[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
curtisdeltablues@... wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap 
compost1uk@ wrote:
 Back to business, and the subject of science and scientism.
 I wonder if you've read the enormously influential
 and fascinating Structure of Scientific Revolutions
 by Kuhn? And I wonder if Curtis has, and if not, whether
 he would think again about his faith in 'peer review' if
 he digested it?

 As I'll bet you are aware,it would be an improper 
 interpretation of Kuhn's brilliant analysis to be an
 indictment of value of the peer review process in science. 

There is a lot in your post that we can agree about (I've 
snipped it for brevity).

Peer review is a part of what Kuhn called 'normal science' (as 
opposed to revolutionary science). As you say, normal science 
is essential for progress (though the big leaps come from the 
revolutionary aspect). But the question I'd put to you is 
this: Is it essential as a necessary evil, or essential 
because it's a core value? It's difficult to read Kuhn without 
accepting the former.

Perhaps the idea of representative democracy is analogous. We 
want the core value of democracy. But we can't put every least 
little issue and decision to the vote. As a practical solution 
we elect representatives every so often - and they in turn 
will elect the leaders and committeee members that are 
required to create manageable, decision making groups (Your 
Political System May Vary).

But just as it's the word democracy in the concept of 
representative democracy that is fundamental, and that 
expresses our ideal, so too it's the word review that counts 
in the concept of peer review.

I'm enough of a Popper fan to believe in the principle that 
*THE* core, primary value of science is that ideas, beliefs, 
theories (whatever) should be held up to criticism in complete 
freedom. It's the arguments and experiments that count, 
stupid! - not at all who makes those arguments, what club 
they're in, what background they have, what dissolute private 
practises they may indulge in etc. etc. (Note to Robin - you 
notice the old-fashioned, even scholastic realism about 
abtract entities there, as opposed to the nominalism and 
subjectivism that comes naturally to the modern mind? It was 
Popper after all who wrote a paper Epistemology Without A 
Knowing Subject ;-) )

Peer review is a quite transparent compromise of this ideal. 
(Knowledge by authority).

So how does this fit in with Behe  your discssion with Robin? 
I'm thinking of this kind of thing of yours:

But in this discussion we were talking about the assertions of
Behe in context with the biological sciences, and it is just a 
fact that he has not made his case to his peers. That isn't on 
me, it is on him

This is where I think you are invoking 'normal science' to do 
something it just can't do.

Let's distinguish two cases for a discussion of a theory 'P':

1) A discussion of the scientific, philosophical, or religious 
merits of P. I would put it to you that 'peer review', or the 
fact that most scientists agree/disagree with P says NOTHING 
whatsoever about the truth of P. The ONLY thing that reflects 
on the truth of P is the logic and evidence for P. 

2) A discussion in which people who are not up to speed with 
the evidence for P (people who cannot review that evidence, or 
people who are unwilling to review that evidence) nevertheless 
have to make important decisions that depend on the truth or 
falsity of P. In this case it seems to me to be entirely 
rational to go with some such as 90% of scientists in the 
field believe in P, so therfore we'll go with P.

What I'm saying then is that against Robin and Behe, you were 
going with (2), when the context of the discussion dictated 
that you should have been focused on (1).

On the other hand, if you had been discussing as, say school 
governors (do you have such things?), what should be taught 
in our school curriculum?, then I'd say (2) would have been 
completely to the point.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap 
 compost1uk@ wrote:
  Back to business, and the subject of science and scientism.
  I wonder if you've read the enormously influential
  and fascinating Structure of Scientific Revolutions
  by Kuhn? And I wonder if Curtis has, and if not, whether
  he would think again about his faith in 'peer review' if
  he digested it?
 
  As I'll bet you are aware,it would be an improper 
  interpretation of Kuhn's brilliant analysis to be an
  indictment of value of the peer review process in science. 
 
 There is a lot in your post that we can agree about (I've 
 snipped it for brevity).
 
 Peer review is a part of what Kuhn called 'normal science' (as 
 opposed to revolutionary science). As you say, normal science 
 is essential for progress (though the big leaps come from the 
 revolutionary aspect). But the question I'd put to you is 
 this: Is it essential as a necessary evil, or essential 
 because it's a core value? It's difficult to read Kuhn without 
 accepting the former.

I can accept it as a necessary evil on one hand and and essential value on the 
other when we take into consideration how few scientists probably are purely 
one of the other.  In cases where orthodoxy institutionalized and perpetuated  
blocks innovation, it is more on the necessary evil side.  When it keeps 
journeymen scientists on point to flesh out theories with experimentation 
instead of going after every rabbit that runs, it demonstrates the essential 
good that this dynamic also allows.  Both cases can be made.

 
 Perhaps the idea of representative democracy is analogous. We 
 want the core value of democracy. But we can't put every least 
 little issue and decision to the vote. As a practical solution 
 we elect representatives every so often - and they in turn 
 will elect the leaders and committeee members that are 
 required to create manageable, decision making groups (Your 
 Political System May Vary).
 
 But just as it's the word democracy in the concept of 
 representative democracy that is fundamental, and that 
 expresses our ideal, so too it's the word review that counts 
 in the concept of peer review.

With all the pros and cons of humans interacting this way.

 
 I'm enough of a Popper fan to believe in the principle that 
 *THE* core, primary value of science is that ideas, beliefs, 
 theories (whatever) should be held up to criticism in complete 
 freedom. It's the arguments and experiments that count, 
 stupid! - not at all who makes those arguments, what club 
 they're in, what background they have, what dissolute private 
 practises they may indulge in etc. etc. (Note to Robin - you 
 notice the old-fashioned, even scholastic realism about 
 abtract entities there, as opposed to the nominalism and 
 subjectivism that comes naturally to the modern mind? It was 
 Popper after all who wrote a paper Epistemology Without A 
 Knowing Subject ;-) )

I understand the ideal and the value of keeping an eye on it above the scrum of 
what actually goes on as science done by flawed humans.

 
 Peer review is a quite transparent compromise of this ideal. 
 (Knowledge by authority).

I still believe that the Wild West level of challenge freedom is built on the 
shoulders of previous work that does discover some stuff about how life works 
that we can count on.  The basic formulation of evolutionary thoery is that for 
me.  The details should be the scrum it is between competing views of how it 
works.  But it is not knowledge by authority in a religious sense because the 
theories themselves are tested to reach the level of confidence we have in 
them.  This doesn't diminish the cautionary tale you are pointing out.  I was 
thinking of the poor guy who cured ulcers when he found out it was bacteria 
based.  What a rash of shit he had to endure from the orthodoxy!  But then he 
wasn't challenging that the stomach is the seat of digestion.  He built on that 
basic understanding.

 
 So how does this fit in with Behe  your discssion with Robin? 
 I'm thinking of this kind of thing of yours:
 
 But in this discussion we were talking about the assertions of
 Behe in context with the biological sciences, and it is just a 
 fact that he has not made his case to his peers. That isn't on 
 me, it is on him
 
 This is where I think you are invoking 'normal science' to do 
 something it just can't do.

Fascinating challenge.

 
 Let's distinguish two cases for a discussion of a theory 'P':
 
 1) A discussion of the scientific, philosophical, or religious 
 merits of P. I would put it to you that 'peer review', or the 
 fact that most scientists agree/disagree with P says NOTHING 
 whatsoever about the truth of P. The ONLY thing that reflects 
 on the truth of P is the logic and evidence for P. 
 
 2) A discussion in which people who 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote:

 Back to business, and the subject of science and scientism.
 I wonder if you've read the enormously influential and fascinating
 Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn? And I wonder if 
 Curtis has, and if not, whether he would think again about
 his faith in 'peer review' if he digested it?

As I'll bet you are aware,it would be an improper interpretation of Kuhn's 
brilliant analysis to be an indictment of value of the peer review process in 
science.  He is explaining the interaction between the innovative and 
conservative elements necessary for bringing about not just any paradigm shift, 
but an improvement, which over time, demonstrates superior predictive ability.  
This work is done by the conservative elements whose work is often the part of 
science that affects our daily lives the most.  The Copernican revolution was a 
paradigm shift, but it was NASA that put the US on the moon.  During that 
process NASA was not open to any proposed theories about how the earth is 
really still the center of the universe so their calculations were all wrong.   
They were positively closed-minded about this possibility. This is a close 
analogy to what is going on with Behe, who is trying to reintroduce elements 
from religious philosophy, after Darwin's scientific revolution.

Some New Age thinkers (I am not including you or Robin) misuse Kuhn's insights 
to mean that we have good reasons for believing any theory proposed just 
because at the beginning of a paradigm shift, there is little evidence to 
support ideas which later pan out.

So the question becomes, how do we sort out promising ideas from ones that lack 
promise? The answer is that there are no easy solutions.  It gets slogged out, 
and I'm sure we miss the boat a lot.  I think of Kuhn's insights as almost a 
documentation of the institutionalization of our own cognitive gaps.  It has a 
cautionary message.  But just as in our flawed cognitive system, there are good 
reasons that it is this way.  The resistance to any new paradigm shift is built 
into science and that serves us because you have to chose a horse and run.  And 
although just as in the movies, everyone likes to identify with the hero in the 
Army flick who waves his arm and says Let's get those bastards! it is the 
rest of the guys slogging along beside him who actually do the work that ends 
up mattering the most. And the same thing with our minds and perceptions.  
There is too much data coming in so our brains have to fudge it, wing it, and 
roll with it.  We make mistakes.  But in the end, hopefully we get it right 
enough to continue to survive.

 
 The way I see it Science has changed greatly in the latter
 part of the last century. It has become heavily dependent on
 public funding - and this has strengthened the hand of what
 Kuhn calls 'normal science'. As a consequence the concept of
 'peer review' has come to be seen as the gold standard for the
 scientific method.

Although I share your concern about the influence of funding, I disagree that 
the principle behind peer review was not always critical to science.  
Repeatability is the hallmark of good science and is why it is an international 
effort. And it is the international nature of the enterprise that protects us a 
little from undue specific influence.  Interestingly Behe is working on behalf 
of a special interest and this is one reason he has not gained international 
traction IMO.  If you are making a case that peer review can be flawed in it 
actual application, I agree.  But is still upholds an important place in the 
process of wading through ideas.  I also believe it has a record of getting it 
right far more than getting it wrong in the end.  The applications of science 
we live with today are a testament to that.

 This seems like a step backwards
 to the dark times of the middle ages - i.e. a time when the
 accepted institution (i.e. your lot) would come down like a
 ton of bricks on mavericks and geniuses questioning the status
 quo (such as Giordano Bruno). 

Although I recognize the legitimacy for your concern, I think you are 
overstating the problem a bit.  And we are not IMO going back to the middle 
ages in science even with its current problems of how it gets applied, funded, 
etc.  We are still way better off with the methods of science than without 
them.  Pointing to its imperfections as a human endeavor is appropriate.  But 
let's not get carried away and give the impression that therefor, any idea is 
as good as any other one, and that scientists are all just winging it with 
skewed personal agendas.  It has proven to be a lot better than that despite 
its flaws.  Kuhn was describing the way the different parts of the scientific 
community interact and for all its flaws it has done pretty well and we have 
grown in our confidence in our knowledge of the world through it application.

You see, the earth really isn't at 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[maskedzebra]

'As to Professor Morris's religious faith? I just don't get it.'

