thing. If creationism/intelligent design were true, WHY would a designer make such an obviously bone-headed mistake and then replicate the same mistake throughout every close genetic relative to man? Or if you don't want to call it a mistake, why then did the designer give us AND monkeys the genetic code to do vitamin C synthesis like every other animal only to break it at three-quarters of the way there? Why even give us and related species the defective and useless gene in the first place?

Free Don

You seem to be arguing that organisms don't mutate. It has been well know for more than a century that indeed they do and that's no theory. Please familiarize yourself with the work of Gregor Mendel before further demonstrating your complete ignorance of evolutionary processes.

Free Don,

People have been all over this one with you already, but you keep going back to mathematics. Well, nobody is going to mathematically "prove" to you that evolution exists, but your original math is flawed.

You state: "Here chew on this; using the science of mathematics I can prove evolution could not possibly happen. Human DNA is a chain of 4 things 3 billion long. Using a branch of mathematics called permutations I calculate10E36 possible combinations. That is 10 with 36 zeros behind it. Now if an organism reproduces and mutates through that sequence every second for 100 Billion years how many combinations would it have gone through?"

There is not only 1 organism in play. If that organism splits into 2 organisms (like single celled organisms) once every hour. Then at the end of one year I have 2 to the power of 8760 (365 x 24), which is 10E2637 different organisms involved in the experiment. And that is after only 1 year. At 10 years 10E26370, that would be a 1 with 25370 zeros behind it.

Please don't come back and tell me that this does not prove the existence of evolution. I only claim that it proves you mathematical calculation is in error.

Your calculation only works if 1 organism has a single offspring, which has a single offspring.

Free Don:

Nobody can "prove" a scientific theory. We can only attempt to DISPROVE it. "Proof" is what you do with mathematics, not science.

Free Don asks, "where are the transitional species."

Hey, Don, for example, you and I are!

impeachbushco
Here is a link to a pro evolution site claming that transitional species exist:
http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

It seems pretty important to then to prove they exist. Yet all the examples are just extinct animals, or it takes a huge imagination to 'see' the supposed link. For me to now be convinced of evolution, after I did my own mathematical research, I would have to see a half fish half dog animal, something different and a combination of animals now existing.

My statement that all evolutionists thought transitional species were evidence of evolution comes from books (text books, papers etc.) evolutionists wrote. Remember, I used to be an evolutionist.

Theories are ways to explain observed results. A theory is tested by observation and experiment. For example, evolution requires a slow, continuous change form one life form to another, but the fossil record clearly shows new species popping into existence fully formed; sometimes more 'complex' animals come before 'simpler' ones. Colin Patterson, of the paleontology department of the British Museum of Natural History has stated publicly that the fossil evidence does not support evolution – no transitional species, no slow changes.

When I checked into the various dating methods and looked at the raw data from dating samples I concluded there is no current technology that can accurately date anything. The dating samples must be taken many times and the results are always scattered over a huge range of dates. A scientist can choose almost any date to fit his/her preconceived ideas. The result is I do not know accurately how old the earth is. Maybe someday we can have a procedure that is reliable but there is far too much variation today.

I am not trying to change you mind, I am only seeking the truth. But my own work leads me to state that evolution is not the truth. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

SiouxRose:
you know, I have for quite a few years rather enjoyed contemplating the mystery and unimaginable exhuberance displayed by a bang big enough to set this evolving universe into being, yet I definitely like your universal love-making metaphor. Maybe a big bang could have been Yin and Yang's superspasmic orgasm, offspringing yet another universe with it's own yin/yang energies making love and building up to yet another orgasmic bang!? Involution/evolution/involution...the eternal rhythm of Love. And I'm not merely being flippant here...deep down we all intuit the truth that love/joy is the supreme mover of the cosmos. Some of us just get stuck with the idea that there can only be one metaphor called TRUTH and all other imaginings are evil, or at best, simply WRONG (I know, I used to be so stuck..was even a professional preacher of said truth). But indeed the cosmos has room for all, and in the end..."all manner of things shall be well"(was it Hildegard de Bingen that said that?)...in fact, it has never been otherwise. Thanks for enhancing my metaphor!

peace

i'm impressed by all the energy that's gone into trying to straighten out Free_Don's thinking. to be honest, i wasn't able to wade thru all the posts, but another point that i don't think was made (regarding don's original post) is that evolution is unlikely to happen in a petri dish.

random mutations can only be advantageous in the presence of environmental niches. a niche that offers some survival advantage to the mutated organism is what leads to the potential for its differential (greater) rate of reproduction. this is the phenomenon that leads to the creation of new species.

anyone who waits for darwinian evolution to occur on the level playing field of the lab table is likely to be disappointed.

did i submit this twice? oh well

FREE_DON,

I've replied constructively and specifically to open a common communication channel with you.

But from your comments, your perennial refrain is "the proof of evolution was to be found in transitional species".

Your position is what is called a 'straw man', that you don't bother to prove yourself and seemingly (for you) it bypasses a dozen pages of real content from some real experts in this. Can you site a reference for me to verify, about: "all evolutionists admitted that the proof of evolution was to be found in transitional species" ? Or a reference for "there exists no evidence to support the theory of lower to higher evolution" ?

You need to consider turning your appetite for questions back toward your own assumptions, for any progress to be possible. I've explained what scientific accountability really means (above), and suggested how you might pursue your own acquisition of that. How is that working?

