The Saudi Prince, The Universities, Fox News, and The Pentagon
I entered a similar piece to Northern Virginiastan on December 13, 2005.
Reproduced here in its entirety is a December 13, 2005 article in Robert Spencer's Dhimmi Watch:
"Harvard University and Georgetown University each announced yesterday that they had received $20 million donations from Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, a Saudi businessman and member of the Saudi royal family, to finance Islamic studies.Here is more information about the Saudi prince's gift to Georgetown University, from the December 13, 2005 Washington Post article:
"Harvard said it would create a universitywide program on Islamic studies, recruit new faculty members in the field, provide more support for graduate students and convert rare Islamic textual sources into digital formats to make them widely available.
"'For a university with global aspirations, it is critical that Harvard have a strong program on Islam that is worldwide and interdisciplinary in scope,'" said Steven E. Hyman, Harvard's provost, who will coordinate adopting the new program.
"Georgetown said it would use the gift - the second-largest it has ever received - to expand its Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which is part of its Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. It said it would rename the center the H.R.H. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
"The prince, who is said to be in his late 40's or early 50's, and was fifth on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy people this year, with a fortune of $23.7 billion, has made a variety of other sizable gifts, including $20 million to the Louvre and to other universities.
"One gift that backfired, however, was a $10 million check he gave Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in October 2001 for the Twin Towers Fund, a charity to help survivors of uniformed workers who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center. The prince had expressed his condolences for the lives lost and condemned 'all forms of terrorism,' in a letter accompanying the gift.
Mayor Giuliani returned the gift when he learned that a news release quoted the prince as calling on the American government to "re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause."
It added, 'Our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek.'...
Martin Kramer, the author of Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America, which contends that the study of the Middle East and Islam is politically biased, said last night, 'Prince Alwaleed knows that if you want to have an impact, places like Harvard or Georgetown, which is inside the Beltway, will make a difference.'...
In making the two gifts, the prince focused on the importance of uniting disparate cultures.
Harvard's news release quoted him as saying that he hoped Harvard's Islamic studies program 'will enable generations of students and scholars to gain a thorough understanding of Islam and its role both in the past and in today's world.'
"'As you know, since the 9/11 events, the image of Islam has been tarnished in the West,' said Alwaleed, who is chairman of the Riyadh-based Kingdom Holding Co. and has extensive business holdings in Europe and the United States.My prediction: Harvard and Georgetown University will become an Islamic apologist centers with significant impact as it burnishes the image of Islam, thanks to the influx of Saudi dollars.
"He said his gifts to Georgetown and Harvard will be used 'to teach about the Islamic world to the United States,' and the new programs at American University in Beirut and American University in Cairo will 'teach the Arab world about the American situation.'
"The $20 million gift to Georgetown is the second-largest ever received by the Jesuit-run university, school officials said. It will be used to expand the activities of the university's 12-year-old Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
"'We are deeply honored by Prince Alwaleed's generosity,' said a statement from Georgetown President John J. DeGioia, who met Alwaleed Nov. 7 in a Paris hotel to sign documents formalizing the donation....
"The Georgetown center, part of the university's School of Foreign Service, will be renamed the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. The $20 million will endow three faculty chairs, expand programs and academic outreach, provide scholarships for students and expand library facilities, Alwaleed said.
"Center director John L. Esposito said in an interview that 'a significant part of the money will be used to beef up the think tank part of what the center does.'
"Up to now, he said, the center has not had enough resources 'to respond to the tremendous demand that is out there, from the government, church and religious groups, the media and corporations to address and answer issues like, "What is the actual relationship between the West and the Muslim world? Is Islam compatible with modernization?" Now we can run workshops and conferences [on these subjects] both here and overseas.'
"When asked about the comments that caused the rejection of Alwaleed's gift to New York, Esposito said: 'There is nothing wrong with his expressing his opinion on American foreign policy. Clearly, it was done in a constructive way. He was expressing his enormous sympathy with the United States but also trying to give people the context in which this [terrorist attack] occurred.'"
Prince Alwaleed has other investments as well. In September 2005, I blogged information about Prince Alwaleed here and here, when it was revealed that he had invested in the Fox News Network.
Some additional information about the Saudi Prince's impact on news coverage at Fox surfaced on December 7, 2005:
Saudi Billionaire Boasts of Manipulating Fox News CoverageA lengthy report about radical Arabs seeking influence over the U. S. news media from Accuracy in Media (AIM) is available here. The following is an excerpt from the introduction to the article:
"WASHINGTON -- Accuracy in Media (AIM) is urging a full inquiry into a report that a Saudi billionaire caused the Fox News Channel (FNC) to dramatically alter its coverage of the Muslim riots in France after he called the network to complain. The Saudi billionaire, Al-waleed bin Talal, is a friend of News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch and controls an influential number of voting shares in the company.
"'This report underscores the danger of giving foreign interests a significant financial stake in U.S. media companies,' declared Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media.
The controversial comments came at an Arab media conference featuring representatives of Time magazine, USA Today, PBS, The Wall Street Journal, and other news organizations. The conference and the Saudi Prince's growing influence in News Corporation are among the subjects of a new December-A AIM Report that has just been posted at the AIM website (www.aim.org). The report raises the specter of Arab money influencing News Corporation and other U.S. media companies.
Liberal journalist Danny Schechter, a participant in the conference, reports that Al-waleed, who is a member of the Saudi Royal Family and investor in the Fox News parent company News Corporation, gave an interview boasting that he had called Fox to complain about coverage of the 'Muslim riots' in France. He said he 'called as a viewer' and 'convinced them to change' the coverage because 'they were not Muslim riots but riots against poverty and inequality.' And 'they changed' the coverage, the Saudi reportedly said.
Another report on the comments, carried by the Dubai-based newspaper the Khaleej Times, says that Al-waleed personally called Rupert Murdoch to complain. The Saudi said, 'After a short while, there was a change' in the coverage.
An AIM call to Fox News asking for comment was not returned. This is not the first time that Al-waleed has made controversial statements. His $10 million contribution to a 9/11 fund was rejected when he blamed the terror attacks on U.S. Middle East policy. Fifteen of the 19 terrorist hijackers on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia."
"Are the U.S. media being courted by those who hate America? Or is an honest attempt at 'international understanding' at hand?The Islamification of our universities and the news media continues apace, financed by Saudi dollars.
"The Arab Thought Foundation, which has strong financial connections to Saudi Arabia, is convening a conference in early December that is advertised as being designed to 'enhance interaction between Arab and international media organizations and bridge the gap between them.' It is an invitation-only meeting in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, one of only three nations, along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, that recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan....