(From the NYTimes article you alerted me to, Judy)

Richard Dawkins is a spectacularly beautiful writer about science, but—as 
always—I question the quality of his self-knowledge when it comes to what is 
going on in his first person ontology when he is reacting to religion.

[As an aside: Curtis could replace Thomas Huxley in his role as Darwin's 
bulldog—Curtis could be the bulldog for Richard Dawkins—only in the case of 
Curtis, his first person ontology doesn't get subjectively defensive—even 
though I would wish he would form his judgment of Michael Behe from first-hand 
knowledge rather than accepting the consensus of Behe's fellow scientists, who 
hate Behe's challenge to macroevolution—and often become (sad, really) 
belligerent.]

In any case, Judy, I was glad to see this, and to get yet another impression of 
Dawkins. His personal consciousness cannot, it seems, imaginatively account for 
how people can believe in God without giving away what it is about them that 
makes them too weak to be as courageous and objective as Dawkins is.

That to me is the central point: if I do not believe in God for reasons which I 
find unassailable (as Dawkins surely does—and shouts this to the heavenless 
skies), then why can't I discover, pinpoint what it is in the psychology of the 
theist which makes him resistant to reality, which leads him into this need for 
an ultimate fantasy.

If I am pretty sure there is no definitive evidence which would settle this 
question either way (and I think that's pretty much God's intention), then I 
must be agnostic about the question of God's existence. For Dawkins, he 
psychologically and intellectually can't conceive of how anyone (sane, honest, 
realistic) could believe in God. And yet he is confronted perpetually with this 
truth: there are persons just as intelligent and sane and realistic as he is 
that *do* believe in a personal Creator.

You see, this (if I were Dawkins) would cause me to pause, for if I know why I 
don't believe in the existence of God—and I deem my reasons for this belief to 
be impeccably sound—then if I find there are other human beings who *do* 
believe in the existence of God—*and I can't find, in my discussion with them, 
in observing them as a scientist, any individual trait which would predispose 
them to falsify reality like this*—doesn't this, provide prima facie evidence 
*for* the existence of God?—because surely it must occur to me: well, if that 
theist is not missing anything, and he believes in God—which I find 
incredible—then perhaps *God is causing him to believe in God*.

For myself, I prefer to make the question always a matter of quasi-experimental 
knowledge. Does one's experience of living in the 21st century tend to provide 
proof or reason (or intuitive evidence) to believe there is a providence to 
one's life [There is a divinity that shapes our ends/ Roughhew them how we 
will—this is still true, even in a postmodern, post-Catholic universe], or 
does life seem (as it does for Curtis) to suggest it has no overriding purpose, 
plan, or order to it—and one gets meaning from knowing and realizing *this*.

I have a most peculiar view of God [vide my commentary on Bob Price's video of 
the Allied destruction of Monte Cassino in 1944]; but when I watch, listen to, 
and read Dawkins in the act of arguing for no God—especially in the context of 
going up against an intelligent theist (e.g. John Lennox, the Oxford 
mathematician)—he seems, are you ready for this, Curtis?—bewilderingly naive.

But obviously totally, thoroughly sincere.

I just don't get it (RD): that pretty much sums it up. Dawkins should devote 
part of his intellectual energy *to* trying to get it. But he can't, and 
therefore his inability or refusal to do this, tends to make me see him 
existing inside of a universe where Someone knows what is going on—and 
Richard—except as a scientist (where he is so brilliant)—doesn't.

But I have not advanced my philosophy even one step against the beliefs of 
another scientifically-minded FFL poster.

Meanwhile, thanks for the tip, Judy. I will just end this disquisition by 
suggesting that I am pretty sure RD will be in for a big surprise when he gets 
to the very end—there's more than evolution behind the integrity of a scientist 
believing so strongly as Dawkins does that there is no God. He does this with 
God's permission.

I just this morning came across an impressive sentence by the eminent French 
Catholic philosopher Etienne Gilson:

It is therefore insufficient to say that God watches over the human species in 
general, or even over each man in particular—He watches over each particular 
free action of each particular man.

And I believe him—this just has the feel of being true (for me, anyway).

Not obviously for Richard or Curtis.

I would have liked to have had the experience of attending an Introductory 
Lecture—or better yet, a Residence 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

 'As to Professor Morris's religious faith? I just don't get it.'
 
 (From the NYTimes article you alerted me to, Judy)
 
 Richard Dawkins is a spectacularly beautiful writer about science, but—as 
 always—I question the quality of his self-knowledge when it comes to what is 
 going on in his first person ontology when he is reacting to religion.

Here is something to agree on.  As I said in another post, I have most affinity 
with Atheist who have lived through the religious mindset and beliefs.  
Although I enjoyed this article, Dawkins is not my favorite writer on atheism.  
I read his book on evolution, enjoying every word, but didn't even make it 
through the God Delusion.  My favorite writer is Paul Kurtz the secular 
humanist with his book the Transcendental Temptation for one.  I'm pretty sure 
my view of Dawkins is skewed by his prickly demeanor.  I just don't like 
crotchety guys.  This is not a statement about him intellectually.  I often 
think I agree with him but I wish he was a bit less of a dick about it.

 
 [As an aside: Curtis could replace Thomas Huxley in his role as Darwin's 
 bulldog

That is for the scientists in the biological sciences who actually know what 
they are talking about.


—Curtis could be the bulldog for Richard Dawkins—

Never.

only in the case of Curtis, his first person ontology doesn't get subjectively 
defensive—

Much appreciated.  I think I am only suited to be a bulldog for myself. And 
even then the image of a bulldog is so unappealing. I would rather be 
considered a companion Labrador dog, assisting in an unobtrusive friendly way 
in the small areas where I might be helpful.

even though I would wish he would form his judgment of Michael Behe from 
first-hand knowledge rather than accepting the consensus of Behe's fellow 
scientists, who hate Behe's challenge to macroevolution—and often become (sad, 
really) belligerent.]

Do you believe that it is because all of them lack the sincere desire for the 
truth that Behe has?  Seriously, think about it.  Could it be the case that all 
of the people who have renounced his theories as lacking in scientific 
merit,including the religious ones, ALL have a vindictive mindset?  A 
commitment despite the excellent evidence for his case to ignore that reality 
and on some unknown subjective principle denied him a fair consideration?

Or is it more likely that he just didn't cut the mustard for his educated peers 
despite the appeal of his ideas for people without the necessary training to 
evaluate his claims?   Like the thousands of ideas that come up and die on the 
vine upon examination by other scientists each year. 

I believe that it is only because of the religious support he gets that we even 
know about the guy.  He is the champion of their cause to get religion back 
into schools and especially into science class.

I just put Behe's book on hold.  I did go through it once before but can't 
remember much about it for discussion.  I think it made me realize that I 
needed to brush up on evolutionary thoery itself which led me to Dawkin's book. 
 I can't promise to pour over every page, and I will probably just use my mind 
filters to pick out easy targets to bring up knowing me...but I'll give it 
another shot.



 
 In any case, Judy, I was glad to see this, and to get yet another impression 
 of Dawkins. His personal consciousness cannot, it seems, imaginatively 
 account for how people can believe in God without giving away what it is 
 about them that makes them too weak to be as courageous and objective as 
 Dawkins is.
 
 That to me is the central point: if I do not believe in God for reasons which 
 I find unassailable (as Dawkins surely does—and shouts this to the heavenless 
 skies), then why can't I discover, pinpoint what it is in the psychology of 
 the theist which makes him resistant to reality, which leads him into this 
 need for an ultimate fantasy.
 
 If I am pretty sure there is no definitive evidence which would settle this 
 question either way (and I think that's pretty much God's intention), then I 
 must be agnostic about the question of God's existence. For Dawkins, he 
 psychologically and intellectually can't conceive of how anyone (sane, 
 honest, realistic) could believe in God. And yet he is confronted perpetually 
 with this truth: there are persons just as intelligent and sane and realistic 
 as he is that *do* believe in a personal Creator.
 
 You see, this (if I were Dawkins) would cause me to pause, for if I know why 
 I don't believe in the existence of God—and I deem my reasons for this belief 
 to be impeccably sound—then if I find there are other human beings who *do* 
 believe in the existence of God—*and I can't find, in my discussion with 
 them, in observing them as a scientist, any individual trait which would 
 predispose them to falsify reality like this*—doesn't this, provide prima 
 facie 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... 
wrote:

 I can't promise to pour over every page, 

Eggcorn alert!

http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/59/pour/

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

Wow, I didn't see that coming!  I will never get tired of these corrections, 
thanks.  I can't even imagine writing pore over the text, I would be afraid 
that most people as ignorant as I was would think I had misspelled it.  I may 
not be able to use that  one.  Pore over a text.  It is like having your vision 
clear in an instant.

I wonder who else caught this.  Robin have you been poring over our posts all 
this time while I've been out here in the top 40 pastures with the cows and 
sheep pouring over them like some moonshiner refilling everyone's glass 
before their dry run. 

But, according to Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable the modern use of 
dry run comes from prohibition bootleggers who checked out a route with an 
empty truck (a dry run) before transporting illegal liquor.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  I can't promise to pour over every page, 
 
 Eggcorn alert!
 
 http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/59/pour/

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... 
wrote:

 Wow, I didn't see that coming!  I will never get tired of
 these corrections, thanks.  I can't even imagine writing
 pore over the text, I would be afraid that most people
 as ignorant as I was would think I had misspelled it.

Pour over is becoming *very* common. As the eggcorn editor
notes, the term pore is infrequent, specialized, and opaque.
It's no wonder folks substitute pour, especially when the
preposition over goes so well with it.



  Pore over a text.  It is like having your vision clear in an instant.
 
 I wonder who else caught this.  Robin have you been poring over our posts all 
 this time while I've been out here in the top 40 pastures with the cows and 
 sheep pouring over them like some moonshiner refilling everyone's glass 
 before their dry run. 
 
 But, according to Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable the modern use of 
 dry run comes from prohibition bootleggers who checked out a route with an 
 empty truck (a dry run) before transporting illegal liquor.
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   I can't promise to pour over every page, 
  
  Eggcorn alert!
  
  http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/59/pour/

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

I'm was starting to think that I should have said pass muster instead of 
cutting the mustard. Then I was saved by this little gem from that site's 
forum:

Apparently there are two STANDARD (non-eggcorn) phrases:
1. pass muster, and
2. cut the mustard.

I was not convinced of the legitimacy of the latter until recently. Quoting the 
source below: The first recorded use of the phrase is by O Henry in 1907, in a 
story called The Heart of the West: I looked around and found a proposition 
that exactly cut the mustard. So, it looks like my earlier post is flawed, and 
I am left with eggcorn on my face!

Excellent resource Judy, especially for someone like me who loves these phrases 
so much.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  Wow, I didn't see that coming!  I will never get tired of
  these corrections, thanks.  I can't even imagine writing
  pore over the text, I would be afraid that most people
  as ignorant as I was would think I had misspelled it.
 
 Pour over is becoming *very* common. As the eggcorn editor
 notes, the term pore is infrequent, specialized, and opaque.
 It's no wonder folks substitute pour, especially when the
 preposition over goes so well with it.
 
 
 
   Pore over a text.  It is like having your vision clear in an instant.
  
  I wonder who else caught this.  Robin have you been poring over our posts 
  all this time while I've been out here in the top 40 pastures with the cows 
  and sheep pouring over them like some moonshiner refilling everyone's 
  glass before their dry run. 
  