You provide no basis nor evidence when you generalize that "As long as evolution is vague and based on theories which are themselves based on other theories then they can never be held scientifically accountable."

The evidence that eludes you is readily available in most cities' zoos, libraries, and museums. And after reading all of your criticisms of evolution, most would consider quid pro quo in a scientific investigation, which would mean all of you qustions apply equally to ID. Turn it around and answer the same questions for ID - but then you cannot because what you call a theory is not valid in science. Google "scientific method" and you'll find everything you might need to create a true scientific theory, but the ID that I've read from you and others doesn't qualify (follow this link here).

If you're into a literal reading of the bible, do you read Hebrew (aramaic) originals, or rely so "unscientifically" on Council of Nicaea and King James editors? Can you explain why fossil whow 4.5 billion years for creation, while bishop ___ would have us believe that Genesis occurred just some 4000 years ago (a factor of million error usually means back to the drawing board).

I do believe in a spiritual ONE, and as I wrote above (2:34 pm), I see that our world's current collection of science vs. religion battles is both divisive and unproductive (kind of a dead end, for both science and humankind). I see that ID has certain merit in re-inserting the spiritual into and otherwise scalar and bald science, to create a colorful and dynamic touchstone for inspiring belief and right action.

Please consider walking a mile or so in another shoes, and see if some answers are revealed from within yourself, if not -- enjoy your Thanksgiving and hopefully some peace.

Namaste

impeachbushco

I went to the web site and read the transcripts (I can scan that much faster than watching the video). I was hoping to see some scientific proof that some lower form of life (whatever that may be) evolved into another. I did not see anything like that. All I read was about ID and creationism and evolution theories. I certainly did not see ANY of the scientific data that opposes evolution. So what I read was not balanced nor scientific.

By the way, I like your user name.

Until about the 1970's all evolutionists admitted that the proof of evolution was to be found in transitional species. They were confident in their belief they would be found and demonstrate exactly how lower life forms evolved into higher forms. Then serious questions were raised that would not go away and which pricked evolutionists theories. Now, since there exists no evidence to support the theory of lower to higher evolution, and after 100 years of looking, the evolutionists have decided that either evolution leaves no evidence or that the evidence lies somewhere else. Instead of saying "our theory lacks proof, lets develop a new theory" they create intellectual gymnastics competitions (conferences) to adjust their theories to compensate to the lack of hard evidence.

That's why earlier post here claim that transitional species are not proof of evolution, if they are then evolution is in trouble. That is also why none will come forward with an example of how lower to higher evolution takes place, once they do scientists will go looking for it and when it is not found then evolution is disproved. That is a possibility evolutionists fear the most. As long as evolution is vague and based on theories which are themselves based on other theories then they can never be held scientifically accountable.

Evolution is a theory which means it it is not set in stone unlike creationism.
New information can be tested and the theory refined as required. Evolutionists accept that there is more to be discovered, that the theory may be just the beginning of something that is completely beyond our understanding.

I am a practicing Christian and I am convinced that evolution i.e. a continuing evolvement, best explains the wonders of the universe.

Creationists refuse to consider alternative explanations, their minds are closed to everything except their belief in what amounts to a delightfully told fairy tale, but a fairy tale nonetheless.

Truly, where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

SIOUXROSE, GEOFF29, NSPIRE AND EBONIV----A bright fulfilling day to all. And all of your posts feel like a combination of lifelines and genuine communion.

While I always loved the wild rides at the fair, much of the fun was clutching friends who effortlessly mixed terror with exhileration. Like Siouxrose says, evolution is not an option---- CREATOR/CREATRIX loves itself without limits, and we are all part of that vast ALL THAT IS.

GEOFF29 I, too trust that others are moderating ( great choice of a word) the other sites out there. Silly me thought I would have to try to finda metaphysical site to find this evolving community. Now I see that I needed to expand my own horizons, to be in service. To share what we are becoming is useful, I hope.

I AM profoundly grateful for having made these connections with other traveling companions, What an adventure!!!!

SIOUXROSE---I love the image of the lovemaking/creative force. In Quantum Theology, the overarching theme is the dance, the movement that births every new form. So whether you envision particles or waves, you're still trying to describe an exquisite force, LOVE, as the DANCER, and the SOURCE (pure potential) coupled with limitless creative energy, birthing new forms/holding them for a time/breaking them down again and re-forming and refining, without limit, without endpoints. It is about the passion for and the exhileration of creating.

Celebrate the dance of creation in yourself and in your current situation. The possibilities are limitless. All you need to do is decide, how would you have it be? and then get on with the dance.

I personally enjoy dancing with others, especially others who move from their heart centers and and weave their own magic into the trembling, shimmering web. I welcome with open arms NSPIRE AND EBONIV, and all you other seekers out there on CD. Your contribution makes the dance more exuberant and rich.

GEOFF29---thanks for the beautiful quote from Rachel Carson. I love that image of the saturating, then overflowing rains. Now THAT is one heckuva descrition of abundance, eh?

SIOUXROSE: outstanding intuition and visually stirring image of "galaxies ... MAKING LOVE"

EBONIV, GEOFF29, & STAROFTHESEA: Thank you, and grab hold as we got some work to do.

ALL: To survive, Humankind needs to build __ c o n s e n s u s __ c o n t e x t __ and create a new middle ground.