"Advertised speakers include Karen Elliott House, publisher of the Wall Street Journal; David Ignatius of the Washington Post; Ed Bradley of CBS and 60 Minutes; Barbara Slavin of USA Today; Pat Mitchell, President and CEO of the Public Broadcasting Service; Matthew Winkler, editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News; and Jim Kelly, managing editor of Time magazine. 'Proud Sponsors' include Reader's Digest, CNBC, and Al-Arabiya television....
"The conference program also features a 'spotlight' on Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, described as 'one of the world's most influential investors.' That is certainly the case. He has just accumulated a significant financial interest in a major American medium that is trusted by conservatives—News Corporation, parent of Fox News Channel....
"Bakr Mohammad Bin Laden, general director of the Bin Laden Group in Saudi Arabia, a construction company based in Saudi Arabia, is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Arab Thought Foundation.
"Despite the popular notion that Osama bin Laden is the black sheep of the family, the bin Laden Group, three Saudi princes and the government of Sudan have been sued by 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism for allegedly bankrolling al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban."
Perhaps the universities and Fox News should do some additional reading before those Saudi dollars are put to use. The following is from a December 14 article by Paul Sperry, author of How Muslims Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington :
"Four years into the war on terror, U.S. intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.So what are those Saudi dollars donated to two premier American universities and invested in our news media financing? A greater understanding of Islam or the first phase of jihad?
"But that is slowly starting to change as the Pentagon develops a new strategy to deal with the threat from Islamic terrorists through its little-known intelligence agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity or CIFA, which staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at home and abroad. CIFA also supports Northern Command in Colorado, which was established after 9/11 to help military forces react to terrorist threats in the continental United States.
"Dealing with the threat on a tactical and operational level through counterstrikes and capture has proven only marginally successful. Now military leaders want to combat it from a strategic standpoint, using informational warfare, among other things. A critical part of that strategy involves studying Islam, including the Quran and the hadiths, or traditions of Muhammad....
"So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They've found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs.
"'Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad),' concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And 'no one is looking for its off switch.'...
"'Strategic themes suggest Islam is radical by nature,' according to the briefing, which goes on to cite the 26 chapters of the Quran dealing with violent jihad and the examples of the Muslim prophet, who it says sponsored 'terror and slaughter' against unbelievers....
"According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of. It demands able-bodied believers join the fight. Those unable -- women and the elderly -- are not exempt; they must give 'asylum and aid' (Surah 8:74) to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah....
"In analyzing the threat on the domestic front, the Pentagon briefing draws perhaps its most disturbing conclusions. It argues the U.S. has not suffered from scattered insurgent attacks -- as opposed to the concentrated and catastrophic attack by al-Qaida on 9-11 -- in large part because it has a relatively small Muslim population. But that could change as the Muslim minority grows and gains more influence.
"The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a 'three-phase attack strategy' for gaining control of lands for Allah. The first phase is the 'Meccan,' or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs -- such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.
"In the second 'preparation' phase, a 'reasonably influential' Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.
"And in the final jihad period, or 'Medina Stage,' a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.
"It also notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam...."
posted by Always On Watch @ 12/15/2005 07:57:00 AM
61 comments
61 Comments:
Didn't Paul Merecki get his degree in Theology from Harvard? I hear he's looking for work now, after stepping down from his "Chair" at KU. Maybe he can volunteer to "design" some new classes in the same spirit in which he wanted to teach his "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design and Creationism" class while doing time in prison for faking a hate crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Mirecki
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/10/professor_blasts_ku_sheriffs_investigation/
-FJ
From FJ's links...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Paul_Mirecki :
Paul Mirecki is associate professor of religious studies at the University of Kansas and the faculty advisor for the Society for Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics student organization. He was chairman of the department until he stepped aside on December 7, 2005....
Mirecki earned his Th.D. in Theology from Harvard University, worked with John Strugnell to translate the Dead Sea Scrolls, and he was the last person to discover and translate an unknown gospel...
Mirecki achieved notoriety in late November, 2005 for making comments about adherents of intelligent design that were considered derogatory. Mirecki was to teach a class in spring 2006 on the topic...
From http://www2.ljworld.com/news/
2005/dec/10/
professor_blasts_ku_sheriffs_investigation/ :
Kansas University professor Paul Mirecki said he’s hired an attorney and is ready to go to the mat with KU and the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office.
“If I have to sue, I will,” he said.
Mirecki said he’s angry because KU didn’t back him after religious conservatives attacked him for his plan to teach a course dealing with intelligent design.
Mirecki became a political lightning rod after his new course was announced and his derisive comments on an Internet message board about conservative Christians and Catholics were later widely distributed....
Mirecki said the university had done little to back him and that he was fired as department chairman because he had the “temerity to challenge the power of the religious right in Kansas and the university capitulated to demands of the conservative minority.”
Of course, Dr. Mirecki got his degree some time ago.
BTW, FJ, I'm glad that you provided that second link. Did you hear the recent flap about Wikipedia? If you want a link for that story, let me know; I think I've got that link somewhere. A student's parent sent it to me when her daughter's research paper was rejected for using Wikipedia.
AOW,
Apolists all around.
sorry using pocket pc I meant
apologists all around
no mr. ducky,
Harvard Divinity is NOT a hotbed of Islamofascism.
The point I was trying to make was that Merecki had NO intention of teaching a REAL course in intelligent design, he wanted to teach a course to DISCREDIT the concept.
And so we should set up these new courses at Harvard and Georgetown in this "same spirit".
Merecki's an atheist. Do you really think he could design a course that "supported" the tennants of Islam?
It's like getting Barbara Streisand to produce a biography of Ronald Reagan and having her husband play him in a movie. That way, she could make everyone "hate" Reagan and get them to blame him for her son having died of AIDS.
-FJ
and always...
Yes I am familiar with the flap over Wikipedia. I don't take the information they present as "authoritative", but merely as the current state of "public opinion" on various topics.
-FJ
...and here's a quote from one of Mercki's e-mails...
“The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category ‘mythology,’”
He signed the note “Doing my part (to upset) the religious right, Evil Dr. P.”
-FJ
AOW,
Why do you think Mr. Ducky hangs out at these sites day after day? It's a very strange phenomenon.