  But, according to Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable the modern use 
  of dry run comes from prohibition bootleggers who checked out a route with 
  an empty truck (a dry run) before transporting illegal liquor.
  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
I can't promise to pour over every page, 
   
   Eggcorn alert!
   
   http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/59/pour/

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... 
wrote:

 I'm was starting to think that I should have said pass 
 muster instead of cutting the mustard. Then I was
 saved by this little gem from that site's forum:
 
 Apparently there are two STANDARD (non-eggcorn) phrases:
 1. pass muster, and
 2. cut the mustard.
 
 I was not convinced of the legitimacy of the latter until
 recently. Quoting the source below: The first recorded use
 of the phrase is by O Henry in 1907, in a story called The
 Heart of the West: I looked around and found a proposition
 that exactly cut the mustard. So, it looks like my earlier
 post is flawed, and I am left with eggcorn on my face!

How was it flawed if cut the mustard is a standard
phrase?? I'm not following you.

It sure is an odd phrase. Any idea of the derivation?

 Excellent resource Judy, especially for someone like me who
 loves these phrases so much.

Slate.com has an occasional column called The Good Word
that you might like, at least some of them. The latest
is about Britishisms that we've adopted:

http://www.slate.com/id/3161/year/2011/landing/1/

Here's the archive:

http://www.slate.com/id/3161/year/2011/landing/1/

Click on [...] at the top for years before 2011. You
should be able to tell from the titles which ones deal
with the kind of thing that you find of interest.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  I'm was starting to think that I should have said pass 
  muster instead of cutting the mustard. Then I was
  saved by this little gem from that site's forum:
  
  Apparently there are two STANDARD (non-eggcorn) phrases:
  1. pass muster, and
  2. cut the mustard.
  
  I was not convinced of the legitimacy of the latter until
  recently. Quoting the source below: The first recorded use
  of the phrase is by O Henry in 1907, in a story called The
  Heart of the West: I looked around and found a proposition
  that exactly cut the mustard. So, it looks like my earlier
  post is flawed, and I am left with eggcorn on my face!
 
 How was it flawed if cut the mustard is a standard
 phrase?? I'm not following you.

I didn't punctuate it properly for you to be able to follow.  The part under 
the numbered section is not me, that is some poster who must have previously 
posted that cut the mustard was wrong and pass the muster was right.  They both 
seem to pass muster!  He was correcting himself.

Thanks for the the other links.  I used to read the Good Word on Slate and 
somehow it dropped off my radar.  Now I'll get back in the swing and get all 
spooled up!
 
 It sure is an odd phrase. Any idea of the derivation?

I chased it around a bit and found nothing definitive.  As a cook I find the 
one that links it to vinegar cutting mustard as the best bet.  When you think 
of it, it takes something is full of piss and vinegar to cut mustard.  The 
choice between the two is obvious.

Thanks again for the links.


 
  Excellent resource Judy, especially for someone like me who
  loves these phrases so much.
 
 Slate.com has an occasional column called The Good Word
 that you might like, at least some of them. The latest
 is about Britishisms that we've adopted:
 
 http://www.slate.com/id/3161/year/2011/landing/1/
 
 Here's the archive:
 
 http://www.slate.com/id/3161/year/2011/landing/1/
 
 Click on [...] at the top for years before 2011. You
 should be able to tell from the titles which ones deal
 with the kind of thing that you find of interest.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   I'm was starting to think that I should have said pass 
   muster instead of cutting the mustard. Then I was
   saved by this little gem from that site's forum:
   
   Apparently there are two STANDARD (non-eggcorn) phrases:
   1. pass muster, and
   2. cut the mustard.
   
   I was not convinced of the legitimacy of the latter until
   recently. Quoting the source below: The first recorded use
   of the phrase is by O Henry in 1907, in a story called The
   Heart of the West: I looked around and found a proposition
   that exactly cut the mustard. So, it looks like my earlier
   post is flawed, and I am left with eggcorn on my face!
  
  How was it flawed if cut the mustard is a standard
  phrase?? I'm not following you.
 
 I didn't punctuate it properly for you to be able to follow.
 The part under the numbered section is not me, that is some
 poster who must have previously posted that cut the mustard
 was wrong and pass the muster was right.

OIC. I should have gotten it from your phrase this little
gem, because the numbered section alone ain't much of a
gem. Eggcorn on my face is what misled me, because it
sounded like something you'd say.

 They both seem to pass muster!  He was correcting himself.
 
 Thanks for the the other links.  I used to read the Good
 Word on Slate and somehow it dropped off my radar.  Now
 I'll get back in the swing and get all spooled up!
  
  It sure is an odd phrase. Any idea of the derivation?
 
 I chased it around a bit and found nothing definitive.  As
 a cook I find the one that links it to vinegar cutting
 mustard as the best bet.  When you think of it, it takes
 something is full of piss and vinegar to cut mustard.
 The choice between the two is obvious.

Uh...right. I mean, I've never *tried* cutting mustard
with piss, but I'll take your word for it that vinegar
is better.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 Uh...right. I mean, I've never *tried* cutting mustard
 with piss, but I'll take your word for it that vinegar
 is better.


Even in my most Ayurvedically enthusiastic I would have given that a pass.


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
I'm was starting to think that I should have said pass 
muster instead of cutting the mustard. Then I was
saved by this little gem from that site's forum:

Apparently there are two STANDARD (non-eggcorn) phrases:
1. pass muster, and
2. cut the mustard.

I was not convinced of the legitimacy of the latter until
recently. Quoting the source below: The first recorded use
of the phrase is by O Henry in 1907, in a story called The
Heart of the West: I looked around and found a proposition
that exactly cut the mustard. So, it looks like my earlier
post is flawed, and I am left with eggcorn on my face!
   
   How was it flawed if cut the mustard is a standard
   phrase?? I'm not following you.
  
  I didn't punctuate it properly for you to be able to follow.
  The part under the numbered section is not me, that is some
  poster who must have previously posted that cut the mustard
  was wrong and pass the muster was right.
 
 OIC. I should have gotten it from your phrase this little
 gem, because the numbered section alone ain't much of a
 gem. Eggcorn on my face is what misled me, because it
 sounded like something you'd say.
 
  They both seem to pass muster!  He was correcting himself.
  
  Thanks for the the other links.  I used to read the Good
  Word on Slate and somehow it dropped off my radar.  Now
  I'll get back in the swing and get all spooled up!
   
   It sure is an odd phrase. Any idea of the derivation?
  
  I chased it around a bit and found nothing definitive.  As
  a cook I find the one that links it to vinegar cutting
  mustard as the best bet.  When you think of it, it takes
  something is full of piss and vinegar to cut mustard.
  The choice between the two is obvious.
 
 Uh...right. I mean, I've never *tried* cutting mustard
 with piss, but I'll take your word for it that vinegar
 is better.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:
 
 Promising, however, that you will try to get to Le Fanu's beautiful book 
 (prominent physician and science writer).

I took the first, easy step some time ago of ordering
this from Amazon - but have yet to read it. So seeing
your references to this I am berating myself with must
try harder. 

Le Fanu has a regular column in my daily paper 'qua' doctor 
which is quite fascinating. In it he catalogs curious and
unexplained symptoms of real-life patients. A 'wonder' 
generator, and a scientific hubris deflator.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[maskedzebra]

Nice to hear from the winger. I feel sure you are going to enjoy his book, 
PaliGap. His is the only (IMO) irreproachably sane view of science in 
relationship to the human person. (Although one of your own too, Raymond 
Tallis, he also does a pretty good job of this, atheist, hard-nosed 
macroevolutionist as he is.)

Ever since that rugby disclosure I have felt differently about the guy who went 
after some of my references to Aquinas and Aristotle—straightening me out.

Le Fanu revolutionized my view of science. Although Curtis is doing a pretty 
good job of persuading me I have missed something inside the context of *his* 
experience of how science remains intimate to him in personal sense.

Why Us? is a book I would keep by my bedside if I were dying. That, along 
with the writings of guys and gals you would expect—like The Summa guy.

Hope you are keeping well there in Great Britain, PaliGap.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
  
  Promising, however, that you will try to get to Le Fanu's beautiful book 
  (prominent physician and science writer).
 
 I took the first, easy step some time ago of ordering
 this from Amazon - but have yet to read it. So seeing
 your references to this I am berating myself with must
 try harder. 
 
 Le Fanu has a regular column in my daily paper 'qua' doctor 
 which is quite fascinating. In it he catalogs curious and
 unexplained symptoms of real-life patients. A 'wonder' 
 generator, and a scientific hubris deflator.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

 Hope you are keeping well there in Great Britain, PaliGap.

Very well thanks Robin.

I was watching a bit of France v Canada. Les Bleus came
through strong in the end (a fitness issue?). But your guys
gave them a bit of a fright I reckon.

I'm afraid I feel our chaps (England) are struggling. We
have a very exciting winger in Chris Ashton. But on the 
whole I feel they are over-coached, and as a result, rather
dull. Just about our best player is Martin Shaw - who, 
amazingly, is 38. 

But what about Ireland upsetting the Aussies, eh? Marvelous.

Back to business, and the subject of science and scientism.
I wonder if you've read the enormously influential and fascinating
Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn? And I wonder if 
Curtis has, and if not, whether he would think again about
his faith in 'peer review' if he digested it?

The way I see it Science has changed greatly in the latter
part of the last century. It has become heavily dependent on
public funding - and this has strengthened the hand of what
Kuhn calls 'normal science'. As a consequence the concept of
'peer review' has come to be seen as the gold standard for the
scientific method. This seems like a step backwards
to the dark times of the middle ages - i.e. a time when the
accepted institution (i.e. your lot) would come down like a
ton of bricks on mavericks and geniuses questioning the status
quo (such as Giordano Bruno). 

;-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[authfriend]

ATT. Robin and Curtis:

Profiles in Science article in the NYTimes, A Knack for
Bashing Orthodoxy, on Richard Dawkins (colorful, with
juicy quotes):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?hp

Includes a five-minute video interview.

Also, a collection of Dawkins quotes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20quotes.html?ref=science

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

Excellent find, thanks Judy.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 ATT. Robin and Curtis:
 
 Profiles in Science article in the NYTimes, A Knack for
 Bashing Orthodoxy, on Richard Dawkins (colorful, with
 juicy quotes):
 
 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?hp
 
 Includes a five-minute video interview.
 
 Also, a collection of Dawkins quotes:
 
 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20quotes.html?ref=science

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[maskedzebra]

So glad you got to see Ireland upset the Aussies. Best game of the RWC so far. 
The Irish beat Australia with cunning and imagination. You had to root for 
Ireland. As for Canada against the French, we know that France can play the 
most exciting and beautiful rugby of any country in the world—but they can (in 
their Gallic passion) come undone if they get frustrated (as they did in the 
last RWC, when an inferior Argentina side beat them twice—after they [France] 
triumphed over the All Blacks). But the Canucks stayed in the game through pure 
grit and because of the assumption of the French players that they were 
superior to the Canadians. This worked for a while against the French side (a 
'second XV almost—they are saving themselves for New Zealand)—but finally, 
towards the end, they exploded, and Canada was worn out.