This thread echoes Joseph Campbell's concept of the crucial challenge before us to formulate a powerful new mythology, that shares (somehow) a melding of seemingly divergent pieces of world views, into a wholesome and encompassing one. I believe that the strengths of the ID debate are based on a hazy appreciation of what is coming.

Indubitably, we are nearing the end of a long establish "scientific" paradigm, which leads many of us to easily stumble into reductionist and limiting thinking (THEORYs, not LAWs):

_1._ Western mindset is deeply mired in Descartes's minimalism about the philosophic underpinnings of existence, which imposed the seriously bankrupt (limiting) idea of a "clean" separation of mind/body (spirit/world). This the context that science sits upon (and within) and throwing the scientists off of their imagined throne doesn't hardly go deep enough.

_2._ This broke the mold of a continuous connection between the realms of thought/action (physical world) and religion (spiritual world) - a trend some 3000 years in the making that although improving longevity, avoiding famine, and supporting democracy -- that now brings us to the brink of societal collapse.

_3._ Without these grandiose (paternal seeking, monotheistic) THEORY's imposition, modern technology and societies would not be recognizable. The current ills might never have resulted, if we had continued to worship the Earth Mother Gaia, and embraced the crucial appreciation for duality, the sacred feminine and similarly sacred masculine.

How many of you know that biblical Genesis resolves the duality, by giving equal weight to both male and female GOD_S, but sorry the King James editors took out that part from the literal Hebrew original? Thus sacred teaching are really ALL about the revealed words of a combined MALE/FEMALE God, still monotheistic, but more like Shiva/Parvati, than that old grey dude! Of course, this "little" edit was needed to resolve the inconsistency with the KING (man) being above everyone else (woman, foreigners, the Earth, ...).

_4._ The antiquated (long preceding) Western mindset came out of Aristotle's also flawed minimalism about the 'law of the excluded middle'. This conceptual framework (context) says that 'something' can only be "A" or "not A" (true or false, good or evil, spirit or matter, Earth cooling or warming, ...). Very few "believe" in this still, as we have understanding of the shades of grey in meaning (and morality) - but underneath everything - many of us do still act and believe that easily split dichotomies are true. This is nominal due to lazy or shallow thinking, that emerges out of a un-examined context (of the Greeks).

_5._ The demise of both egregiously discombobulated contexts, might have been ushered out some 100 years ago, but the consensus was lacking. A potential paradigm shift contradicting item _4._ is called non-Aristotelean (aka General Semantics, or GS). GS popularized that "the map is not the territory" and "the menu is not the meal", as we all get that eating the cardboard menu or believing in the map's accuracy too literally, will lead to unexpected results.

_6._ Art historians will also recall Magritte' wonderfully telling "This is not a pipe" painting (Ceci n'est pas une pipe), which seems a contradiction, but is actually true: the painting is not a pipe ... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Magritte

What we are facing in today's crisis, is a powerful opportunity to shift the perceptual framework that we use to interpret meaning, ideas, and actions in this world (and the people in it).

We need to meld spirituality into how our decisions are based, as recall that early democratic ideas (our constitution) were borrowed from native (Iroquois?) Americans (but we ignored their core beliefs, and created our separation of church and state doctrine).

I don't know how to balance fundamentalism and integrating managing governments' core to include spiritual and physical basis for decisions (for 7 future generations) -- but nonetheless it is crucial herein.

Healing the planet and evolving the common human understanding to some future commonality is either going to proceed the massive disruptions and guide them, or emerge as an outgrowth - but the wheel is not going to stop turning.

OK, you got me, polarizing my conclusion, as if we only have two choices here!

Namaste

Free_Don, above, said:

"I guess I missed the part where evolution was proved by science."

Then I suggest you go here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

and watch the NOVA documentary on what happened in Dover, PA. There's a lot of science here and I think you will find it enlightening. Open up your mind, Free_Don. Evolution is a FACT, accepted by most reputable thoughtful scientists. "Intelligent Design" is NOT a FACT. It is religion. Period. And it has NO PLACE in the classroom.

If you want to believe that nonsense, then go to church!

native wild flower,

hold on to the idea that time is an illusion. You know that else you wouldn't have run into that waiter whose name was the same as the one in your play.

playing with time here myself.

celestial ocean being,

I steal everything. Here's some Rachel Carson I'm reading. Kind of combines Science with Wonder. God help us all and the planet when the two fall completely out of favor with each other, or if we lose our hope.

Really, I could quote the entire first chapter, but:

"As soon as the earth's crust cooled enough, the rains began to fall. Never have there been such rains since that time. They fell continuously, day and night, days passing into months, into years, into centuries. They poured into the waiting ocean basins, or, falling upon the continental masses, drained away to become sea."

I'm trying to evolve on this site. I presume someone else is moderating the other sites out there simultaneously - as Aristotle may have been right when he wrote. . .ok maybe another time for that. Can't give it all up at once.

mrpickwick and nspire__ Appreciate your comments on my post and do not disagree totally. First, I am strictly against mixing religion and state, as it is a detriment to both. I do not believe it is necessary to accept a six day creation to still have a belief in a higher power of whatever name that is at least partly responsible for the unbelievable universe we live in. Granted, their have been great upheavals on our earth, however, it has survived them all and still rotates in perfect timing as other planets do. I think creationists should soften their views for their own benefit as well as others, and evolutionists could benefit by asking themselves how this earth came into being and continues on course for our existence. It would be rather scary if the planets were just moving around anyplace at changing orbits and speeds. I believe there is much to be gained by studying both theories instead of vilifying either of them.