Anyway, this is very comprhensive. The most obvious example of Alaweed buying influence to date is his ability to change a headline on Fox News. The fact that the truce for the Paris Riots were negotiated by people who called for Islamic rule in Islamice neighborhoods gave proof to the fact that there was a Jihadi component to the riots. There isn't any arguing that fact. The only thing one can argue is the degree of the Jihadi component.
Excellent post, AOW.
I can't say I'm surprised that Harvard would sell out for $20 million, but I am surprised Georgetown (a Catholic University) was just as willing as Harvard was. Just what we need..more classes on Islamic studies. Islamic professors teaching how great Islamic society was until Western influences brought about its demise. I am sure that all the great contributions to science, mathematics, medicine and even astronomy will be highlighted. Do you think they will cover the verses in the Koran which promote hate and killing or will they just gloss over that? Do you think there will mention how Islam treats non-Muslims in their native land? Or how woman are treated?
I no longer trust Fox News, they've also sold out. No wonder Saudi Arabia is rarely mentioned when it comes to international terrorism even though Wahibism was founded in Saudi Arabia. I don't imagine they will bring up textbooks paid by Saudi Arabia that teaches students to hate America, Israel, Jews, Christians and anything else not Muslim.
FJ,
How foolish of me! Of course you knew about the Wikipedia "scandal."
Pastorius,
Why do you think Mr. Ducky hangs out at these sites day after day?
I'm not sure. Maybe because he doesn't have his own blog? And, really, I don't mind Ducky's coming here--most of the time, that is--and so long as discussions are reasonably civil, with no ad hominem or ad feminam attacks.
I don't think Duck much likes me, though. Not so long ago, over at another blog, he ridiculed me for not understanding my mistake and said, "She's earned the right to shut her mouth." Or maybe this was just Duck's sense of humor. I don't see foresee my silence. Hehehe. As I am not easily offended, I didn't take offense.
But, truly, the book Duck recommended to me some time back is very interesting. I love learning new things! The teacher in me, of course.
This blog article just kept growing as I found more material. "Comprehensive" is one way of describing it; "too long" might be another. The three phases of jihad got me going yesterday.
This may be my last article before I put up my cutsie one about my cat. Christmas, you know. Besides, if the ice storm here materializes, I'll be offline for however long it takes the power company to restore the electricity. We might not get the ice storm, however. The weatherman here is more often wrong than right.
Since Paul Mirecki and the University of Kansas was brought up, I feel as a KU graduate I had to reply. Kansas has always been a liberal University. This might be surprising to some but most universities are liberal. Even those in Kansas. As a conservative(my father was an Army colonel) at the University, even in social courses (sociology, psychology and social work) I always felt free to express my opinions and most of my professors welcomed having someone not parroting their own sentiments. I have no idea what happened to Professor Mirecki. Most alumni believe he faked a hate crime, but either way, don't judge KU by his actions.
Duck,
AOW, I made that statement only because you make take a position common among "born again" and assume that your internal dialogue qualifies you as exceptional. It doesn't...
I am not exceptional because I'm born again. Being born again is not a qualification; it's a gift of the Lord's grace. Nobody--and I mean nobody--has the right to assume himself or herself exceptional, though sometimes the printed word might give that impression. Language has its limitations.
And just for the record: I don't like the self-righteous types whom you sometimes cite over at Beak's. You might have noticed that I'm not much of a defender of those types. I may not be the "fundie" you think I am.
I hang around because I wish to understand the right and their inability to denounce dogma and use their minds.
Thanks for the clarification. But I've seen some Lefty blogs which don't "denounce dogma and use their minds." Haven't you?
The entire range of American media has been up for sale.
No doubt about that, IMO.
mr. ducky,
Intelligent design has nothing to do with either the OT OR the New. That's what makes the arguments of idiots like Mirecki completely absurd. His desire to link it to "Creationism" so as to discredit it gives him away as a partisan fraud. Especially since he has a ThD.
-FJ
"The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam...."
I think that says it all about the motivation behind this "altruistic"
act
Semms just like yesterday when we were all worried that Japan would own the U.S.!
My how things change.
Good post AOW.
If you read Murdoch's media coverage on the latest events in Sydney, Australia (I mean Aussie media)you can understand why Prince Talal buys his way into our "world".
mr ducky,
This WAS a religion class at Kansas University. Why no "biblical" links? Because it is a "logical" argument made by pagans and forms the foundation upon which all western thought rests.
Plato, "Philebus" (on the "Designer")
SOCRATES: Did not the things which were generated, and the things out of which they were generated, furnish all the three classes?
PROTARCHUS: Yes.
SOCRATES: And the creator or cause of them has been satisfactorily proven to be distinct from them,--and may therefore be called a fourth principle?
PROTARCHUS: So let us call it.
SOCRATES: Quite right; but now, having distinguished the four, I think that we had better refresh our memories by recapitulating each of them in order.
PROTARCHUS: By all means.
SOCRATES: Then the first I will call the infinite or unlimited, and the second the finite or limited; then follows the third, an essence compound and generated; and I do not think that I shall be far wrong in speaking of the cause of mixture and generation as the fourth.
PROTARCHUS: Certainly not.
----
and on the design (doctrine of the soul)...