Canada I thought played better in their victory over an over-confident Tonga 
side.  And no, I don't think it was a fitness issue at all; we are ranked 14th 
in the world; the French 4th: huge difference in skill level, experience: all 
the French players are professional; many of the Canadian are amateur. France 
versus Canada in hockey is almost the same as Canada versus France in rugby, 
although perhaps we are a little better at rugby than france is at hockey. So, 
46-19 is about right I'd say.

Martin Johnson overcoaching? That's interesting. And Wilkinson missing all 
those penalty kicks against Italy? Unbelievable. I expect England to come on 
stronger now after two disappointing performances [I have the Georgia game on 
tape and will be seeing it tomorrow]. Now I have another reason for getting 
behind England. Did you see South Africa crush Fiji? The defending champions 
(although only ranked #3 in the world) are coming into form, and I pick them to 
give the All Blacks their biggest test (the All Blacks of course being the 
favourites to win it all).

We old initiators need to form a first XV and challenge all-comers—a truly 
international side. Know anyone else besides yourself that might be interested? 
We have a winger and a flanker. Who would be our scrum-half?—I don't think 
Curtis plays rugby, else he would be quite suitable at that position. Rugby: 
good way to counteract some of the mystical effects of all that long rounding. 
How about it, lads? 

I found your comments about science particularly interesting. I am not going to 
say anymore at the moment, because I am in the process of addressing this very 
issue: Michael Behe as Giordano Bruno—but I can't give away my argument (in my 
debate with Curtis). But you are touching it here with what you say about the 
peer review' principle. I have read that classic piece by Kuhn, but probably 
good to reread it in view of what is coming up. 

I don't know, PaliGap, but ever since you made mention of your rugby past, 
there has been an opening, and it's so easy talking to this Brit. I am sure we 
have some good posts in our future. Should I know what is signified by the name 
PaliGap? No need to answer that. I appreciate your directing your 
intelligence towards Canada in such a friendly way—once we had done our 
preliminary jousting.  Cheers.  



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Hope you are keeping well there in Great Britain, PaliGap.
 
 Very well thanks Robin.
 
 I was watching a bit of France v Canada. Les Bleus came
 through strong in the end (a fitness issue?). But your guys
 gave them a bit of a fright I reckon.
 
 I'm afraid I feel our chaps (England) are struggling. We
 have a very exciting winger in Chris Ashton. But on the 
 whole I feel they are over-coached, and as a result, rather
 dull. Just about our best player is Martin Shaw - who, 
 amazingly, is 38. 
 
 But what about Ireland upsetting the Aussies, eh? Marvelous.
 
 Back to business, and the subject of science and scientism.
 I wonder if you've read the enormously influential and fascinating
 Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn? And I wonder if 
 Curtis has, and if not, whether he would think again about
 his faith in 'peer review' if he digested it?
 
 The way I see it Science has changed greatly in the latter
 part of the last century. It has become heavily dependent on
 public funding - and this has strengthened the hand of what
 Kuhn calls 'normal science'. As a consequence the concept of
 'peer review' has come to be seen as the gold standard for the
 scientific method. This seems like a step backwards
 to the dark times of the middle ages - i.e. a time when the
 accepted institution (i.e. your lot) would come down like a
 ton of bricks on mavericks and geniuses questioning the status
 quo (such as Giordano Bruno). 
 
 ;-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[maskedzebra]

CDB: I reject that solid finds in science hit us as intuitively true and solid. 
Too much of it lies outside our sensory range and involves statistics that is 
completely counterintuitive.

Me3: Good point. This helps me. Maybe this reveals a chronic problem inside my 
own consciousness: that I am always seeking an artistic fit for any scientific 
theory—like the beauty of mathematics. I remember when I first encountered 
(have I told you this before?) my first real science teacher in grade 9 
(someone who taught science exclusively). Immediately I recognized that he was 
a victim of the world of science—or rather that inside working in science 
whatever within him needed to come alive felt no stimulus to do so. He became 
for me the stereotypical scientist that I think my psychology has always 
reacted to. Thus unbeknownst to me prejudicing me, making me feel that if there 
isn't any hidden poetry there, it must be (the scientific theory) lacking 
something. Believe it or not, Curtis, just having these conversations with you 
has allowed me to have a happier relationship to science. So, don't give up on 
me.

As I say, the problem for me (with science) has always been the fact that the 
observer, knower, experiencer—the scientist's own subjective self—is 
necessarily and methodologically eliminated from the equation: this means that 
the scientist, when he is doing pure science, never has any feedback from the 
enterprise he is devoting himself to. Not like almost every other profession 
(business, art, teaching, music, architecture, postman, salesperson, 
construction worker, secretary, lawyer etc etc etc.). This may tend to make the 
scientist unconsciously assume that he can perfectly deal with reality without 
having to pass through his own personal experience of himself. Which is why, on 
the one hand, the physics professor gives off a different kind of vibe from the 
English professor (although there are more temptations and indulgences 
available in the case of the English prof than in the case of the physics prof).

CDB: But macroevolution has vindicated itself.

Me3: I have read serious scientists (like Michael Behe, full professor of 
biology at Leigh University), serious mathematicians (like David Berlinski: 
SeeThe Deniable Darwin: Commentary Magazine June 1996: that article was  
turning point for me—and make sure you read [if you decide to!] the responses 
to that article—and then DB's counter-responses); serious philosophers (like 
Alvin Plantinga)—to mention just a few intelligent, sincere, fully-informed 
human beings—who question the scientific truthfulness of macroevolution—or at 
the very least have grave doubts about its ability to explain what it seeks to 
explain: and I don't sense (even though two of these people are religious; the 
other an agnostic) the slightest blind spot in their thinking—nor any 
psychological disposition to resist the idea of macroevolution. Remember, 
though: I don't put *myself* with these people; I have the most subtle 
intuition there is *something* to the idea of macroevolution; it just that what 
it is exactly has not been demonstrated to me by those who propagate the 
theory, including yourself—but you get a little further with me perhaps. I 
realize, of course, that those scientists who do believe in macroevolution are 
convinced, like you, that it has vindicated itself. But, in my reading at 
least, they have singularly failed to provide a context of argument and 
analysis which encompasses and demolishes the arguments of the doubters. This 
is very clear to me. And they are, whether you know this or not, frustrated in 
this. But I am not, from my own place of knowing, going to say: Macroevolution 
is not true.

CDB: But science may discover how non-living molecules became the first spark 
of life just as it has described in detail the mechanics of how we go from 
those simple forms of life to us.

Me3: I can't refute this claim (the first part anyway) scientifically; but the 
nothing that existed before there was anything (The Big Bang) was not just 
nothingness; it was no thing at all. Zero. There only existed the being whose 
essence was his own existence. And when that being who was existence 
itself—even subjectively in his First Person Ontology—made the decision to 
create (from nothing), his own nature (which was existence) made something 
exist. But you will never get non-living molecules to become living 
molecules: this defies *common sense*(!)—and the metaphysical intuition of 
Thomas Nagel and Robin.

Physically there may be evidence of homo sapiens having descending from simpler 
forms; but in terms of personal consciousness, free will, reason, projecting 
into the future, friendship, arguing over the truth of macroevolution: nothing 
in our biological past can even come close to explaining these faculties and 
capacities—and even your assumption that it can against my conviction that it 
can't: that in itself has no biological, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

Thanks for taking this whole thing in chuncks.  We should just pick and choose 
what really interests us out of that huge manifesto.  I will answer more later 
but I wanted to say that I am familiar with Behe and think it is hilarious that 
he is an actual biologist causing such a ruckus.  

Science is a team sport and that is a good thing because individuals are often 
highly motivated to believe some things that are not true.  Behe had the same 
chance any other scientist has had to make his case to his peers and he has 
failed.  No matter how cool his ideas may appear to those of us who are not 
experts in the field, his theories have not panned out among the scientists who 
we rely upon as a culture to check out assertions like his.  Although the rogue 
guy who is right when everyone else is wrong, makes an appealing dramatic 
character for the rest of us, this is not usually how science grows.  I know 
that there are abundant conspiracy theories about how all the rest of the 
scientists gang up on guys like Behe,  but I beleive it is more likely that if 
he had good evidence for his argument, many other theistic scientists would 
jump on board and help him flesh out the thoery.  This has not happened. His 
motivations for swimming against the school may not be scientific ones.

So he remains the champion of this ID movement while being so professionally 
discredited for his ideas that his own employer, Lehigh University, has posted 
this disclaimer about him on their Website:

http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary 
theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been 
supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this 
position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of intelligent 
design. While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his 
alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective 
position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested 
experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific. 

That is one serious smackdown!



 









--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

 
 CDB: I reject that solid finds in science hit us as intuitively true and 
 solid. Too much of it lies outside our sensory range and involves statistics 
 that is completely counterintuitive.
 
 Me3: Good point. This helps me. Maybe this reveals a chronic problem inside 
 my own consciousness: that I am always seeking an artistic fit for any 
 scientific theory—like the beauty of mathematics. I remember when I first 
 encountered (have I told you this before?) my first real science teacher in 
 grade 9 (someone who taught science exclusively). Immediately I recognized 
 that he was a victim of the world of science—or rather that inside working in 
 science whatever within him needed to come alive felt no stimulus to do so. 
 He became for me the stereotypical scientist that I think my psychology has 
 always reacted to. Thus unbeknownst to me prejudicing me, making me feel that 
 if there isn't any hidden poetry there, it must be (the scientific theory) 
 lacking something. Believe it or not, Curtis, just having these conversations 
 with you has allowed me to have a happier relationship to science. So, don't 
 give up on me.
 
 As I say, the problem for me (with science) has always been the fact that the 
 observer, knower, experiencer—the scientist's own subjective self—is 
 necessarily and methodologically eliminated from the equation: this means 
 that the scientist, when he is doing pure science, never has any feedback 
 from the enterprise he is devoting himself to. Not like almost every other 
 profession (business, art, teaching, music, architecture, postman, 
 salesperson, construction worker, secretary, lawyer etc etc etc.). This may 
 tend to make the scientist unconsciously assume that he can perfectly deal 
 with reality without having to pass through his own personal experience of 
 himself. Which is why, on the one hand, the physics professor gives off a 
 different kind of vibe from the English professor (although there are more 
 temptations and indulgences available in the case of the English prof than in 
 the case of the physics prof).
 
 CDB: But macroevolution has vindicated itself.
 
 Me3: I have read serious scientists (like Michael Behe, full professor of 
 biology at Leigh University), serious mathematicians (like David Berlinski: 
 SeeThe Deniable Darwin: Commentary Magazine June 1996: that article was  
 turning point for me—and make sure you read [if you decide to!] the responses 
 to that article—and then DB's counter-responses); serious philosophers (like 
 Alvin Plantinga)—to mention just a few intelligent, sincere, fully-informed 
 human beings—who question the scientific truthfulness of macroevolution—or at 
 the very least have grave 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[maskedzebra]

I had seen what his department (at Lehigh) says about him. You will spurn this, 
Curtis, but I get a feeling there is vested interest here. Read his Darwin's 
Black Box and tell me whether you think it is hilarious that he is an actual 
biologist causing such a ruckus. I have also read his very impressive The 
Edge of Evolution. I put one simple sentence to you:

How can this mere three pounds of soft grey-matter within the skull contain 
the experience of a lifetime?