EBONIV: The choice to evolve is going to not seem all that free, given the momentum of tragic events that now are about to dovetail forcing upon humanity a different basis for engagement with other (humans) as well as the natural world (basis for so much of the wealth cretins on Wall St are trading as if the web of life matters not at all).

I wrote on a different post today how paradoxical this day feels to me... true, I have relative prosperity when compared with the starving multitudes, and those made recently miserable by war or natural calamity (some of which has not doubt been brought on by our nation's profligate lifestyle); and yet as a sentient soul ever aware of the ONENESS, it is impossible to entirely celebrate one's relative peace when so many others ARE suffering. Small wonder so many have to dim their souls with alcohol, subdue their emotions with antidepressant drugs, or take other means to exist in a nation that for the most part calls for schizophrenia on a massive, if covert, scale. With that being said, happy holiday. Sort 'a

THOUGHT SHAMAN: Excellent postings! And just when I thought I would add that the two approaches have areas in which they can be braided together, along came RADICAL CONFUSION to explain this with his own brand of eloquence, "Like an artist before a canvas..evolution makes use of already existing patterns and materials in trying new things..but always striving for maximum fit. " Richard Bach would say to the one completely stuck in his own intellectual paradigm, "Argue FOR your limitations and you get to keep them." Science is quite authoritarian. Kivals and others have sought to expand my view, and there are always scientists who break the mold and demonstrate a marvel of mind that in my view marries empiricism with acute intuition. I honor such souls, but tend to agree with Rudolph Steiner that the average scientist embodies and/or acts in the interests of "a consensus of mediocre minds."

I believe in "God" but not as a white guy who imposes rules, rather as an incomprehensible energy so beyond what our cognition can begin to embrace or entertain. Further, I do NOT see big bang as the basis for creation (if mankind survives this era, that construct will probably become as popular as those that argued for a flat earth) but rather see in the marvel of galaxies a tension between Yin and Yang forces. I have said this before... our universe is engaged in MAKING LOVE. In bringing forth galaxies on the basis of the union of the forces of what on our earth plane is taken for male and female. If we held this possibility we'd understand the sacredness of both genders, rather than through the symbolism of big bang argue for more weapons and grant our treasures in homage to the god of war/blast off/modes of destruction!

STAR OF SEA: Even if in less organized fashion, the discussion of consciousness is alive on this site because of more than a handful of enlightened (in this particular aspect of human life) contributors.

SIOUXROSE and STAROFTHESEA:

Thanks for the comments. I don't get to the computer all that often, but I do enjoy CD when I do. I have noticed both of your comments to be consistently edifying. Starofthesea, thanks for the reading suggestion. If you haven't read it, Up From Eden by Ken Wilbur is an excellent work on the evolution of consciousness. Happy Thanksgiving to both of you and to all who read this, though as the lead story today on CD implies, it will be less than happy for many. Hopefully more and more of us will CHOOSE to evolve--as scary and painful as that can sometimes be--so that the center of gravity of our culture will move beyond its current strive-drive-me-first fixation.

peace,
eboniv

If church can't keep its filthy paws off of state, why don't we just threaten to tax the sorry bastards? Then watch them run and hide behind the pretty robes of the priests and preachers who molest their children both physically and mentally, and steal their tax-free bucks.

twoblueday We seem to have two great mysteries here. 1. why anyone would listen to Ben Stein 2. why all the facts, especially scientific evidence refuting evolution, are not taught to our children in schools.

The one scientific fact I presented here showing evolution could not possibly happen has not been challenged by anyone scientifically. Why?

RadicalConfucian you are asking me to leave scientific reason, logic and integrity behind and accept on faith evolution. Why? Is that what we are teaching our kids?

To everyone else, I have never said anything about Creationism. Can we not debate evolution by itself?

I just want to know this: which creation myth am I supposed to accept as science? There are plenty to choose from.
Oh, by the way, can someone tell me why I should listen to Ben Stein on the subject of, well, anything?

Free Don,
I admire you for your intellectual integrity, that is wanting to have all the evidence in before you accept any scientific theory. I think Thought Shaman is helpful in advising you to think of an artistic creation instead of an engineered step by step process from one "primitive" species advancing on the the more "advanced" human organism. Perhaps we can take the artist metaphor seriously without having to appeal to a "designer" or as Aristotle was found of putting it "an unmoved mover". The God of the philosophers who is often thought of as creating ex nihilo, can be replaced with a much more mysterious and interesting idea of a collaborative effort (William James and others thought we could still make good use of the idea of God here...but I will leave that aside for now) wherein creatio ex situ (situational creation) is the order of the day. Like an artist before a canvas..evolution makes use of already existing patterns and materials in trying new things..but always striving for maximum fit or consistency with the surrounding environments...I think this is already quite awe-inspiring and adding an bearded old deity behind the scenes seems rather redundant. Thoughts?

Hi KERNEL,

You wrote that: "How about the theory of a combination of evolution and creationism?" ... "Consider if the operation of our entire solar system was dependent on pure chance, or the help of the best scientific minds___Is it likely everything would still be working great?"

I personally might consider many things beyond scientific theories, but then I also know that SCIENCE (the process) cannot do such, as it is based on facts.

I'm also familiar with the evidence of several massive near 100% die-offs (of almost all life) on this Earth that you say is working great. In the last 4 billion years, the Earth has been twice completely covered in ice, except for a few very primitive life forms, which of themselves twice struggled by extracted oxygen to fill the atmosphere (initially to ~ 1% and then the 2nd cycle to 20%).

