[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligent Design - - (Was: What would happen if Hagelin...)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would happen if Hagelin seriously weighed in on the current, highly charged, debate on intelligent design? How would he argue, left, right, or center? OffWorld * Hagelin would probably have to go with MMY's statement in the SBAL (~p.274): All the innumerable decisions that are apparently the result of natural laws in the process of evolution are the innumerable decisions of the almighty personal supreme God at the head of creation. He governs and maintains the entire field of evolution and the different lives of innumerable beings in the whole cosmos. But to me, this does not look different from seeing the universe as run by natural laws, i.e., whether it is a person or laws reacting to behavior, the outcome looks the same. God is not directing the activity of creatures, but is reacting to their behavior -- if somebody smokes cigarettes (like David Lynch with his packaday habit after 30+ years of TM), making the body coarse, the reaction is to create disease which eventually eliminates the body -- this is natural selection, whether it is done by a person or a set of laws operating automatically. So although Intelligent Design people would probably be satisfied with MMY's statement (that is, if he wasn't a goldurn Hindu), so could scientists who see the universe as natural-law-based. Bob Brigante http://geocities.com/bbrigante That's what I think, because Maharishi has always talked about 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, which to me suggests the phenomena of the coexistence of opposite concepts in one place at the same time. Infitinite parts (or activity) and unity, ie. the multiplicity of existence and God. This paradox is impossible to grasp for old school scientists and for intelligent design proponents. Ultimately though, I think one must concede to intelligent design. OffWorld * To me, intelligent design theory is completely inadequate and unexplanatory and not as comprehensive as what MMY said. I think it's necessary to distinguish between reacting to behavior, which is what God does, and controlling everything, which intelligent design theorists seem to embrace. Human beings have obvious freedom of choice, and they suffer or enjoy based on the feedback from those choices. But animals and plants, although they do not have the consciousness to override their genetically-determined behaviors, do engage in maladaptive behaviors which result in feedback that eventually eliminates them. So natural selection, whether it is seen as decisions by a God or as decisions by impersonal natural laws, is a fact that is not acknowledged by intelligent design theorists because of their limited intelligence and knowledge -- MMY is not saying what intelligent design theorists are saying. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligent Design - - (Was: What would happen if Hagelin...)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob, To me, intelligent design theory is completely inadequate and unexplanatory and not as comprehensive as what MMY said. I think it's necessary to distinguish between reacting to behavior, which is what God does, and controlling everything, which intelligent design theorists seem to embrace. Human beings have obvious freedom of choice, and they suffer or enjoy based on the feedback from those choices. But animals and plants, although they do not have the consciousness to override their genetically-determined behaviors, do engage in maladaptive behaviors which result in feedback that eventually eliminates them. So natural selection, whether it is seen as decisions by a God or as decisions by impersonal natural laws, is a fact that is not acknowledged by intelligent design theorists because of their limited intelligence and knowledge -- MMY is not saying what intelligent design theorists are saying. When asked whether evolution or creationism was true, M. said Both are. *** Right, which is why intelligent design and creationism alone are inadequately explanatory. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligent Design - - (Was: What would happen if Hagelin...)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When asked whether evolution or creationism was true, M. said Both are. If you really look into the creationists you find they have 3 main problems with evolution: 1. E appears to invalidate certain statements of scripture, like the world was created in 7 days about 4,000 yrs ago, a flood covering the earth about 3,000 yrs ago, etc. Something that contradicts the literal infallible words of scripture can't be true. 2. E views humans as a part and product of nature just like all other species, in fact closely related to other primates. Creationists believe man is a uniquely special creation of God, separate from nature and superior to and dominant over other species. 3. E does not necessarily deny the existence of a God, but does denies an active role for God in the historical evolutionary process. Creationists believe God often intervenes in history in a human like manner doling out rewards and punishments in accord with his will. Listening to MMY's talks over the past few yrs, it seems he is substantially in the creationist camp in all 3 pts above, though from a fundamentalist hindu not christian view. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligent Design - - (Was: What would happen if Hagelin...)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When asked whether evolution or creationism was true, M. said Both are. If you really look into the creationists you find they have 3 main problems with evolution: 1. E appears to invalidate certain statements of scripture, like the world was created in 7 days about 4,000 yrs ago, a flood covering the earth about 3,000 yrs ago, etc. Something that contradicts the literal infallible words of scripture can't be true. 2. E views humans as a part and product of nature just like all other species, in fact closely related to other primates. Creationists believe man is a uniquely special creation of God, separate from nature and superior to and dominant over other species. 3. E does not necessarily deny the existence of a God, but does denies an active role for God in the historical evolutionary process. Creationists believe God often intervenes in history in a human like manner doling out rewards and punishments in accord with his will. Listening to MMY's talks over the past few yrs, it seems he is substantially in the creationist camp in all 3 pts above, though from a fundamentalist hindu not christian view. That's interesting. And very well expressed. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligent Design - - (Was: What would happen if Hagelin...)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When asked whether evolution or creationism was true, M. said Both are. If you really look into the creationists you find they have 3 main problems with evolution: 1. E appears to invalidate certain statements of scripture, like the world was created in 7 days about 4,000 yrs ago, a flood covering the earth about 3,000 yrs ago, etc. Something that contradicts the literal infallible words of scripture can't be true. 2. E views humans as a part and product of nature just like all other species, in fact closely related to other primates. Creationists believe man is a uniquely special creation of God, separate from nature and superior to and dominant over other species. 3. E does not necessarily deny the existence of a God, but does denies an active role for God in the historical evolutionary process. Creationists believe God often intervenes in history in a human like manner doling out rewards and punishments in accord with his will. Listening to MMY's talks over the past few yrs, it seems he is substantially in the creationist camp in all 3 pts above, though from a fundamentalist hindu not christian view. . Hey, there IS a submerged land bridge to Sri Lanka (for Rama). Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligent Design - - (Was: What would happen if Hagelin...)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would happen if Hagelin seriously weighed in on the current, highly charged, debate on intelligent design? How would he argue, left, right, or center? OffWorld * Hagelin would probably have to go with MMY's statement in the SBAL (~p.274): All the innumerable decisions that are apparently the result of natural laws in the process of evolution are the innumerable decisions of the almighty personal supreme God at the head of creation. He governs and maintains the entire field of evolution and the different lives of innumerable beings in the whole cosmos. But to me, this does not look different from seeing the universe as run by natural laws, i.e., whether it is a person or laws reacting to behavior, the outcome looks the same. God is not directing the activity of creatures, but is reacting to their behavior -- if somebody smokes cigarettes (like David Lynch with his packaday habit after 30+ years of TM), making the body coarse, the reaction is to create disease which eventually eliminates the body -- this is natural selection, whether it is done by a person or a set of laws operating automatically. So although Intelligent Design people would probably be satisfied with MMY's statement (that is, if he wasn't a goldurn Hindu), so could scientists who see the universe as natural-law-based. Bob Brigante http://geocities.com/bbrigante That's what I think, because Maharishi has always talked about 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, which to me suggests the phenomena of the coexistence of opposite concepts in one place at the same time. Infitinite parts (or activity) and unity, ie. the multiplicity of existence and God. This paradox is impossible to grasp for old school scientists and for intelligent design proponents. Ultimately though, I think one must concede to intelligent design. OffWorld * To me, intelligent design theory is completely inadequate and unexplanatory and not as comprehensive as what MMY said. I think it's necessary to distinguish between reacting to behavior, which is what God does, and controlling everything, which intelligent design theorists seem to embrace. Human beings have obvious freedom of choice, and they suffer or enjoy based on the feedback from those choices. But animals and plants, although they do not have the consciousness to override their genetically-determined behaviors, do engage in maladaptive behaviors which result in feedback that eventually eliminates them. So natural selection, whether it is seen as decisions by a God or as decisions by impersonal natural laws, is a fact that is not acknowledged by intelligent design theorists because of their limited intelligence and knowledge I disagree, intelligent design theory in no way negates natural selection. In fact natural selection is an inevitable facet of ID. However, religios nuts try to usurp the ID idea and superimpose their myths upon it. Intelligent Design means there is intelligence in nature, which there either is or there isn't, and not somewhere in between. You cannot say that the universe is dumb, but humans are intelligent. Logic and reasoning are intelligent but they cannot arise of themselves and proclaim they are more than just a survival tool that has limited uses. If one claims logic and reasoning can percieve what the universe is then one must claim that it is not a simple survival tool. If it is not a survival tool then where does it come from? If it is a survival tool, then one must assume that its chances of understanding the universe are near nil. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligent Design - - (Was: What would happen if Hagelin...)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When asked whether evolution or creationism was true, M. said Both are. If you really look into the creationists you find they have 3 main problems with evolution: 1. E appears to invalidate certain statements of scripture, like the world was created in 7 days about 4,000 yrs ago, a flood covering the earth about 3,000 yrs ago, etc. Something that contradicts the literal infallible words of scripture can't be true. 2. E views humans as a part and product of nature just like all other species, in fact closely related to other primates. Creationists believe man is a uniquely special creation of God, separate from nature and superior to and dominant over other species. 3. E does not necessarily deny the existence of a God, but does denies an active role for God in the historical evolutionary process. Creationists believe God often intervenes in history in a human like manner doling out rewards and punishments in accord with his will. Listening to MMY's talks over the past few yrs, it seems he is substantially in the creationist camp in all 3 pts above, though from a fundamentalist hindu not christian view. I would not equate creationism with intelligent design theory. That is a very cliche thing to do and it is a big mistake in the discussion by scientists in the media. OffWorld Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