Plato, "Laws"...(Jowett Summary)
I will now speak of a strange doctrine, which is regarded by many as the crown of philosophy. They affirm that all things come into being either by art or nature or chance, and that the greater things are done by nature
and chance, and the lesser things by art, which receiving from nature the greater creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are termed works of art. Their meaning is that fire, water, earth, and air all exist by nature and chance, and not by art; and that out of these, according to certain chance affinities of opposites, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the earth have been framed, not by any action of mind, but by nature and chance only. Thus, in their opinion, the heaven and earth were created, as well as the animals and plants. Art came later, and is of mortal birth; by her power were invented certain images and very partial imitations of the truth, of which kind are the creations of musicians and painters: but they say that there are other arts which combine with nature, and have a deeper truth, such as medicine, husbandry, gymnastic. Also the greater part of politics they imagine to co-operate with nature, but in a less degree, having more of art, while legislation is declared by them to be wholly a work of art. 'How do you mean?' In the first place, they say that the Gods exist neither by nature nor by art, but by the laws of states, which are different in different countries; and that virtue is one thing by nature and another by convention; and that justice is altogether conventional, made by law, and having authority for the moment
only. This is repeated to young men by sages and poets, and leads to impiety, and the pretended life according to nature and in disobedience to law; for nobody believes the Gods to be such as the law affirms. 'How true! and oh! how injurious to states and to families!' But then, what
should the lawgiver do? Should he stand up in the state and threaten
mankind with the severest penalties if they persist in their unbelief, while he makes no attempt to win them by persuasion? 'Nay, Stranger, the legislator ought never to weary of trying to persuade the world that there are Gods; and he should declare that law and art exist by nature.' Yes, Cleinias; but these are difficult and tedious questions. 'And shall our patience, which was not exhausted in the enquiry about music or drink, fail now that we are discoursing about the Gods? There may be a difficulty in framing laws, but when written down they remain, and time and diligence will make them clear; if they are useful there would be neither reason nor religion in rejecting them on account of their length.' Most true. And the general spread of unbelief shows that the legislator should do something in vindication of the laws, when they are being undermined by bad men. 'He should.' You agree with me, Cleinias, that the heresy consists in supposing earth, air, fire, and water to be the first of all things. These the heretics call nature, conceiving them to be prior to the soul. 'I agree.' You would further agree that natural philosophy is the source of this impiety--the study appears to be pursued in a wrong way. 'In what way do you mean?' The error consists in transposing first and second causes. They do not see that the soul is before the body, and before all other things, and the author and ruler of them all. And if the soul is prior to the body, then the things of the soul are prior to the things of the body. In other words, opinion, attention, mind, art, law, are prior to sensible qualities; and the first and greater works of creation are the results of art and mind, whereas the works of nature, as they are improperly termed, are secondary and subsequent. 'Why do you say "improperly"?' Because when
they speak of nature they seem to mean the first creative power. But if the soul is first, and not fire and air, then the soul above all things may be said to exist by nature. And this can only be on the supposition that the soul is prior to the body. Shall we try to prove that it is so? 'By all means.'
...for the proof of the argument, you'll have to read it yourself
Laws
-FJ
...but of course, to understand the nature of the infinite and finite, you'd better get yourself an "ontology" from Plato's "Sophist". For "being" and this instantaneous "point in time" only exists at the union (a mixed-compound) of these two elements
-FJ
"Intelligent design is an attempt to insert dogma into science classes. Again, keep it in philosophy or religion classes where it belongs."
On that point, Ducky is absolutely correct. We do our students a disservice by teaching "intelligent design". Why should we allow our students to fall behind in the basic principles of biology? The Kansas Legislature has forced intelligent design down the throats of Kansas school boards across the state. I personally believe that God set the process of evolution in place, but I've always taken "Genesis" as a metaphor.
This probably sounds confusing so I apologize for not making this more clear.
I just don't think that evolution and God are incompatible.
If anybody runs into Tookie Williams..ask him.
AC,
If you're not going to teach them about the theory of intelligent design, then how can you justify teaching them any empirically "unprovable" theories like "evolution" or the "big bang"? What are "atoms"? "quarks"? Seems your "scientific" theories are a "moving" target. Give me twenty years, and everything you think you know about quantum physics will simply be an obsolete "discarded theory".
You say that gravity exists as an "attractive" force. I say that love exists as an equivalent "attractive" force. Does "love" exist? If yes, what is it? If not, what is that "force/thing" we call love?
Oh that's right... evolution is not religious "dogma". It's secular dogma, so it's okay to be taught in schools under the "establishment" clause. Besides, we call it a "theory" and don't claim that it's true.... as if they couldn't teach the "theory" of intelligent design the same way, alongside the theory of evolution (and under the "free exercise clause).
Intelligent design is ONE of TWO logical/rational possibilities. Which came first, the physical universe, or the creative "thought/ mind" of G_d that created it? You say it's the former. Then either PROVE it, or teach both.
Hypocrites. Stop hiding behind the establishment clause. Are you afraid that intelligent design just might prove to be the MORE convincing theory? Are you afraid it just might lead to a better understanding of the mental/Spiritual condition of man, since it explains "more" than crass scientific materialism could EVER do?
Or are you simply afraid of being able to rationally "pin" morality down to "universals" and "absolutes".... theoretically, of course.
-FJ
Absolutes can't exist in this physical universe, AC (Plato, "Parmenides"). So when you say that mr. ducky is "absolutely correct", you'rw verbalkly invoking intelligent design without even realizing it. Absolutes are a "mental" similitude that cannot physically exist in this universe. So where do they come from?
-FJ
and finally mr. ducky,
You once voiced respect for Emerson. Have you ever read his address to the Harvard Divinity School that addressed the defective methodology by which the Christian religion was being taught?
Emerson Adress to the Harvard Divinity School
Emerson once hopped that they would correct these defects. It is obvious that they haven't. For they fail to teach intelligent design through the doctrine of the soul. For faith grounded in reason is a thousand times more powerful than dogma.
-FJ
An excerpt from Emerson's Harvard Divinity School Address...
And now, my brothers, you will ask, What in these desponding days can be done by us? The remedy is already declared in the ground of our complaint of the Church. We have contrasted the Church with the Soul. In the soul, then, let the redemption be sought. Wherever a man comes, there comes revolution. The old is for slaves. When a man comes, all books are legible, all things transparent, all religions are forms. He is religious. Man is the wonderworker. He is seen amid miracles. All men bless and curse. He saith yea and nay, only. The stationariness of religion; the assumption that the age of inspiration is past, that the Bible is closed; the fear of degrading the character of Jesus by representing him as a man; indicate with sufficient clearness the falsehood of our theology. It is the office of a true teacher to show us that God is, not was; that He speaketh, not spake. The true Christianity, — a faith like Christ's in the infinitude of man, — is lost. None believeth in the soul of man, but only in some man or person old and departed. Ah me! no man goeth alone. All men go in flocks to this saint or that poet, avoiding the God who seeth in secret. They cannot see in secret; they love to be blind in public. They think society wiser than their soul, and know not that one soul, and their soul, is wiser than the whole world. See how nations and races flit by on the sea of time, and leave no ripple to tell where they floated or sunk, and one good soul shall make the name of Moses, or of Zeno, or of Zoroaster, reverend forever. None assayeth the stern ambition to be the Self of the nation, and of nature, but each would be an easy secondary to some Christian scheme, or sectarian connection, or some eminent man. Once leave your own knowledge of God, your own sentiment, and take secondary knowledge, as St. Paul's, or George Fox's, or Swedenborg's, and you get wide from God with every year this secondary form lasts, and if, as now, for centuries, — the chasm yawns to that breadth, that men can scarcely be convinced there is in them anything divine.
-FJ
anonymous..."
You say that gravity exists as an "attractive" force. I say that love exists as an equivalent "attractive" force. Does "love" exist? If yes, what is it? If not, what is that "force/thing" we call love?"