That's not Behe; that's James Le Fanu who wrote the most beautiful book on 
science I have ever read: Why Us: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of 
Ourselves—I was transported by this book. It is the ONE book—of any—that I 
would wish you to read. Give me ONE book you would like me to read.

What you say about Behe is second-hand. It does not originate in your own 
individual judgment of what he has written. Until you have first-hand 
experience of his arguments, I will not take seriously this group-putdown. 

Behe is a quirky, good-humoured, friendly, highly published scientist. He can 
go and has gone head to head with the most brilliant hard evolutionists. As an 
impartial judge of a debate, I would say he wins easily as much as he loses.

You're making me become an anti-evolutionist!

But the Le Fanu book, it is a marvel. Left the deepest impression on me.

It is marked up more than any other book I have read.

Our differences—here, elsewhere—still don't create any tension. You may be all 
right: Behe may be an idiot. I may be an idiot for thinking he is not an idiot. 
I hope not.

Meanwhile:

The Ascent of Man from knuckle-walking chimp to upright human seems so logical 
and progressive as to be almost self-evident, yet it conceals events that are 
without precedent in the whole of biology. The only consolation would be that 
man must have evolved *somehow*, but then the hope of understanding *how* would 
seem to evaporate with the revelation of the near-equivalence of the human and 
chimp genomes. There is nothing to suggest the major genetic mutations one 
would expect to account for the upright stance or that massively enlarged 
brain—leading the head of the chimp Genome Project to concede somewhat limply: 
'Part of the secret is hidden there, we don't know what it is yet.' Or as a 
fellow researcher put it, rather more bluntly: 'You could write everything we 
know about the genetic differences in a one-sentence article'. . .So while the 
equivalence of the human and chimp genomes provides the most tantalizing 
evidence for our close relatedness, it offers not the slightest hint of how 
that evolutionary transformation came about—but rather appears to cut us off 
from our immediate antecedents entirely. The archeological discoveries of the 
last fifty years have, along with Lucy and Turkana Boy, identified an estimated 
twenty or more antecedent species, and while it is obviously tempting to place 
them in a linear sequence, where Lucy begat Turkana boy begat Neahderthal man 
begat *Homo sapiens*, that scenario no longer holds. Instead we are left with a 
bush of many branches—without there being a central trunk linking them all 
together. (pp. 47-48-Le Fanu)

I like that word chuncks—I can taste the chocolate chunks inside my dessert. 
Chuncks: it is a neologism that I have decided to put into existence as 
indicating how Curtis and Robin will proceed on this matter of evolution, 
science, and religion.

No, Michael Behe, he's up for the challenge, Curtis. A very learned scientist 
despite his stupid doubts about macroevolution.

Remember: The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... 
wrote:

 Thanks for taking this whole thing in chuncks.  We should just pick and 
 choose what really interests us out of that huge manifesto.  I will answer 
 more later but I wanted to say that I am familiar with Behe and think it is 
 hilarious that he is an actual biologist causing such a ruckus.  
 
 Science is a team sport and that is a good thing because individuals are 
 often highly motivated to believe some things that are not true.  Behe had 
 the same chance any other scientist has had to make his case to his peers and 
 he has failed.  No matter how cool his ideas may appear to those of us who 
 are not experts in the field, his theories have not panned out among the 
 scientists who we rely upon as a culture to check out assertions like his.  
 Although the rogue guy who is right when everyone else is wrong, makes an 
 appealing dramatic character for the rest of us, this is not usually how 
 science grows.  I know that there are abundant conspiracy theories about how 
 all the rest of the scientists gang up on guys like Behe,  but I beleive it 
 is more likely that if he had good evidence for his argument, many other 
 theistic scientists would jump on board and help him flesh out the thoery.  
 This has not happened. His motivations for swimming against 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

Robin,

You sent me on quite a mission here my friend.  I had an initial response when 
I read this quote, but took some time to be sure that I just wasn't missing 
something.  And Of course I still may be.  But after reviewing information on 
ID and getting more familiar with Thomas Nagel's POV I am reasonably confident 
that I can answer in a specific enough from that will invite you to provide the 
what I am missing if you have it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

 Curtis, here is what one the greatest philosophers in the world says about 
 evolution—he a determined and committed atheist:
 
 My own situation is that of an atheist who, in spite of being an avid 
 consumer of popular science, has for a long time been skeptical of the claims 
 of traditional evolutionary theory to be the whole story about the history of 
 life.

I have a lot of issues with how he phrases things.  This is a straw man since I 
can't imagine why any scientist would refer to evolutionary theory this way.  
He is starting with this misleading phrasing because he is heading for an 
argument based on gaps in knowledge as a reason to insert whatever by mere 
assertion without foundational reasons.  We will get there soon enough.  But  
first I mark my objection to this as an accurate claim about how scientists use 
evolutionary theory as the basis for all modern biological studies.  I have 
never heard it referred to as the whole story...

 The theory does not claim to explain the origin of life, which remains a 
complete scientific mystery at this point.

Here he refutes his  phrase above with the fact of the limits of scientific 
knowledge concerning the origin of life on earth.  He overstates his claim by a 
long shot since there has been remarkable work done in this area to discover 
possible mechanisms.  None are definitive, but all are suggestive of the 
possibility in principle that this mechanism may at some point be discovered.  
Here are a few in a nutshell:

http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html

What they suggest is that this gap might someday be filled with an 
understanding of precise mechanisms with predictive ability.  This is key 
because it is this ability that distinguishes the science of evolution with the 
the fundamentally religious assertions of ID.  Before we knew the details we 
know today about genetics, evolutionary theory could have predicted what we 
have since found.  That each progressively more complex life form carries the 
history of its connction to previous ones, including the short sequences that 
arise all the time through mutations, that do not affect the organism's life.  
These are basically meaningless worthless sequences, that have been preserved 
because they do no harm.  But they also do no good.  And we carry the same ones 
that arose in mice and are not found in species more primitive than mice. These 
are historical genetic markers.  Evolutionary thoery accounts for this specific 
fact.  This is the hallmark of a useful theory and also serves as a distinction 
between a scientific theory and a religious assertion.

 Opponents of ID, however, normally assume that that too must have a purely 
chemical explanation. The idea is that life arose and evolved to its present 
form solely because of the laws of chemistry, and ultimately of particle 
physics. In the prevailing naturalistic worldview, evolutionary theory plays 
the crucial role in showing how physics can be the theory of everything.

He is ignoring the progress made in this area and has also been accused of 
making misleading statements about how selection took place for millions of 
years in chemical compounds before life started.  Check out the critters living 
near the oceans volcanos to see how this line gets very blurry when dealing 
with odd bacterias.  It is not only physics that may provide this insight 
someday, it is all the branches of science together.  He is correctly defining 
the object of science as the natural rather than a supernatural world.

 Sophisticated members of the contemporary culture have been so thoroughly 
 indoctrinated that they easily lose sight of the fact that evolutionary 
 reductionism defies common sense. 


I have a few problems with this statement.  I have written before about the 
uselessness of common sense when dealing with any knowledge that goes beyond 
our common sensory scale.  We have no common sense for the eons of time that 
evolution has occurred in.  We have no common sense concerning how 
electromagnetic particles act at the molecular level of chemistry.  So he makes 
no case at all if any aspect of scientific theory does not comply with the 
ridiculously limited factors that shape our common sense.  In fact it is the 
counterintuitive nature of physics at subatomic levels that makes it so 
difficult to understand.

 A theory that defies common sense can be true, but doubts about its truth 
 should be sup- pressed 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

 Curtis:
 
 Then how about *this* quote (TN):
 
  …I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the 
 most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It 
 isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in 
 my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; 
 I don't want the universe to be like that. 
 My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it 
 is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of 
 the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology 
 to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. 
 Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of 
 relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and 
 design as fundamental features of the world.

I think it proves my suspicions about his reasons for being atheist.  I arrived 
at it by default, from having no compelling reasons to believe any of the 
specific God ideas proposed that I have studied.  I really have no preference 
about there being a God or not.  If there was a good enough case to support it, 
I would believe.  I do find peace in believing that random events cause 
suffering I guess.  I would have some ethical questions for any God who could 
help but doesn't.  But if that was the reality that held up like other well 
supported ideas,, I would just suck it up.

And evolutionary theory has not eliminated any meaning from my life.  Let the 
people who believe they have reasons to support their belief in an intrinsic 
purpose for the world make their case like the rest of us.  Oh yeah, they have 
been doing so for thousands of years in man's history.  Funny how easy it is 
for Christians to discard gods revered in the past isn't it?  Gods that 
previous humans sometimes gave their life to preserve the belief.  I have just 
read too many authoritative scriptures that contract each other to take one as 
definitive about reality.  I wonder how you view the Bible Robin?  Is it 
literature created by humans, or more than that for you?






 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  Hey Robin,
  
  Thanks for turning me on to Thomas Nagel.  I am doing some research for my 
  reply.  This is fun and good research for me to integrate into my POV.
  
  Curtis
  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
  
   Curtis, here is what one the greatest philosophers in the world says 
   about evolution—he a determined and committed atheist:
   
   My own situation is that of an atheist who, in spite of being an avid 
   consumer of popular science, has for a long time been skeptical of the 
   claims of traditional evolutionary theory to be the whole story about the 
   history of life. The theory does not claim to explain the origin of life, 
   which remains a complete scientific mystery at this point. Opponents of 
   ID, however, normally assume that that too must have a purely chemical 
   explanation. The idea is that life arose and evolved to its present form 
   solely because of the laws of chemistry, and ultimately of particle 
   physics. In the prevailing naturalistic worldview, evolutionary theory 
   plays the crucial role in showing how physics can be the theory of 
   everything.
   Sophisticated members of the contemporary culture have been so thoroughly 
   indoctrinated that they easily lose sight of the fact that evolutionary 
   reductionism defies common sense. 
   
   A theory that defies common sense can be true, but doubts about its truth 
   should be sup- pressed only in the face of exceptionally strong evidence.
   
   I do not regard divine intervention as a possibility, even though I have 
   no other candidates. Yet I recognize that this is because of an aspect of 
   my overall worldview that does not rest on empirical grounds or any other 
   kind of rational grounds. I do not think the existence of God can be 
   disproved. So someone who can offer serious scientific reasons to doubt 
   the adequacy of the theory of evolution, and who believes in God, in the 
   same immediate way that I believe there is no god, can quite reasonably 
   conclude that the hypothesis of design should be taken seriously. If 
   reasons to doubt the adequacy of evolutionary theory can be legitimately 
   admitted to the curriculum, it is hard to see why they cannot 
   legitimately be described as reasons in support of design, for those who 
   believe in God, and reasons to believe that some as yet undiscovered, 
   purely naturalistic theory must account for the evidence, for those who 
   do not. That, after all, is the real epistemological situation.
   
   Thomas Nagel
   
   P.S. I have urged him to run for office in 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[maskedzebra]

Curtis, 

Before I even begin to think about the implication of these two penetrating 
posts, you should know two things: Firstly: I do not hold to the paradigm of 
Intelligent Design—more about that later. Secondly: I feel intuitively the 
escapism from reality that is contained in a categorical rejection of The 
Theory of Evolution. 

