--- In [email protected], "off_world_beings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], bbrigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "off_world_beings" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What would happen if Hagelin seriously weighed in on the > current, > > > highly charged, debate on intelligent design? How would he > argue, > > > left, right, or center? > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > ************* > > > > Hagelin would probably have to go with MMY's statement in the SBAL > > (~p.274): > > > > "All the innumerable decisions that are apparently the result of > > natural laws in the process of evolution are the innumerable > > decisions of the almighty personal supreme God at the head of > > creation. He governs and maintains the entire field of evolution > and > > the different lives of innumerable beings in the whole cosmos." > > > > But to me, this does not look different from seeing the universe > as > > run by natural laws, i.e., whether it is a person or laws reacting > > to behavior, the outcome looks the same. God is not directing the > > activity of creatures, but is reacting to their behavior -- if > > somebody smokes cigarettes (like David Lynch with his packaday > habit > > after 30+ years of TM), making the body coarse, the reaction is to > > create disease which eventually eliminates the body -- this is > > natural selection, whether it is done by a person or a set of laws > > operating automatically. > > > > So although Intelligent Design people would probably be satisfied > > with MMY's statement (that is, if he wasn't a goldurn Hindu), so > > could scientists who see the universe as natural-law-based. > > > > Bob Brigante > > http://geocities.com/bbrigante>>> > > That's what I think, because Maharishi has always talked about 'the > whole is greater than the sum of its parts", which to me suggests > the phenomena of the coexistence of opposite concepts in one place > at the same time. Infitinite parts (or activity) and unity, ie. the > multiplicity of existence and God. > This paradox is impossible to grasp for old school scientists and > for intelligent design proponents.
> Ultimately though, I think one must concede to intelligent design. > > OffWorld ***************** To me, intelligent design theory is completely inadequate and unexplanatory and not as comprehensive as what MMY said. I think it's necessary to distinguish between reacting to behavior, which is what God does, and controlling everything, which intelligent design theorists seem to embrace. Human beings have obvious freedom of choice, and they suffer or enjoy based on the feedback from those choices. But animals and plants, although they do not have the consciousness to override their genetically-determined behaviors, do engage in maladaptive behaviors which result in feedback that eventually eliminates them. So natural selection, whether it is seen as decisions by a God or as decisions by impersonal natural laws, is a fact that is not acknowledged by intelligent design theorists because of their limited intelligence and knowledge -- MMY is not saying what intelligent design theorists are saying. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