I assume you were talking to me since you started your comment with "AC". I have reread everything I posted and not once did I mention gravity so I'm not sure where that came from. You later stated that there are no absolutes in the universe. That statement alone is an absolute and hence contradictory.
If you have doubts about the existence of gravity why don't you jump off a ledge of a building..although I don't recommend that because you will "absolutely" fall.
In another statement from you "What are "atoms"? "quarks"? Seems your "scientific" theories are a "moving" target. Give me twenty years, and everything you think you know about quantum physics will simply be an obsolete "discarded theory".
Again you're bringing up subjects that I have not mentioned, but since you have I will comment on it briefly.
It has been 100 years since Einstein established the basis of three fundamental fields of physics: the theory of relativity, quantum theory and the theory of Brownian motion.
Today single atoms are probed directly in experiments, and we are able to observe the individual paths of colliding or dissociating particles. If you still doubt the existence of atoms, I'm sure there are still residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that will testify to their existence.
These theories have been around for 100 years now, I'm pretty sure that they will survive another 20 years.
Next came "Oh that's right... evolution is not religious "dogma". It's secular dogma, so it's okay to be taught in schools under the "establishment" clause."
I don't even know how to respond to that. I think you might want to talk to somebody with better credentials than I have. It's obvious to me that you disagree with most everything Ducky says. From his postings, I can tell you that we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. I just happened to agree with the statement I pointed out. Maybe more fiber in your diet will help.
samwich said...
President George Bush Calls US Constitution "it's just a goddamned piece of paper" (quote)
This came from Doug Thompson, hardly an unbiased source(another Moore disciple). He claims that he talked to three individuals that confirmed that Bush called the Constitution a god damned piece of paper...OK then..name the three sources. Pretty sure he can't.
Please excuse my absence from this discussion. Don't take my absence as a lack of interest. I am reading all comments in between Christmas-preparation frenzies. Fascinating debate going on here!
Samwich,
I noticed some "interesting" links on the left sidebar of that link about GWB's trashing the Constitution. Probably not an unbiased source?
Camerinus,
Sometimes FJ (Farmer John) posts anonymously because he doesn't have his own blog. I don't know that the comment you're referring to is by FJ, but I wanted to point this out. FJ is no coward, so if he's the author of that comment, he'll probably tell us.
I'll be back on this one shortly, Friday, you get mine.
GREAT post, AOW! I wish I had time to read all the comments but just wanted to tell you how well done this post is. Keep the pressure on!
Always
I have been down on Fox News for a while. However, this has not stopped the left from crying about Faux news.
The internet, talk radio and selected papers like the NY Sun will have to fill the void. Chomsky types will be silent on the moves at FOX. Anti Semites like 167 talk about zionist media but I can't find it.
This country will get hit again and it may unleash something ugly .
This is not what I want or advocate
at all.
When we get hit again we should demand that the far left like the ACLU , National Lawyers Guild and Accademic pariahs be held responsible. The paraniod grumblings about the patriot act are aiding and abeting the enemy.
Law enforcement should watch Mosques, Left wing groups and racial power types including the NOI.
Samwich,
You're right that no source is completely objective. What is often presented as fact needs checking.
Beak,
This country will get hit again and it may unleash something ugly .
This is not what I want or advocate
at all.
That gives me a feeling of desperation sometimes.
Yes, the mosques bear watching. Several have already been linked to radicalism. And of course, the other groups you mentioned also bear watching.
Have you, by chance, seen the info about Jamaat ul-Fuqra @
http://www.gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/ ?
See the right sidebar at Gates.
I get a kick out of all you folks that put down intelligent design, yet think your "secular" scientific theories and "truths" have great or greater validity. AC acknowledges the existance of gravitional forces but denies the existance of love. He thinks atomic particles like quarks actually physically exist in the manner in which science describes them, but cannot comprehend the forces that compromise the forces of love or hate. But as time goes on and scientists probe deeper and deeper, his atomic "particles" disappear and get replaced by new, smaller ones, alongside new forces that better describe what the scientists believes he sees in his results, but are just as imaginary as the larger "particles" they replaced.
Science can give mankind less than "half" the answers it seeks. You would deprive your offspring of the opportunity to fully explore the limits and boundaries (beyond mathematics) of the half that resides "above" the half-way mark in Plato's "Divided Line"... in the world of the "intelligible". You would deny them the ability to understand things like science that CAN be and frequently ARE falsified and therby to learn to understand themselves and others especially the boundaries and LIMITATIONS of science and the scientific method.
Plato, "Republic"...
You have to imagine, then, that there are two ruling powers, and that one of them is set over the intellectual world, the other over the visible. I do not say heaven, lest you should fancy that I am playing upon the name ('ourhanoz, orhatoz'). May I suppose that you have this distinction of the visible and intelligible fixed in your mind?
I have.
Now take a line which has been cut into two unequal parts, and divide each of them again in the same proportion, and suppose the two main divisions to answer, one to the visible and the other to the intelligible, and then compare the subdivisions in respect of their clearness and want of clearness, and you will find that the first section in the sphere of the visible consists of images. And by images I mean, in the first place, shadows, and in the second place, reflections in water and in solid, smooth and polished bodies and the like: Do you understand?
Yes, I understand.
Imagine, now, the other section, of which this is only the resemblance, to include the animals which we see, and everything that grows or is made.
Very good.
Would you not admit that both the sections of this division have different degrees of truth, and that the copy is to the original as the sphere of opinion is to the sphere of knowledge?
Most undoubtedly.
Or listen to Plato's "Xeno",
Nietzsche "Will to Power"...
493-Truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. The value for life is ultimately decisive.
512-Logic is bound to the condition: assume there are identical cases. In fact, to make possible logical thinking and inferences, this condition must first be treated fictitously as fulfilled. That is: the will to logical truth can be carried through only after a fundamental falsification of all events is assumed. From which it follows that a drive rules here that is capable of employing both means, firstly falsification, then the implementation of its own point of view: logic does not spring from will to truth.
534-The criterion of truth resides in the enhancement of the feeling of power.
