[Willblake2 wrotes:] Hmmm... This faith in evolution sounds awfully dogmatic (in a religious sense). Let me ask you this, have you personally experienced or witnessed this ghost of evolution? Many Christians personally experience the existence of a god, is this the same thing you are describing? Or is your belief based on the scientific scriptures and teachings of those who claim to have witnessed it? You don't need to answer that, I'm just rattling your cage. I think that evolution is a pretty cool vision, although I do not use it in my everyday life. I'm not conspiracy minded about science or religion, but check this out:
[Krimel] Unlike dmb I am happy to admit that adoption of Platt's underlying "isms" is an article of "faith" with me but the Theory of Evolution is not at all like that. One can accept those assumptions of science, I would say any sensible person probably does accept those assumptions, without buying into any particular product of scientific inquiry. I have seen and experienced a wide variety of examples of evolution in action and it was nothing like an experience of the divine. I have seen, for example, the average height of NBA players increase in response to the contingencies of the game. I live in a state where every kind of obnoxious critter can survive and I have seen green chameleons replaced by several species of really ugly brown lizards. I have seen the distribution of traits in urban dandelions favor those which blossom closer to the ground in response to the evolutionary pressures of lawn mowers. I have seen the microwaves virtually replace toaster ovens. CDs, replaced tape. Stereo replaced mono and is being replaced by surround sound. Color replaced black and white. MS-DOS replaced CPM. Hopefully at last I am seeing progressive political ideas replace failed doctrines of laisse faire. So my cage isn't rattled in the least because I do use it in my everyday life. [Willblake2] It is accepted historically that in the fourth century AD, the emperor Constantine held the Council of Nicea, to consolidate the Christian belief system (and consolidate his own power). This council was composed of about 300 politicians, or religious leaders if you will. Of the many writings on the teachings of Jesus, only 27 books were finally chosen to represent the New Testament. Other instructional books such as the Didache were considered not authoritative. The rigorous destruction and non-acceptance of contrary evidence seems to have resulted in the consolidation of the illusion that the Church was the only source of such teachings, making the central church indispensable for salvation. This, as desired, made the Church the most powerful institution in Western history (I guess evolution was at play, here). The creation of illusions such as this can be very powerful and lasting, and should not be dismissed. The religion of Evolution through the church of science could (has) result(ed) in defining our moral values in much the same way. [Krimel] I am not at all sure what your point is here. If what you are pointing to is certain selection pressure that led to the adoption of the Christian cannon, well OK. If you are just changing the subject, that's OK too. But you are missing a few pieces even here. Prior to the Council of Nicea the cannon was not exactly closed but not really open either. There are a couple of "lists" of canonical works that predate the Council by at least a 100 years and as you point out there are a few works on those lists that were omitted for doctrinal reasons. But there were a number of Christian writing circulating at the time that were never considered to be canonical by much of anyone. In fact the whole idea of a cannon arose in response to the heretic Marcion who specified the first Christian cannon. It included the writings of Paul and Luke. He was a Gnostic, who in the Platonic tradition viewed the perceptual world as dirty and evil. He therefore rejected the Jewish writing and much of the other literature that was growing in early Christian circles. The canonical lists mentioned above were created in response to Marcion's "bible". With regard to Constantine's need to "consolidate" his power; Roman emperors really already had their power consolidated. They didn't need to go to all that much trouble to maintain it. As for the church leaders in attendance they were in the odd position of taking a system of beliefs that had arisen in response to oppression and turning it into a system of power and administration. Their aim was to resolve a number of doctrinal disputes that stood in the way of this consolation of their power. And you are quite right their motives and decisions do seem to result more from political that theological considerations. So, again I really don't see what your point is but I would say that the Council of Nicea is a good example of the evolution and shaping of a set of religious ideas (memes)in responses to the intellectual environment of the 3rd century. If you think the science has some doctrinal body squashing heretical views you just really haven't been paying attention. But you have done nothing here it lessen my suspicion that you are not being entirely forthcoming with us. I seriously cannot imagine that someone, who has taken even one college class in biology, would have such a shallow understanding of the principles that underlie that discipline. Your degree wouldn't happen to be from Liberty University would it? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