Or consider that the creation of the moon (impact formation) likely made the surface of the Earth molten for millions of years.

You might consider that evolution doesn't only work with everything close to final state, but is about how life survived in many completely different forms in order to be ready for what we know today. It will continue with or w/o man.

An then the humongous dangerous die-off of nearly all of the humans, around 75,000 yr ago, with Toba super-volcano ejecting 3000 cubic kn of eruption products. It is estimated that only a thousand or so humans were left able to cling to the icy cliffs, for some hundred years, and from that few all of humankind was regenerated from.

I hardly think that we can attribute these mechanisms resulting from pure chance, as known emergent and organizing properties are often observed (schools of fish, birds flying in formations), and life is full of surprising ways to survive. Another example is when city dwellers cross the street, and patterns emerge out of each person looking for the pathways of least resistance while going each of their own way, while observing and reacting (following steps) to the ones acting as trail makers.

and as MRPICKWICK comments "(life) began causing conditions that were suitable for more life", which is seemingly intelligent, but

"not by design".

echoing MILITANTLIBRARIAN's funny anecdote.

Namaste

How about the theory of a combination of evolution and creationism? It does not have to be entirely the way the religious fundamentalists portray our solar system, but possibly some are being driven too far towards evolution by the radical creationists. How is it that for millions of years, our earth, sun, and moon have operated with perfect timing, our atmosphere is livable, with water , air, food, shelter, and many more examples of perfect synchronization, all by itself?
Consider if the operation of our entire solar system was dependent on pure chance , or the help of the best scientific minds___Is it likely everything would still be working great? We might progress a little faster if people would stop their foolishness of trying to prove it is all their way and realize there is more than one way to look at anything.

I attended the last three days of the ID trial in Harrisburg because I thought it was so very important.

At the end of the trial, the lawyer for the ID side said to the Judge, "I want to point out, your Honor, that this trial has lasted exactly 40 days and 40 nights."

Quick as a flash, Judge Jones said, "Yes, but it was not by design." The courtroom erupted in laughter.

You want to see a prefect example of evolution, go to any school that's been around for 100 years and ask to look through their yearbooks. People around the world today look different than the people 100 years ago looked. Plus if we all came from Adam and Eve how come we have so many different races of people today. In the fifty years I've been alive I've noticed different living things change over time.

From what I've studied the closes evidence you can find for Intelligent Design are dogs which man evolved from the wolf. Anyway doesn't matter if evolution happens by accident or by Intelligent Design (Man) evolution is real.

I'm personally still on the look out for evidence for a god and I don't believe it will ever be found. Anyway based on the average religious persons actions (Christians are not much different than Muslims to me) there's not that many people, who actually deep down, believe in a god.

Hi FREE_DON,

I'm both an engineer and a scientist (although my spiritual beliefs are more about the who that I really am).

To clarify SCIENCE, let me extract a piece of THOUGHT SHAMAN earlier today at 4:56 pm, where he stated:
"The only way to disprove evolution is to ...", as his statement got me thinking (thanks!).

I believe that your understandable goal to ascertain the basis of 'The Theory of Evolution", or the proof as you call it, is based upon an ineffective approach to garner and validate the foundation and basis (both of science generally, and evolution specifically).

Consider another 'reverse' way to view this, assuming that one has been successful in replacing the existing accumulation of facts into a brand new theory, what would that take?

1. Science is a process of assimilation, where a new theory that eventual "wins" does everything that the older theory did, and also provides new predictive (testable) ideas for validation. This is about billions of facts and observations, and the overthrow (or paradigm shift) will either be better than before or fail to establish itself and grow in its predictive powers.

2. Three useful examples of "proof" of new theories that pushed earlier efforts aside, but also did not invalidate them, are:

_a._ Newton vs. Einstein (relativistic corrections for either extremely large mass or speed (close to that of light). Most engineers and scientists will be perfectly happy with results from the older theory, as long as they don't encroach on the area where Newton's theory can't provide predictions (v ~ c). In fact, when v << c the use of Einstein's theory reduces to that of Newton. No conflict here.

_b._ Geocentric or Pre-Copernican (Ptolemy or pre-Galileo) theory of Earth at the center of our "solar" system (it was an Earth system then) See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric
as compared to having our Sun the center. Both theories could predict planetary motion, eclipses,
and astrology (invented with the old and didn't change one bit, even precession of equinox). Over time, with Tycho & Kepler's observation into "laws" (mathematically can be proven, derived from Newton's), there is still much more useful information with Sun centric model, so much so that science no longer even considers it to be a theory.

_c._ Organic chemistry didn't exist until the idea of ring based loop of C and H was visualized, and then zillions of results became very evident, testable, and even more so created vastly economically successful industries like plastics, adhesives, ...
Nothing in Organic theory invalidated how H and C worked before, it added very useful new approaches and understanding.

3. To be successful at overthrowing Darwin, the vast majority of the participating scientists, on the forefront of investigation and observation, will need to be persuaded that "ID is better than evolution" - as that is what science is about.