Nietzsche "Gay Science"
110-Origins of Knowledge. Throughout immense stretches of time the intellect produced nothing but errors; some of them proved to be useful and preservative of the species: he who fell in with them, or inherited them, waged the battle for himself and his offspring with better success. Those erroneous articles of faith which were successively transmitted by inheritance, and have finally become almost the property and stock of the human species, are, for example, the following: that there are enduring things, that there are equal things, that there are things, substances, and bodies, that a thing is what it appears, that our will is free that what is good for me is also good absolutely.. It was only very late that the deniers, doubters of such propositions came forward - it was only very late that truth made its appearance as the most impotent form of knowledge. It seemed as if it were impossible to get along with truth, our organism was adapted for the very opposite; all its higher functions, the perceptions of the senses, and in general every kind of sensation, cooperated with those primevally embodied, fundamental errors. Moreover, those propositions became the very standards of knowledge according to which the "true "and the "false" were determined - throughout the whole domain of pure logic. The strength of conceptions does not, therefore, depend on their degree of truth, but on their antiquity, their embodiment, their character as conditions of life. Where life and knowledge seemed to conflict, there has never been serious contention; denial and doubt have there been regarded as madness.
112-Cause and Effect. We say it is "explanation "; but it is only in "description" that we are in advance of the older stages of knowledge and science. We describe better, we explain just as little as our predecessors. We have discovered a manifold succession where the naive man and investigator of older cultures saw only two things, "cause" and "effect,"as it was said; we have perfected the conception of becoming, but have not got a knowledge of what is above and behind the conception. The series of "causes" stands before us much more complete in every case; we conclude that this and that must first precede in order that that other may follow - but we have not grasped anything thereby. The peculiarity, for example, in every chemical process seems a "miracle," the same as before, just like all locomotion; nobody has "explained" impulse. How could we ever explain? We operate only with things which do not exist, with lines, surfaces, bodies, atoms, divisible times, divisible spaces - how can explanation ever be possible when we first make everything a conception, our conception? It is sufficient to regard science as the exactest humanizing of things that is possible; we always learn to describe ourselves more accurately by describing things and their successions. Cause and effect: there is probably never any such duality; in fact there is a continuum before us, from which we isolate a few portions - just as we always observe a motion as isolated points, and therefore do not properly see it, but infer it. The abruptness with which many effects take place leads us into error; it is however only an abruptness for us. There is an infinite multitude of processes in that abrupt moment which escape us. An intellect which could see cause and effect as a continuum, which could see the flux of events not according to our mode of perception, as things arbitrarily separated and broken - would throw aside the conception of cause and effect, and would deny all conditionality."
The world is constantly changing and in a state of perpetual "FLUX". There are no physical "constants". The universe is "relative". Only in the human mind, the "intelligible world" can there be "constants" to "make sense" out of the chaos we sense. Words. Math. Equal things. The absolute "big". Infinity. The perfect circle. The absolute "one". Motionless motion. Thought that preceeds action. The Good. Qualities of the human "soul".
There are no "identical cases". In the physical universe 1 CANNOT equal 1 (Plato, "Parmenides"). No two snowflakes are alike. One army is not the same as another.
It is only in the "intelligible" universe that mathematics and other absolutes, the very words that make up the language that we speak, can "exist". What is an "inch"? It is a made-up unit of measure that represents an initially arbitrary (made constant) distance between two points in physical space. You can point to that distance and call it an "inch", but the "inch" itself, like the perfect circle, does not and cannot physically exist. It is an "intelligible" concept, not a physical thing. And so it is with everything we claim to understand that enters our minds through the senses.
And so you would limit your childrens education to the physically observed true, and deny them the ability to understand the basis for and perform the "intelligible" good. You would give them the tools they need to construct an atomic bomb, but deny them the tools they need to know when NOT to use it. You will certainly be the DEATH of us all.
You all think that intelligent design "replaces" science with biblical fictions and the story from "Genesis". It DOES NOT. It supplements scientific knowledge and provides answers to the questions that science CANNOT answer. Experiments that cannot be "repeated"... like the evolution of life on planet earth. About the "good" and the "ethical".
It does not "deny" evolution. It confirms it. It encourages the scientist to look for the patterns and design changes that led to each subsequent evolutionary mutation. To find the "common" threads and causes for the deviations from different branches of a common design.
-FJ
From anonymous:
"AC acknowledges the existance of gravitional forces but denies the existance of love. He cannot comprehend the forces that compromise the forces of love or hate"
Please show me anywhere in any of my post that I even mention anything you're talking about. You can't do it..you're making an argument all in your mind.
I SUGGEST STRONGER MEDICATION. This isn't my blog, so I'm going to be polite and ignore your delusional rantings..as I am clueless to what you're talking about anyways.
"the forces that compromise the forces of love or hate"
Good God man, get a hold yourself.
samwich
If he hasn't already..he has stretched it as far as it will go. A great nation should lead by example and not let others dictate our responses.
Okay, I'm going to run out onto a limb here and give my opinion, with the caveat that, this morning, I haven't refreshed my mind as to all the previous comments.
I believe in intelligent design. Yes, I'm a Christian, so I believe in the Creator. For me, this is a matter of faith, so I don't look for scientific proof of my faith.
I'm not of science or mathematical bent, but I have seen "evidence" to support both intelligent design and evolution. So...
1. Isn't evolution a theory?
2. Do today's science curricula present evolution as a theory or as fact? I ask that because, back when I was in school in the Dinosaur Era, we studied evolution as a theory, one of several to explain how the universe came into being. I hasten to add that we did study Mendel's information about genetics, a topic which I find fascinating. (Do I have that name correct? "Mendel"?)
BTW, a recent issue of Time Magazine had a long article on Darwin, but I haven't yet had time to read that issue. I'll have to read that article today!
Also, is there any definitive word as to who attacked Mirecki, or if there was such an attack? Just asking, and pardon my ignorance.
Your discussion is welcome here, FJ and AC! Regular readers here know that I am not adverse to tangents. And this is not so tangential, IMO. The original article dealt with university matters.
Later,
AOW
Still avoiding the question about love I see. I make an argument that points to a "deficiency" in your "scientific education", and you pretend it is somehow "inavlid" because you didn't make the argument yourself. Why AC? Doesn't your science provide an adequate answer? Do yourself a favor and try learning something about a subject before you start pooh-poohing it.
On ID from a proponent
On ID from a critic
-FJ
Anonymous said...
Still avoiding the question about love I see blah blah blah and so on.
Stupid me... I thought the subject was " The Saudi Prince, The Universities, Fox News, and The Pentagon"
blah blah blah... you're the one that perpretuated the digression by stating...
"Intelligent design is an attempt to insert dogma into science classes. Again, keep it in philosophy or religion classes where it belongs."