I look forward to giving your posts the kind of close reading and intense 
consideration that they merit. My motive will be very simple: to see where you 
are right (according to my own lights), and where you create within me the 
sense of having transgressed against my own feeling for how things hang 
together in the universe. Of course I hope to apply the searching reason and 
rigour you have here in these posts. Thank you, Curtis.
 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... 
wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Curtis:
  
  Then how about *this* quote (TN):
  
   …I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of 
  the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious 
  believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope 
  that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want 
  there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. 
  My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and 
  it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. 
  One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary 
  biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the 
  human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great 
  collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate 
  purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world.
 
 I think it proves my suspicions about his reasons for being atheist.  I 
 arrived at it by default, from having no compelling reasons to believe any of 
 the specific God ideas proposed that I have studied.  I really have no 
 preference about there being a God or not.  If there was a good enough case 
 to support it, I would believe.  I do find peace in believing that random 
 events cause suffering I guess.  I would have some ethical questions for any 
 God who could help but doesn't.  But if that was the reality that held up 
 like other well supported ideas,, I would just suck it up.
 
 And evolutionary theory has not eliminated any meaning from my life.  Let the 
 people who believe they have reasons to support their belief in an intrinsic 
 purpose for the world make their case like the rest of us.  Oh yeah, they 
 have been doing so for thousands of years in man's history.  Funny how easy 
 it is for Christians to discard gods revered in the past isn't it?  Gods that 
 previous humans sometimes gave their life to preserve the belief.  I have 
 just read too many authoritative scriptures that contract each other to take 
 one as definitive about reality.  I wonder how you view the Bible Robin?  Is 
 it literature created by humans, or more than that for you?
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   Hey Robin,
   
   Thanks for turning me on to Thomas Nagel.  I am doing some research for 
   my reply.  This is fun and good research for me to integrate into my POV.
   
   Curtis
   
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
   
Curtis, here is what one the greatest philosophers in the world says 
about evolution—he a determined and committed atheist:

My own situation is that of an atheist who, in spite of being an avid 
consumer of popular science, has for a long time been skeptical of the 
claims of traditional evolutionary theory to be the whole story about 
the history of life. The theory does not claim to explain the origin of 
life, which remains a complete scientific mystery at this point. 
Opponents of ID, however, normally assume that that too must have a 
purely chemical explanation. The idea is that life arose and evolved to 
its present form solely because of the laws of chemistry, and 
ultimately of particle physics. In the prevailing naturalistic 
worldview, evolutionary theory plays the crucial role in showing how 
physics can be the theory of everything.
Sophisticated members of the contemporary culture have been so 
thoroughly indoctrinated that they easily lose sight of the fact that 
evolutionary reductionism defies common sense. 

A theory that defies common sense can be true, but doubts about its 
truth should be sup- pressed only in the face of exceptionally strong 
evidence.

I do not regard divine intervention as a possibility, even though I 
have no other candidates. Yet I recognize that this is because of an 
aspect of my overall 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

There is so much that I don't know about your version of God.  I hope you fill 
in some details.

I really appreciate the impetus to write such a long ass post Robin.  
Especially one that makes me do some homework before replying.  (shoddy though 
it may be.)

I spent some time yesterday in the fading star of a dying Borders Books.  Damn 
I will miss that library resource! But I accept that I am one of the assholes 
that drove it out of business by checking out books there and buying them on 
Amazon.  I came away with a pile for pennies on the dollar since this was the 
last 3 days for this store.  I picked up a book by a guy I heard on NPR:  The 
Spiritual Doorway in the Brain:  A neurologist's search for the God experience. 
 Should be interesting.  I also picked up Paul Kurtz's Exuberant Skepticism on 
the fantastic title alone!  His book the Transcendental Temptation was 
foundational for my rebuild on my epistemology when I opted out of Maharishi's. 
 

Much thanks for keeping the ball rolling.  I will only accept sports analogies 
where we are on the same team in the scrum.  Our purpose is common despite the 
different places we may be on the field right now.


 





 Curtis, 
 
 Before I even begin to think about the implication of these two penetrating 
 posts, you should know two things: Firstly: I do not hold to the paradigm of 
 Intelligent Design—more about that later. Secondly: I feel intuitively the 
 escapism from reality that is contained in a categorical rejection of The 
 Theory of Evolution. 
 
 I look forward to giving your posts the kind of close reading and intense 
 consideration that they merit. My motive will be very simple: to see where 
 you are right (according to my own lights), and where you create within me 
 the sense of having transgressed against my own feeling for how things hang 
 together in the universe. Of course I hope to apply the searching reason and 
 rigour you have here in these posts. Thank you, Curtis.
  
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
  
   Curtis:
   
   Then how about *this* quote (TN):
   
…I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of 
   the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious 
   believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope 
   that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't 
   want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. 
   My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition 
   and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our 
   time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of 
   evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including 
   everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to 
   heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to 
   eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the 
   world.
  
  I think it proves my suspicions about his reasons for being atheist.  I 
  arrived at it by default, from having no compelling reasons to believe any 
  of the specific God ideas proposed that I have studied.  I really have no 
  preference about there being a God or not.  If there was a good enough case 
  to support it, I would believe.  I do find peace in believing that random 
  events cause suffering I guess.  I would have some ethical questions for 
  any God who could help but doesn't.  But if that was the reality that held 
  up like other well supported ideas,, I would just suck it up.
  
  And evolutionary theory has not eliminated any meaning from my life.  Let 
  the people who believe they have reasons to support their belief in an 
  intrinsic purpose for the world make their case like the rest of us.  Oh 
  yeah, they have been doing so for thousands of years in man's history.  
  Funny how easy it is for Christians to discard gods revered in the past 
  isn't it?  Gods that previous humans sometimes gave their life to preserve 
  the belief.  I have just read too many authoritative scriptures that 
  contract each other to take one as definitive about reality.  I wonder how 
  you view the Bible Robin?  Is it literature created by humans, or more than 
  that for you?
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
Hey Robin,

Thanks for turning me on to Thomas Nagel.  I am doing some research for 
my reply.  This is fun and good research for me to integrate into my 
POV.

Curtis



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:

 Curtis, here is what one the greatest philosophers in the world says 
 about evolution—he a 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[maskedzebra]

RESPONSE: 
http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=2011-09-19email-analytics=newsletter110919p062#folio=068

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
 
 There is so much that I don't know about your version of God.  I hope you 
 fill in some details.
 
 I really appreciate the impetus to write such a long ass post Robin.  
 Especially one that makes me do some homework before replying.  (shoddy 
 though it may be.)
 
 I spent some time yesterday in the fading star of a dying Borders Books.  
 Damn I will miss that library resource! But I accept that I am one of the 
 assholes that drove it out of business by checking out books there and buying 
 them on Amazon.  I came away with a pile for pennies on the dollar since this 
 was the last 3 days for this store.  I picked up a book by a guy I heard on 
 NPR:  The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain:  A neurologist's search for the God 
 experience.  Should be interesting.  I also picked up Paul Kurtz's Exuberant 
 Skepticism on the fantastic title alone!  His book the Transcendental 
 Temptation was foundational for my rebuild on my epistemology when I opted 
 out of Maharishi's.  
 
 Much thanks for keeping the ball rolling.  I will only accept sports 
 analogies where we are on the same team in the scrum.  Our purpose is common 
 despite the different places we may be on the field right now.
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  Curtis, 
  
  Before I even begin to think about the implication of these two penetrating 
  posts, you should know two things: Firstly: I do not hold to the paradigm 
  of Intelligent Design—more about that later. Secondly: I feel intuitively 
  the escapism from reality that is contained in a categorical rejection of 
  The Theory of Evolution. 
  
  I look forward to giving your posts the kind of close reading and intense 
  consideration that they merit. My motive will be very simple: to see where 
  you are right (according to my own lights), and where you create within me 
  the sense of having transgressed against my own feeling for how things hang 
  together in the universe. Of course I hope to apply the searching reason 
  and rigour you have here in these posts. Thank you, Curtis.
   
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
   
Curtis:

Then how about *this* quote (TN):

 …I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some 
of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious 
believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, 
hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I 
don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like 
that. 
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition 
and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our 
time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of 
evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including 
everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture 
to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a 
way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of 
the world.
   
   I think it proves my suspicions about his reasons for being atheist.  I 
   arrived at it by default, from having no compelling reasons to believe 
   any of the specific God ideas proposed that I have studied.  I really 
   have no preference about there being a God or not.  If there was a good 
   enough case to support it, I would believe.  I do find peace in believing 
   that random events cause suffering I guess.  I would have some ethical 
   questions for any God who could help but doesn't.  But if that was the 
   reality that held up like other well supported ideas,, I would just suck 
   it up.
   
   And evolutionary theory has not eliminated any meaning from my life.  Let 
   the people who believe they have reasons to support their belief in an 
   intrinsic purpose for the world make their case like the rest of us.  Oh 
   yeah, they have been doing so for thousands of years in man's history.  
   Funny how easy it is for Christians to discard gods revered in the past 
   isn't it?  Gods that previous humans sometimes gave their life to 
   preserve the belief.  I have just read too many authoritative scriptures 
   that contract each other to take one as definitive about reality.  I 
   wonder how you view the Bible Robin?  Is it literature created by humans, 
   or more than that for you?
   
   
   
   
   
   

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:

 Hey Robin,
 
 Thanks for turning me on to Thomas Nagel.  I am doing some research 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[maskedzebra]

Curtis: Sorry. It's locked. You have to have a subscription (online) like I do. 
But I highly recommend your reading the article—you can skip to the entrance of 
LG. After that, it's all delicious. That woman. So loveable.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

 RESPONSE: 
 http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=2011-09-19email-analytics=newsletter110919p062#folio=068
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
  
  There is so much that I don't know about your version of God.  I hope you 
  fill in some details.
  
  I really appreciate the impetus to write such a long ass post Robin.  
  Especially one that makes me do some homework before replying.  (shoddy 
  though it may be.)
  
  I spent some time yesterday in the fading star of a dying Borders Books.  
  Damn I will miss that library resource! But I accept that I am one of the 
  assholes that drove it out of business by checking out books there and 
  buying them on Amazon.  I came away with a pile for pennies on the dollar 
  since this was the last 3 days for this store.  I picked up a book by a guy 
  I heard on NPR:  The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain:  A neurologist's 
  search for the God experience.  Should be interesting.  I also picked up 
  Paul Kurtz's Exuberant Skepticism on the fantastic title alone!  His book 
  the Transcendental Temptation was foundational for my rebuild on my 
  epistemology when I opted out of Maharishi's.  
  
  Much thanks for keeping the ball rolling.  I will only accept sports 
  analogies where we are on the same team in the scrum.  Our purpose is 
  common despite the different places we may be on the field right now.
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
   Curtis, 
   
   Before I even begin to think about the implication of these two 
   penetrating posts, you should know two things: Firstly: I do not hold to 
   the paradigm of Intelligent Design—more about that later. Secondly: I 
   feel intuitively the escapism from reality that is contained in a 
   categorical rejection of The Theory of Evolution. 
   
   I look forward to giving your posts the kind of close reading and intense 
   consideration that they merit. My motive will be very simple: to see 
   where you are right (according to my own lights), and where you create 
   within me the sense of having transgressed against my own feeling for how 
   things hang together in the universe. Of course I hope to apply the 
   searching reason and rigour you have here in these posts. Thank you, 
   Curtis.