4. Many ID enthusiasts "troll" (that is seemingly jump into arguments, like mythological beasts ready to eat up errant travelers over their bridges) on the simply distinction between theory and fact, and have trouble getting their arms around why some continue to talk about evolution as a theory, while others say that it is a fact. Science is about consensus, and independent verification (theory vs facts) and validation (predictive ability to generate new ideas mathematically that can be later seen to be true, by anyone willing to go through all of the necessary steps (laboratory equipment, years observing, comparison with similar results). Boiling it down, science of itself, is an evolutionary effort in the sense that each historical piece grows and adapts into a better (survivable) version of the future pieces (in a better arrangement).

5. It is also about the "I" of art and "we" of science, as the former is individualistic and unique, while the later is collectively discovered and would have been eventually discovered regardless of who has their name associated with it (without Einstein, Galileo, and/or Newton - the equation that you use in engineering would be the "same" (minor notational differences expected).

By all means take on evolution, and challenge it's roots, but to do that "right" one almost has to become a "believer" of the existing theory -- in order to become radicalized and break free with something that is better. Good luck, as that's the job of thousands of work years now accumulated on the current "theory". But then, also realize that one MUST become scientific to overturn an existing and well worn edifice, and everything I've read above is about you asking the other guy to proving that they're right, instead of you proving that everyone else is wrong - your approach is autocratic, and just doesn't work out that way, ever (even if you were a billionaire). Sorry.

Namaste

Not this 'arguement' again! Bloody Hell, my freeking grandfather (a Goddamn priest, for biscuits sake) didn't buy into the creationist crap, and called anyone who argued in favour of it a blasphemer. The ONLY thing that religion can or would answer about creation is WHY we were created, NEVER how it was done.

Taking the bible literally is a Sin. Jesus never told stories that weren't metaphors. The stories of Genesis 1-3 are two different stories that were mashed together by later editors of the 'bible,' heck, I'll bet 50,000 afterlife dollars that all the creationists are going to be really embarrassed to find that every story in their literally true bible was lifted from stories found in earlier polytheist societies.

Deal with it, you're a fundy, you're a blasphemer by definition. The stories spewed by the advocates of 'intelligent design' are neither intelligent, nor designed.

I used to believe in the theory of Survival of the Fittest, until I realized that right-wing religious fanatics are still around.

Um sorry Mr Free to rain on your parade of theories, but the fundamental problem you have, and I hate to be the one to break this to you, is that there is no god. Good luck with the rest of it.

Thoughts on theories and opinions

Theory of Relativity, Quantum Physics, Intelligent Design, Evolution; All these are tied together. For as a final determination is made in the debate on which of these is linked to another of these theory's or opposed, what ever the case may be, science will have to lie down with spirituality.

Relativity; A macrocosm of things physical , you could compare this to the body physical in that both are constrained within time and space. There are, of course, other theories that deal with the macrocosm, like the string theory and black holes and others I don't remember. String theory is an attempt to put wave physics into Relativity but to me, it is the first step in the engagement leading to the marriage of Relativity and Quantum. This is where the heart is, in relativity, as part of the body physical.

Quantum Physics; Particles and waves, The neatness of Relativity does not exist here. A witness will determine what action will take place. This is the Uncertainty Principal and the only thing that is known is that the potential for uses is unlimited. And yes it has been proven by experiment. All they have to do is figure out how it works. Sticking with a parallel to the human body; This is where the ego and free will are. One foot in the spirit and one in the physical. For a one word description, this is the mind. The final entry in the Theory of all is some form of electrical energy; Magnetism, gravity. I just don't know. Is the Creator electricity? No, but electricity is a manifestation of the Creator. This is not the soul, but where it comes through.

Intelligent Design; A human explanation for something that the mind cannot and will not be able to categorize and put in a place or situation where they can say; This is the way creations came about. There is one thing that I believe and that is that God, Creator, and what ever name you might want to use. Is way much more than any mind can imagine. Had a dream once that I was part of this big body but I could not figure out what part. Was I blood or a more specific part doing my duty to keep the whole functioning? Religions, sects, isms all try to put the

Creator into a box and claim exclusive knowledge and access to the Creator. God is not a respecter of persons, and where was everybody at when the heavens were created? That says it all; Nobody, nada, nothing is number #1 on the Creators list. Christ was up there but even he knew that he had to toe the line and not just do it but to want to do it with all his being. Is this a key? This is where the soul is.

Evolution; As true as intelligent design and why not? For it was set up by the creator. Everything, I mean everything in creation is evolving. Lets just take humans. How long have we been evolving? From the moment of creation to today is how long and how long in years? Does it really make a difference? From my perspective religion and science still do not have a clue as to what the Creator did. One thing, evolution, for me, proves reincarnation is fact because if souls do not try again and again to get it right then the whole Creator, creation thing is one big joke on us all.

You can see where my beliefs lie and you can see, for me, that the Creator is
Tony 12/3/06

Now you're being silly, and it it is worth nothing. And no, I am not going to give you a lesson in biology, geology, paleontology, climatology, archeology, cosmology, not to mention physics and chemistry, all of which give consistent answers with evolutionary theory. But then you know that, don't you?

No, but you might want to cross a bridge whose design had evolved over thousand of years, slow improvements as different designs were tried and failed, gradually accumulating a lot of features to make a safe bridge. And into the future, no doubt, further designs will evolve, built on the experience of the present. There is no "DNA problem" and if you think there is you had better go back and read again.

Thank you all for the great outpouring of facts proving evolution, that put me in my place. As a degreed engineer I can only design a circuit using known facts that are provable. Would you want to cross a bridge designed only on theory and not actual scientific data? Attacks on me personally only show you do not have any scientific proof to counter with. People with no scientific backing and using only theory get defensive when pressed for the facts backing their pet theory.