On that point, Ducky is absolutely correct. We do our students a disservice by teaching "intelligent design". Why should we allow our students to fall behind in the basic principles of biology? The Kansas Legislature has forced intelligent design down the throats of Kansas school boards across the state. I personally believe that God set the process of evolution in place, but I've always taken "Genesis" as a metaphor. This probably sounds confusing so I apologize for not making this more clear. I just don't think that evolution and God are incompatible."
You accept Darwinism and evolution as FACT, not theory. And so it turns out that it is YOU that are teaching scientific "dogma" in the schools.
ID will advance the concept of biology in schools, not retard it. It will force future scientists to try and discover things like what cancer actually IS and what causes it, instead of simply empirically trying different chemo treatments, and giving someone a 50% probability that they will live for 5 more years. It will drive them to investigate and uncover the "design" and not simply perform statistical analyses that compare the efficacy of a "toad wart" treatment over one comprised of "leeches".
-FJ
Unbelievable...I actually took the time to look up the sites you recommended for Intelligent Design...and when I looked at your recommended site critical of Intelligent Design guess what I got?
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
hahaha..that's the source of your information? Wikipedia?
Honestly...this is growing tiresome. You've claimed several times that I have denied the existence of love, if you can show just one time where I ever said that....then do it. Point it out for everyone to see...if you can't, then drop it.
and mr. ducky.... like it or not everything IS unproven theory. As Socrates once ascribed the following statement to the oracle of Delphi... "Socrates is the Wisest Man because the rest know nothing but think that they know something, whereas Socrates knows nothing but also knows that he knows nothing.
You just think your "nothing" is something and that my "nothing" is not. But my nothing results in science AND ethics, whereas yours simply produces science.
-FJ
AC,
I asked a question...
"I say that love exists as an equivalent "attractive" force (to gravity). Does "love" exist? If yes, what is it? If not, what is that "force/thing" we call love?"
You then refused to address or answer the question. So I assumed that you denied it. Do you now "affirm" love's physical existance? Perhaps then, you could describe its' "nature" and how it differs from gravity (which you obviously affirm exists).
...and I can't help it if you discount everything written in Wikipedia as if it were some religious text devoid of any possible contribution to knowledge.
-FJ
Gee perhaps love travels much in the same way gravity does. But is it a particle (graviton) or a wave? Hmmm, I just can't make up my mind. Dualities are just so confusing and paradoxical.
On the Nature of Gravity by SciAm
-FJ
Swift "Gullivers Travels"...
The Knowledge I had in Mathematicks gave me great Assistance in acquiring their Phraseology, which depended much upon that Science and Musick; and in the latter I was not unskilled. Their Ideas are perpetually conversant in Lines and Figures. If they would, for Example, praise the Beauty of a Woman, or any other Animal, they describe it by Rhombs, Circles, Parallelograms, Ellipses, and other Geometrical Terms; or by Words of Art drawn from Musick, needless here to repeat. I observed in the King's Kitchen all sorts of Mathematical and Musical Instruments, after the Figures of which they cut up the Joynts that were served to his Majesty's Table.
Their Houses are very ill built, the Walls bevil without one right Angle in any Apartment; and this Defect ariseth from the Contempt they bear to practical Geometry; which they despise as vulgar and mechanick, those Instructions they give being too refined for the Intellectuals of their Workmen; which occasions perpetual Mistakes. And although they are dextrous enough upon a Piece of Paper in the Management of the Rule, the Pencil, and the Divider, yet in the common Actions and Behaviour of Life, I have not seen a more clumsy, awkward, and unhandy People, nor so slow and perplexed in their Conceptions upon all other Subjects, except those of Mathematicks and Musick. They are very bad Reasoners, and vehemently given to Opposition, unless when they happen to be of the right Opinion, which is seldom their Case. Imagination, Fancy, and Invention, they are wholly Strangers to, nor have any Words in their Language by which those Ideas can be expressed; the whole Compass of their Thoughts and Mind, being shut up within the two forementioned Sciences.
Most of them, and especially those who deal in the Astronomical Part, have great Faith in judicial Astrology, although they are ashamed to own it publickly. But, what I chiefly admired, and thought altogether unaccountable, was the strong Disposition I observed in them towards News and Politicks, perpetually enquiring into public Affairs, giving their Judgments in Matters of State; and passionately disputing every Inch of a Party Opinion. I have indeed observed the same Disposition among most of the Mathematicians I have known in Europe; although I could never discover the least Analogy between the two Sciences; unless those People suppose, that because the smallest Circle hath as many Degrees as the largest, therefore the Regulation and Management of the World require no more Abilities than the handling and turning of a Globe. But, I rather take this Quality to spring from a very common Infirmity of human Nature, inclining us to be more curious and conceited in Matters where we have least Concern, and for which we are least adapted either by Study or Nature.
These People are under continual Disquietudes, never enjoying a Minute's Peace of Mind; and their Disturbances proceed from Causes which very little affect the rest of Mortals. Their Apprehensions arise from several Changes they dread in the Celestial Bodies. For Instance; that the Earth by the continual Approaches of the Sun towards it, must in Course of Time be absorbed or swallowed up. That the Face of the Sun will by Degrees be encrusted with its own Effluvia, and give no more Light to the World. That, the Earth very narrowly escaped a Brush from the Tail of the last Comet, which would have infallibly reduced it to Ashes; and that the next, which they have calculated for One and Thirty Years hence, will probably destroy us. For, if in its Perihelion it should approach within a certain Degree of the Sun, (as by their Calculations they have Reason to dread) it will conceive a Degree of Heat ten Thousand Times more intense than that of red hot glowing Iron; and in its Absence from the Sun, carry a blazing Tail Ten Hundred Thousand and Fourteen Miles long; through which if the Earth should pass at the Distance of one Hundred Thousand Miles from the Nucleus or main Body of the Comet, it must in its Passage be set on Fire, and reduced to Ashes. That the Sun daily spending its Rays without any Nutriment to supply them, will at last be wholly consumed and annihilated; which must be attended with the Destruction of this Earth, and of all the Planets that receive their Light from it.
They are so perpetually alarmed with the Apprehensions of these and the like impending Dangers, that they can neither sleep quietly in their Beds, nor have any Relish for the common Pleasures or Amusements of Life. When they meet an Acquaintance in the Morning, the first Question is about the Sun's Health; how he looked at his Setting and Rising, and what Hopes they have to avoid the Stroak of the approaching Comet. This conversation they are apt to run into with the same Temper that boys discover, in delighting to hear terrible Stories of Sprites and Hobgoblins, which they greedily listen to, and dare not go to Bed for fear.