   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:

 Curtis:
 
 Then how about *this* quote (TN):
 
  …I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some 
 of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious 
 believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, 
 hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I 
 don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like 
 that. 
 My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare 
 condition and it is responsible for much of the scientism and 
 reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the 
 ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about 
 life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled 
 modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by 
 apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design 
 as fundamental features of the world.

I think it proves my suspicions about his reasons for being atheist.  I 
arrived at it by default, from having no compelling reasons to believe 
any of the specific God ideas proposed that I have studied.  I really 
have no preference about there being a God or not.  If there was a good 
enough case to support it, I would believe.  I do find peace in 
believing that random events cause suffering I guess.  I would have 
some ethical questions for any God who could help but doesn't.  But if 
that was the reality that held up like other well supported ideas,, I 
would just suck it up.

And evolutionary theory has not eliminated any meaning from my life.  
Let the people who believe they have reasons to support their belief in 
an intrinsic purpose for the world make their case like the rest of us. 
 Oh yeah, they have been doing so for thousands of years in man's 
history.  Funny how easy it is for Christians to discard gods revered 
in the past isn't it?  Gods that previous humans sometimes gave their 
life to preserve the belief.  I have just read too many authoritative 
scriptures that 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

Hey Robin,

Thanks for turning me on to Thomas Nagel.  I am doing some research for my 
reply.  This is fun and good research for me to integrate into my POV.

Curtis



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

 Curtis, here is what one the greatest philosophers in the world says about 
 evolution—he a determined and committed atheist:
 
 My own situation is that of an atheist who, in spite of being an avid 
 consumer of popular science, has for a long time been skeptical of the claims 
 of traditional evolutionary theory to be the whole story about the history of 
 life. The theory does not claim to explain the origin of life, which remains 
 a complete scientific mystery at this point. Opponents of ID, however, 
 normally assume that that too must have a purely chemical explanation. The 
 idea is that life arose and evolved to its present form solely because of the 
 laws of chemistry, and ultimately of particle physics. In the prevailing 
 naturalistic worldview, evolutionary theory plays the crucial role in showing 
 how physics can be the theory of everything.
 Sophisticated members of the contemporary culture have been so thoroughly 
 indoctrinated that they easily lose sight of the fact that evolutionary 
 reductionism defies common sense. 
 
 A theory that defies common sense can be true, but doubts about its truth 
 should be sup- pressed only in the face of exceptionally strong evidence.
 
 I do not regard divine intervention as a possibility, even though I have no 
 other candidates. Yet I recognize that this is because of an aspect of my 
 overall worldview that does not rest on empirical grounds or any other kind 
 of rational grounds. I do not think the existence of God can be disproved. So 
 someone who can offer serious scientific reasons to doubt the adequacy of the 
 theory of evolution, and who believes in God, in the same immediate way that 
 I believe there is no god, can quite reasonably conclude that the hypothesis 
 of design should be taken seriously. If reasons to doubt the adequacy of 
 evolutionary theory can be legitimately admitted to the curriculum, it is 
 hard to see why they cannot legitimately be described as reasons in support 
 of design, for those who believe in God, and reasons to believe that some as 
 yet undiscovered, purely naturalistic theory must account for the evidence, 
 for those who do not. That, after all, is the real epistemological situation.
 
 Thomas Nagel
 
 P.S. I have urged him to run for office in Alexandria.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
  
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
Loved it, thanks.  Backacha!

Jesus and Vishnu on Christmas eve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X7x-DHKHW0

RESPONSE: Somebody secretly is fighting off doubts about evolution 
here. Too worked up metabolically. Serenity, irony, quiet confidence, 
respecting what makes it hard for some people to take the idea of 
macroevolution as proven: much better.
  
  Agreed.  It needed a final edit and cooler delivery to be more effective 
  communication.  But that said, I know plenty of guys like this and it 
  doesn't really mean anything about the content of what he is saying.  It is 
  our emotional reaction to to a person being too self indulgent that makes 
  it poor communication.  He went to far into the dickish lane for me too.  
  
   If someone was holding out for flat earth theory, how would be treat that 
  person? Not like this. Brilliant as it is. Some people want macroevolution 
  to be true so much they become much too aggressive and abusive in their 
  denunciation of the persons (like John Lennon) who balked at the sweeping 
  claims of Darwin. This is evidence of metaphysical anxiety: You mean 
  macroevolution might not be true? I don't think it has been proven beyond 
  the right to ask question about it. Although microevolution is a no-brainer.
  
  There are questions within the thoery that are still being discussed.  And 
  the understanding has advanced far beyond Darwin's initial formulation due 
  to the spirit of questioning.  In this year's election this is gunna be a 
  lowest bar litmus test for me.  If you understand science, you understand 
  how the theory of evolution is the basis for our whole understanding of 
  biology.  It is is more than key.
  
   
   As for the Christmas boast of Christ, I think Jesus prevails here. He has 
   all the cards. However facetiously presented, his arguments against 
   Krishna win out for me. It's a bloody good argument. Besides where does 
   your irresistible love of Christmas come from, Curtis?
  
  Well we have to be realistic that most of what I love about Christmas is 
  not Christan but Druid and Mithra worship.  My neurons got bribed into it 
  pretty 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[maskedzebra]

Curtis:

Then how about *this* quote (TN):

 …I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the 
most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It 
isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in 
my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I 
don't want the universe to be like that. 
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it 
is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of 
the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to 
explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. 
Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of 
relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design 
as fundamental features of the world.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... 
wrote:

 Hey Robin,
 
 Thanks for turning me on to Thomas Nagel.  I am doing some research for my 
 reply.  This is fun and good research for me to integrate into my POV.
 
 Curtis
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Curtis, here is what one the greatest philosophers in the world says about 
  evolution—he a determined and committed atheist:
  
  My own situation is that of an atheist who, in spite of being an avid 
  consumer of popular science, has for a long time been skeptical of the 
  claims of traditional evolutionary theory to be the whole story about the 
  history of life. The theory does not claim to explain the origin of life, 
  which remains a complete scientific mystery at this point. Opponents of ID, 
  however, normally assume that that too must have a purely chemical 
  explanation. The idea is that life arose and evolved to its present form 
  solely because of the laws of chemistry, and ultimately of particle 
  physics. In the prevailing naturalistic worldview, evolutionary theory 
  plays the crucial role in showing how physics can be the theory of 
  everything.
  Sophisticated members of the contemporary culture have been so thoroughly 
  indoctrinated that they easily lose sight of the fact that evolutionary 
  reductionism defies common sense. 
  
  A theory that defies common sense can be true, but doubts about its truth 
  should be sup- pressed only in the face of exceptionally strong evidence.
  
  I do not regard divine intervention as a possibility, even though I have no 
  other candidates. Yet I recognize that this is because of an aspect of my 
  overall worldview that does not rest on empirical grounds or any other kind 
  of rational grounds. I do not think the existence of God can be disproved. 
  So someone who can offer serious scientific reasons to doubt the adequacy 
  of the theory of evolution, and who believes in God, in the same immediate 
  way that I believe there is no god, can quite reasonably conclude that the 
  hypothesis of design should be taken seriously. If reasons to doubt the 
  adequacy of evolutionary theory can be legitimately admitted to the 
  curriculum, it is hard to see why they cannot legitimately be described as 
  reasons in support of design, for those who believe in God, and reasons to 
  believe that some as yet undiscovered, purely naturalistic theory must 
  account for the evidence, for those who do not. That, after all, is the 
  real epistemological situation.
  
  Thomas Nagel
  
  P.S. I have urged him to run for office in Alexandria.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
   


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:

 Loved it, thanks.  Backacha!
 
 Jesus and Vishnu on Christmas eve.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X7x-DHKHW0
 
 RESPONSE: Somebody secretly is fighting off doubts about evolution 
 here. Too worked up metabolically. Serenity, irony, quiet confidence, 
 respecting what makes it hard for some people to take the idea of 
 macroevolution as proven: much better.
   
   Agreed.  It needed a final edit and cooler delivery to be more effective 
   communication.  But that said, I know plenty of guys like this and it 
   doesn't really mean anything about the content of what he is saying.  It 
   is our emotional reaction to to a person being too self indulgent that 
   makes it poor communication.  He went to far into the dickish lane for me 
   too.  
   
If someone was holding out for flat earth theory, how would be treat 
   that person? Not like this. Brilliant as it is. Some people want 
   macroevolution to be true so much they become much too aggressive and 
   abusive in their denunciation of the persons (like John Lennon) who 
   balked at the sweeping claims of Darwin. This is 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

Loved it, thanks.  Backacha!

Jesus and Vishnu on Christmas eve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X7x-DHKHW0







--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=LJYLT9TbRew

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... 
wrote:

 Loved it, thanks.  Backacha!
 
 Jesus and Vishnu on Christmas eve.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X7x-DHKHW0
 
 RESPONSE: Somebody secretly is fighting off doubts about evolution here. Too 
 worked up metabolically. Serenity, irony, quiet confidence, respecting what 
 makes it hard for some people to take the idea of macroevolution as proven: 
 much better. If someone was holding out for flat earth theory, how would be 
 treat that person? Not like this. Brilliant as it is. Some people want 
 macroevolution to be true so much they become much too aggressive and abusive 
 in their denunciation of the persons (like John Lennon) who balked at the 
 sweeping claims of Darwin. This is evidence of metaphysical anxiety: You mean 
 macroevolution might not be true? I don't think it has been proven beyond the 
 right to ask question about it. Although microevolution is a no-brainer.

As for the Christmas boast of Christ, I think Jesus prevails here. He has all 
the cards. However facetiously presented, his arguments against Krishna win out 
for me. It's a bloody good argument. Besides where does your irresistible love 
of Christmas come from, Curtis?

Me: I say it comes from the fact that it is true. God became a tiny infant.

If only he was around somewhere now.

I'd like to hear his response to Rick's post. Smugness—about anything—it is a 
dangerous thing. Sounds a little like an Oral Roberts prayer tent with the 
ritual denunciation of the evils of atheism—although Oral never got that good 
of course. And didn't know the first thing about irony. Or beauty. Jesus, you 
there?

Nope.

But we still celebrate your birthday. Krishna, you could have done a lot 
better. What happened?

Hey, Curtis. I like that you like Christmas. 

No neurobiological explanation there.

 
 

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=LJYLT9TbRew
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:
snip 
  RESPONSE: Somebody secretly is fighting off doubts about
  evolution here.

Don't know about that, but the guy gets it wrong about
the Bible never saying Jesus turned into a chicken. At
least, the Bible says Jesus *wished* he could turn into
a chicken:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets,
and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often
would I have gathered thy children together, even as a
hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would
not!--Matt. 23:37

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  Loved it, thanks.  Backacha!
  
  Jesus and Vishnu on Christmas eve.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X7x-DHKHW0
  
  RESPONSE: Somebody secretly is fighting off doubts about evolution here. 
  Too worked up metabolically. Serenity, irony, quiet confidence, respecting 
  what makes it hard for some people to take the idea of macroevolution as 
  proven: much better.

Agreed.  It needed a final edit and cooler delivery to be more effective 
communication.  But that said, I know plenty of guys like this and it doesn't 
really mean anything about the content of what he is saying.  It is our 
emotional reaction to to a person being too self indulgent that makes it poor 
communication.  He went to far into the dickish lane for me too.  