I believed in evolution up to a couple of years ago. I read an AP article about a famous atheist (who I had never heard of) in England who converted to religion because he could not overcome the DNA problem. I sat on this information for a year or so then curiosity got the better of me and I dusted off my degree to see what it was that changed this guy. What I found was the mathematics of the cell are astonishing! I have only mentioned the tip of the iceberg, the science of mathematics proves conclusively that evolution as a theory is false.

In the previous posts some people call it a theory and some call it a face. If it is a fact it can be proved scientifically. Someone called PhysicsTeacherGuy was the only one to mention mathematics and only to say my calculations were correct. He/She took issue with one aspect but has not offered his own numbers yet. I hope he does.

I have faced this response before. Anyone who dares to doubt and who, heaven forbid, ask for proof is tried before the inquisition and excommunicated.

If you would just admit there is no scientific evidence for evolution but only theory, then admit you want to believe it anyway you would at least be honest with yourself. I do not intend to change minds, who am I to try that? The only reason I post to have a stimulating conversation and maybe to get people to think for themselves. If you would just ignore what everyone else says, all the hoopla, and only look at the scientific evidence and like I did get off your butt and research it yourself you might be surprised at your conclusions. I was. A lot of scientific work is being done by former evolutionists (since around the 1980s).

SIOUXROSE AND GEOFF29 Wouldn't it be great to have a discussion within the "great debate" about evolution which would include the evoution of concsiousness? Now that would get really interesting, no?

For whatever my reasons, I have never spent much time worrying about how the "package" has changed---just feel reverence and appreciation for the unlimited genius of the great ONEness from which the many impulses emanate. Consciousness itself is what facinates me.

Goeff29 and Siouxrose-----WOW---glad your posts came before the rest of this discussion---I try to read everything but not this time---too much back and forth. Guess we need no longer worry so much about inserting alittle touchy feelie stuff---that is, expressions of genuine appreciation.

SIOUXROSE----shortest post I've read thusfar---a nice validation of eboniv's contribution and I feel the same.

EBONIV----If you've hung in there or come back to this thread, know that you have at least two appreciative people who read with interest your contribution. If you don't already know about it, you may want to check out a book called Quantum Theology

GEOFF29==-missed ya yesterday. Glad to see your squiggles once again. You do such a fine job of combining succinct wisdom with that delightful touch of humor. Do you give "brevity" or "succinct" lessons? I am much too long-winded.

"i hate blow your beautiful theory with an ugly fact" but...evolution is a religion too(secular humanism)..and it also takes as much "faith" to believe in it as i does to believe in Jesus..just a couple of things evolutionist need to explain..don't you think that when your frame of reference(earth) is traveling 20 miles per second
that things look like they moving away from you(big bang)and also they can turn peanut butter into a diamond in a few hours and it measured billions of years old..can yall explain all the trees that extend through several layers of sediment to me..or that every mountain in the world contains marine fossils..also without the flood there would be no fossils..and lastly if you believe in evolution and everything is accident and chemical..then your thoughts on mans beginnings are only accidents and some fickle chemicals...thanks for checking out my reply

neomunk,

"Oh, and for my 2 cents: I'm a monotheist who believes in evolution. Go figure."

Only monotheists who think that the divinity must think and create in the same fixed, hiearchical categories of their own philsophical background would imagine that evolution could be a threat to an infinite intelligence. The various religious traditions invoke the awe & beauty of the universe to sustain belief in God or gods; no visionary or prophet ever resorted to mechanical evidence to support his or her faith.

Religio-ideologues are always on the defensive and have to resort to dishonest testimonies -- like "I don't see transitional forms" -- because they have no real faith: rather, if they accepted the veracity of evolutionary thought, they would have nothing else to sustain them: they ONLY believe in a superpowerful Thomas Edison sort of God -- the mystics, the martyrs, the poets, the artists, the lovers, those who speak from the living heart of the many faiths, their testimony is aboslutely closed to them as they keep trying to crunch the numbers till they add up to 42.

Thanks Thought Shaman. It is difficult trying to do a concise summary for non-scientists like Mr Don. And it is difficult to keep the two processes - adaptation (which is what creationists mean by evolution) and speciation separate in each sentence. In terms of the great apes (and that includes us, although great seems to apply less and less to Homo sapeiens) a fossil was found the other day that possibly represents something like the ancestor of the modern great apes. The process from that point would be (a) two parts of that species become geographically separated, eg by climate change, both adapt to their respective environments, becoming different genetically in the process, eventually so different they can no longer interbreed and are therefore defined as different species. Both continue to adapt as climates continue to change. One of those species becomes eventually the modern gorilla. (b) The other species also eventually splits into two separate populations as a consequence of a later climatic event (a recent study shows that climate change has had a big impact on human evolution, as it does on all species). Both continue to adapt, one eventually becoming the chimpanzee (I simplify) the other early hominids (c) these in turn contine to spread around Africa becoming isolated, and therefore giving rise to new species. In the case of humans, none of these other early species survives to the present (and the whole debate, and the development of religions, might have been very different had they done so). Both chimps and humans continued to adapt, sexually isolated from each other, to become the species we see today. So no, species don't get replaced, it is just that some of the species that develop go extinct. In some groups large numbers of species evolve and survive in areas where many geographical events can isolate them, in other groups little or no speciation may occur (while adaptation continues), in still others there may be a lot of speciation but also much extinction.