-FJ
...and out of the futile search for the means of transforming dross to gold.... came the science of "chemistry". Funny how that worked out.
-FJ
I think what items many people miss in the "science v/s creationism" are:
A.) God and Science are intrinsically opposed or at odds with each other.
B.) Nothing in the Scientific community is fact, it is all theory.
General consensus and/or agreement does not make a fact. Water (in liquid form) is wet, we need oxygen, the sun is hot… those are facts. Gravity being an attractive force between two objects is a generally accepted theory, turned law by even more agreement. But still there is no way to “prove” its existence. You can prove there is something drawing matter to large objects… but you can’t prove it is the “theory” of gravity.
Most “creationists”, and religious people with them, simply believe that God created all of this. Science quests to find out how. Somewhere, the two have suddenly drawn lines in the sand. I suspect the atheist movement has latched onto science to add a level of legitimacy to their claims that above all, man is the Supreme Being in the universe. I suspect they have used the EXPLINATION of how something was created to try and drive a wedge between WHO created it.
But again, this misses the point. If I tell you I made a pot, and then FJ tells you how I made the pot, he is not trying to tell you that I didn’t make the pot… they are in fact two different topics. The Bible is very general in its explanations of the “how” things were created. Hence, science has a reason since we were not given a technical manual from God. I think instead, we were given a “Creation for Dummies” by God in Genesis.
A little off topic but on target. We have been trying for years (us right wing nutjobs) to tell the world that Islam is a "CULT". Guess who is just now figuring that out?
The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
samwich...I have been listening and I'm very concerned about these latest reports that the President has authorized the NSA to listen in,wiretapping and other means of spying on US citizens without acquiring the proper legal documents. If these are true, I believe laws have been broken.
Is that clear enough for you?
G said...
I think what items many people miss in the "science v/s creationism" are:
A.) God and Science are intrinsically opposed or at odds with each other.
B.) Nothing in the Scientific community is fact, it is all theory.
Nothing in the scientific community is a fact? There aren't any facts in mathematics, physics, astronomy, genetics, medicine, biology, geology, oceanography, chemistry and so on? Wow.
Let me know when 1+1 doesn't equal 2.
I also believe that science and religion are compatible. Ducky is correct when he stated that the Catholic Church said that there is no inherent conflict between evolution and doctrine.
Pope John Paul II did not endorse any particular theory of evolution, but what he did say quite clearly and firmly was that scientists have every right and should pursue truth no matter where it takes us, and that the research relating to evolution seems very, very strongly in favor of the theory, and so the whole spirit of John Paul's statement was one of strength and support for science.
But these are subject that philosophers have argued about over centuries.
These are my OPINIONS..nothing more.
And a final statement to fj...I love my parents, brothers, sisters, my girlfriend and most of all..my daughter, I don't need to see proof if love exists.
If I didn't answer your question, don't assume anything. You don't know me or anything about me and I find it arrogant of you to assume anything about me.
Papa Ray,
The link you provided is the same on I used toward the end of the blog article. LOL. But your visit here is appreciated, so thank you for providing that link, anyway.
And your comment is not off topic at all. We get tangential here, and I don't mind.
As to cult, I believe that I recently read a link pointing out the similiarities of Islam to a cult (one definition of cult, that is--there are several). I believe that some former Muslims, termed apostates, has mentioned some of the similarities.
Grammar error: should read "have mentioned some of the similarities." Subject/Verb agreement!
G,
I also believe that science and religion are compatible....
[S]cience has a reason since we were not given a technical manual from God. I think instead, we were given a “Creation for Dummies” by God in Genesis.
You have a point there, I think.
Duck,
what is to be done when dogma conflicts with existing scientific evidence.
Acknowledge that word existing perhaps?
Additional scientific findings surface with some frequency.
I guess that I don't much worry about "old earth" or "young earth." But as I said earlier, I'm not of scientific bent. So I don't look to science to prove--or disprove--religious matters.
From the November 28, 2005 issue of Time Magazine (I couldn't find the link quickly in archives, so I'll just type in a portion from page 57 of the hard copy, which I have in hand):
"A vast majority of scientists remain unmoved by the ebb and flow of local policy. 'Evolution is not controversial in the field of science. It's controversial in the public sphere because public education is highly politicized,' says Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education. But in a country where 80 percent of the population believe God created the earth, skirmishes will, no doubt, continue between proponents of evolution and those who reject the idea that man reached the top of the tree of life pretty much by accident."
From page 58:
"For all his nets and guns and glasses, Darwin never found God; th the same token, the Bible has nothing to impart about the genetic relationships among the finches he did find. But it is human nature to seek both kinds of knowledge. Perhaps after a few more cycles of the planet, we will find a way to pursue them both in peace."
The feature article about Darwin also begins with the following caption, page 50:
"He [Darwin] had planned to enter the ministry, but his discoveries on a fateful voyage 170 years ago shook his faith and changed our conception of the origins of life."
Samwich,
Of course, this story is all over the front page of the Washington Post this morning, along with "Renewal of Patriot Act Is Blocked in Senate." As expected, GWB and his aides deny any law-breaking, and the article on surveillance states:
"Disclosure of the NSA plan had an immediate effect on Capitol Hill, where Democrates and a handful of Republicans derailed a bill that would renew expiring portions of the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law."
Do you see any connection, as implied in the newspaper article above-mentioned? I know that you have before mentioned how certain revelations can impact political matters.
For those who think that "intelligent design theory" will "retard science", here are some thoughts from one who ought to know...
Einstein on Religion
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details.
Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn't play dice.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.
To the Master's honor all must turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton's ground.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.
The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
Small is the number of people who see with their eyes and think with their minds.
One strength of the communist system of the East is that it has some of the character of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
...and finally, one just for AC...
Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love.
-FJ
FJ,
Occasionally, one of my students mentions Einstein as a God-seeking man, but I had never seen the quotes collected together like this. Thanks! I'll send the link to a few students who will be interested and will also post the link on my homework site.
PS: I have to say this...Gravitation may nt be responsible for people falling in love, but gravitation brings changes which can affect a relationship. LOL. (Pardon my snide comment, please!)
Fixation- an attachment formed and manifested in immature or neurotic behavior that persists.
Sorry I missed it, old age, bad vision and vodka make it difficult sometimes. Oh, btw, I thought I knew what and how to use the word cult until I read this web page...keep scrolling.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Papa Ray,
Not a problem.
That's the cult info to which I referred. Now, if we can only get the word put into usage for "manipulative purposes."
Post a Comment
<< Home