 If someone was holding out for flat earth theory, how would be treat that 
person? Not like this. Brilliant as it is. Some people want macroevolution to 
be true so much they become much too aggressive and abusive in their 
denunciation of the persons (like John Lennon) who balked at the sweeping 
claims of Darwin. This is evidence of metaphysical anxiety: You mean 
macroevolution might not be true? I don't think it has been proven beyond the 
right to ask question about it. Although microevolution is a no-brainer.

There are questions within the thoery that are still being discussed.  And the 
understanding has advanced far beyond Darwin's initial formulation due to the 
spirit of questioning.  In this year's election this is gunna be a lowest bar 
litmus test for me.  If you understand science, you understand how the theory 
of evolution is the basis for our whole understanding of biology.  It is is 
more than key.

 
 As for the Christmas boast of Christ, I think Jesus prevails here. He has all 
 the cards. However facetiously presented, his arguments against Krishna win 
 out for me. It's a bloody good argument. Besides where does your irresistible 
 love of Christmas come from, Curtis?

Well we have to be realistic that most of what I love about Christmas is not 
Christan but Druid and Mithra worship.  My neurons got bribed into it pretty 
early.  But I still enjoy the nativity myth perhaps even more so now that I 
know some of the sources it was cannibalized from historically.  These are 
archetypes to be enjoyed.

 
 Me: I say it comes from the fact that it is true. God became a tiny infant.

I would go with: God becomes every tiny infant.  Jesus was really not so unique 
in his time.  There were other messianic guys whose philosophies were less able 
to be turned into an empire builder for Constantine, but who in their time were 
as popular as Jesus during his life.

 
 If only he was around somewhere now.
 
 I'd like to hear his response to Rick's post. Smugness—about anything—it is a 
 dangerous thing. Sounds a little like an Oral Roberts prayer tent with the 
 ritual denunciation of the evils of atheism—although Oral never got that good 
 of course. And didn't know the first thing about irony. Or beauty. Jesus, you 
 there?
 
 Nope.
 
 But we still celebrate your birthday. Krishna, you could have done a lot 
 better. What happened?
 
 Hey, Curtis. I like that you like Christmas. 
 
 No neurobiological explanation there.

Neuron bribing pure and simple!  My folks took the Santa thing seriously and we 
were very spoiled at Christmas.

A purer form of Christmas spirit is the feeling I get when I hear, walking 
along crunching on new snow, in my Pocono mountain hometown, the clear song of 
a Chickadee through the pine trees. It is my version of a Christmas carol and 
always means Joy to the World to me.

Oh yeah, and German Lebkuchen Christmas cookies washed down with a little 
Balvenie doublewood single malt. (the fist aging is in oak bourbon casks, the 
second in port wine casks)  Now THAT is the body and blood of Christ!




 
  
  
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
  
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=LJYLT9TbRew
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   Loved it, thanks.  Backacha!
   
   Jesus and Vishnu on Christmas eve.
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X7x-DHKHW0
   
   RESPONSE: Somebody secretly is fighting off doubts about evolution here. 
   Too worked up metabolically. Serenity, irony, quiet confidence, 
   respecting what makes it hard for some people to take the idea of 
   macroevolution as proven: much better.
 
 Agreed.  It needed a final edit and cooler delivery to be more effective 
 communication.  But that said, I know plenty of guys like this and it doesn't 
 really mean anything about the content of what he is saying.  It is our 
 emotional reaction to to a person being too self indulgent that makes it poor 
 communication.  He went to far into the dickish lane for me too.  
 
  If someone was holding out for flat earth theory, how would be treat that 
 person? Not like this. Brilliant as it is. Some people want macroevolution to 
 be true so much they become much too aggressive and abusive in their 
 denunciation of the persons (like John Lennon) who balked at the sweeping 
 claims of Darwin. This is evidence of metaphysical anxiety: You mean 
 macroevolution might not be true? I don't think it has been proven beyond the 
 right to ask question about it. Although microevolution is a no-brainer.
 
 There are questions within the thoery that are still being discussed.  And 
 the understanding has advanced far beyond Darwin's initial formulation due to 
 the spirit of questioning.  In this year's election this is gunna be a lowest 
 bar litmus test for me.  If you understand science, you understand how the 
 theory of evolution is the basis for our whole understanding of biology.  It 
 is is more than key.
 
  
  As for the Christmas boast of Christ, I think Jesus prevails here. He has 
  all the cards. However facetiously presented, his arguments against Krishna 
  win out for me. It's a bloody good argument. Besides where does your 
  irresistible love of Christmas come from, Curtis?
 
 Well we have to be realistic that most of what I love about Christmas is not 
 Christan but Druid and Mithra worship.  My neurons got bribed into it pretty 
 early.  But I still enjoy the nativity myth perhaps even more so now that I 
 know some of the sources it was cannibalized from historically.  These are 
 archetypes to be enjoyed.
 
  
  Me: I say it comes from the fact that it is true. God became a tiny infant.
 
 I would go with: God becomes every tiny infant.  Jesus was really not so 
 unique in his time.  There were other messianic guys whose philosophies were 
 less able to be turned into an empire builder for Constantine, but who in 
 their time were as popular as Jesus during his life.
 
  
  If only he was around somewhere now.
  
  I'd like to hear his response to Rick's post. Smugness—about anything—it is 
  a dangerous thing. Sounds a little like an Oral Roberts prayer tent with 
  the ritual denunciation of the evils of atheism—although Oral never got 
  that good of course. And didn't know the first thing about irony. Or 
  beauty. Jesus, you there?
  
  Nope.
  
  But we still celebrate your birthday. Krishna, you could have done a lot 
  better. What happened?
  
  Hey, Curtis. I like that you like Christmas. 
  
  No neurobiological explanation there.
 
 Neuron bribing pure and simple!  My folks took the Santa thing seriously and 
 we were very spoiled at Christmas.
 
 A purer form of Christmas spirit is the feeling I get when I hear, walking 
 along crunching on new snow, in my Pocono mountain hometown, the clear song 
 of a Chickadee through the pine trees. It is my version of a Christmas carol 
 and always means Joy to the World to me.
 
 Oh yeah, and German Lebkuchen Christmas cookies washed down with a little 
 Balvenie doublewood single malt. (the fist aging is in oak bourbon casks, the 
 second in port wine casks)  Now THAT is the body and blood of Christ!
 
RESPONSE: Ah that All Black tackling machine: CurtisDeltaBlues. I deny life is 
the way you apprehend it, Curtis—and therefore your arguments, while marvellous 
and hard-hitting—and charming beyond all conceiving— are wrong. I have to 
tackle you once in a while. Because you, you don't go down, no matter how hard 
you are hit.

That gentle, loving, merciful heart I have felt in the past, sometimes it 
contracts. Please let yourself be (contingently) proven wrong by life, as I 
will always be willing to be proven wrong by life.

I feel it is an honour to know you, Curtis. But you, in the end, have had the 
effect on me of stiffening my sinews and summoning up my blood.

Still, I can't think of anyone in the world (yeah, that's right) whose 
perception of something I would rather hear about than your own.

But don't 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
 snip 
   RESPONSE: Somebody secretly is fighting off doubts about
   evolution here.
 
 Don't know about that, but the guy gets it wrong about
 the Bible never saying Jesus turned into a chicken. At
 least, the Bible says Jesus *wished* he could turn into
 a chicken:
 
 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets,
 and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often
 would I have gathered thy children together, even as a
 hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would
 not!--Matt. 23:37


Nairobi will be the new Jerusalem
- Maharishi

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[maskedzebra]

Curtis, here is what one the greatest philosophers in the world says about 
evolution—he a determined and committed atheist:

My own situation is that of an atheist who, in spite of being an avid consumer 
of popular science, has for a long time been skeptical of the claims of 
traditional evolutionary theory to be the whole story about the history of 
life. The theory does not claim to explain the origin of life, which remains a 
complete scientific mystery at this point. Opponents of ID, however, normally 
assume that that too must have a purely chemical explanation. The idea is that 
life arose and evolved to its present form solely because of the laws of 
chemistry, and ultimately of particle physics. In the prevailing naturalistic 
worldview, evolutionary theory plays the crucial role in showing how physics 
can be the theory of everything.
Sophisticated members of the contemporary culture have been so thoroughly 
indoctrinated that they easily lose sight of the fact that evolutionary 
reductionism defies common sense. 

A theory that defies common sense can be true, but doubts about its truth 
should be sup- pressed only in the face of exceptionally strong evidence.

I do not regard divine intervention as a possibility, even though I have no 
other candidates. Yet I recognize that this is because of an aspect of my 
overall worldview that does not rest on empirical grounds or any other kind of 
rational grounds. I do not think the existence of God can be disproved. So 
someone who can offer serious scientific reasons to doubt the adequacy of the 
theory of evolution, and who believes in God, in the same immediate way that I 
believe there is no god, can quite reasonably conclude that the hypothesis of 
design should be taken seriously. If reasons to doubt the adequacy of 
evolutionary theory can be legitimately admitted to the curriculum, it is hard 
to see why they cannot legitimately be described as reasons in support of 
design, for those who believe in God, and reasons to believe that some as yet 
undiscovered, purely naturalistic theory must account for the evidence, for 
those who do not. That, after all, is the real epistemological situation.

Thomas Nagel

P.S. I have urged him to run for office in Alexandria.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   Loved it, thanks.  Backacha!
   
   Jesus and Vishnu on Christmas eve.
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X7x-DHKHW0
   
   RESPONSE: Somebody secretly is fighting off doubts about evolution here. 
   Too worked up metabolically. Serenity, irony, quiet confidence, 
   respecting what makes it hard for some people to take the idea of 
   macroevolution as proven: much better.
 
 Agreed.  It needed a final edit and cooler delivery to be more effective 
 communication.  But that said, I know plenty of guys like this and it doesn't 
 really mean anything about the content of what he is saying.  It is our 
 emotional reaction to to a person being too self indulgent that makes it poor 
 communication.  He went to far into the dickish lane for me too.  
 
  If someone was holding out for flat earth theory, how would be treat that 
 person? Not like this. Brilliant as it is. Some people want macroevolution to 
 be true so much they become much too aggressive and abusive in their 
 denunciation of the persons (like John Lennon) who balked at the sweeping 
 claims of Darwin. This is evidence of metaphysical anxiety: You mean 
 macroevolution might not be true? I don't think it has been proven beyond the 
 right to ask question about it. Although microevolution is a no-brainer.
 
 There are questions within the thoery that are still being discussed.  And 
 the understanding has advanced far beyond Darwin's initial formulation due to 
 the spirit of questioning.  In this year's election this is gunna be a lowest 
 bar litmus test for me.  If you understand science, you understand how the 
 theory of evolution is the basis for our whole understanding of biology.  It 
 is is more than key.
 
  
  As for the Christmas boast of Christ, I think Jesus prevails here. He has 
  all the cards. However facetiously presented, his arguments against Krishna 
  win out for me. It's a bloody good argument. Besides where does your 
  irresistible love of Christmas come from, Curtis?
 
 Well we have to be realistic that most of what I love about Christmas is not 
 Christan but Druid and Mithra worship.  My neurons got bribed into it pretty 
 early.  But I still enjoy the nativity myth perhaps even more so now that I 
 know some of the sources it was cannibalized from historically.  These are 
 archetypes to be enjoyed.
 
  
  Me: I say it comes from the fact that it is true. God became a tiny infant.
 
 I would go with: God becomes every tiny infant.  Jesus was