Why isn't evolution taught properly in American schools? If it was then this nonsense of creationism (disproved by Darwin 150 years ago and the tens thousands of biologists who followed) couldn't possily get a foothold without being laughed out of court and classroom.

Thought Shaman: Excellent posts, IMHO!

I'd like to add a third party to your duo of stasis and dynamism. Entropy provides the balance between them. Thoughts (dynamism, the 'artist')give form to free floating bits of emotion and idea, minimemes (heh, Austin Powers eat your heart out) to create concepts, which are then touched by stasis and pattern to make things and provoke actions. After awhile those things and actions lose their relevance or their utility, and entropy comes in and (ideally) either sweeps it out wholesale or rots out the chunks that are no longer useful. The memories and lasting effects of the thing/action we're talking about rejoin the pool of memes and minimemes that artists start the cycle again with.

Anyways, that's my take on it. And it's no argument, either. I actually tend to keep most of that kind of stuff to myself, but you hit so close to home with me that I thought I'd share. :-)

neomunk,

Why should it be surprising that you are a monotheist who believes in evolution? As I mentioned in a previous post, the real fight is between different mindsets.

All one has to do to retain god intellectually, is to pick any natural process and simply assign god as its necessary, first cause.

For anyone REALLY interested in looking at this stuff a little more closely, I can't recommend anything more highly than playing with the concepts yourself...

Try these first:

http://www.swimbots.com/GenePool5.exe
http://www.ventrella.com/Darwin/DarwinPond.zip

If you're still interested, there's much more, depending on what exactly you're wanting to look into.

I highly recommend a program called NetLogo (google it, you'll find it fast) for exploring system interdependence issues. If you're more into the evolution / biological simulation side of things try Framsticks after that. The learning curve is steep, but the program's depth and capability make it worth it.

Oh, and for my 2 cents: I'm a monotheist who believes in evolution. Go figure.

I think schools should teach MAGIC,

like at Harry Potter's Hogworts Academy..that would be SO COOL!!!.....oh wait, they already are..in the form of "cintelligent designreationsim"

We cant explain it, so it must be MAGIC

Thank you for a nice summation, ggpearl.

Using "god made it" stems from an engineer's mindset (more like a classical engineer - civil, mechanical, etc.).

"Change happens," is more an artist's mindset, illustrated by phrases such as "go with the flow," and "explore."

The true fight is not evolution vs. creation. It is between different patterns of thought, static absolutes vs. emerging dynamics.

Unless the "engineers" understand that they are really fighting themselves they are unlikely to admit any evidence to the contrary.

Free Don

Part of the problem with the poorly taught theory of evolution is the notion that one animal changes into another-they do not in a linear fashion. Western thought promotes linear thinking, and evolution is not a straight line from A to Z. Evolution looks more like a dendritic pattern.

And although Science IS another way to tell a story, it is a story based upon what can be measured and described on this plane of existence, and no other. It is a dynamic paradigm, it is organized to change and shift, test and retest. If an hypothesis cannot be proven false, then it becomes a theory. If many scientists test and retest the same theory and the conclusions are regular-like the law of gravity, then it becomes a law.

You want proof from transitional species, and this is a misnomer. The fossil record is comprised of a brief point in time where specimens were preserved due to a confluence of events. It is very spotty, and does not constitute an unbroken record thru time of "this" changing into "that".

Part of the confusion I have found is that as a theory it has not been taught in such a manner that the average layperson can understand.

As a short term glimpse of how evolution occurs I always refer people to the pepper moth.

Change happens, and essentially that is all evolution means. Instead of the old view, that the world was static and unchanging from the way "god made it" according to the bible, science opened up avenues of exploration of the natural world that explained these changes that could be seen, touched, felt and measured.

mrpickwick,

Your post would be better if one replaces phrases such as "until they became" with something like "until they gave rise to." A species may give rise to another species, and continue to exist for a long time before it goes extinct. I am sure you did not mean to give the impression that a species gets "replaced" by a variant.

Free_Don,

Evolution is "scientific fact." This does not mean that evolution can never be overturned. It is quite simply our best guess with the evidence we have before us, that theory does have predictive power, and that the likelihood of the theory not holding is low. For instance, evolution requires that we find some record of related organisms, and we have fossils that demonstrate that.

The difference between say, a religious fact, and a scientific fact is that the scientific fact is always conditional. Scientific fact always posits a way to disprove it. In effect, its "death" is associated with its "life."

On the other hand, a religious fact is absolute unto itself, and admits of no possibility of error.

Free_Don I don't know whether you do this for a living or are just having a bad day. Every species is "transitional" because every species continues to evolve until it becomes extinct. You are totally confusing the two parts to evolutionary theory - adaptation by natural selection (which is not theory but tautology), and speciation by geographic separation. Darwin understood this from the moment he landed on the Galapagos Islands nearly 200 years ago. And since Darwin literally tens of thousands of scientists have refined the understanding of how these two quite separate processes work to create the diversity of species seen in the past and the diversity we see today (including the great apes, the species of which divided geographicallly and continued adaptaing in isolation until they became different species, and continued adapting until today. The gorilla and chimpanzee are as fully evolved as we are, they didn't stop adapting (say) 5 million years ago when they split from the early hominid species who in turn would speciate, adapt, become extinct, except, by chance, us). If you seriously can't understand this then go read some text books, or even popular accounts.