Jesus Camp Trailer

[Cromcruaich]

...mostly irrelevances...

Sticking to the only relevant points regarding my post.

Darwins theory responds to this by trying to explain how they could have emerged. In so doing it accidently proposes that in some way one selection by the environment was made over and against another and that in some way this selection was achieved because of the 'advantage' that one organism had over another.

You see they have to have an advantage Crom? Who decides what advantage they had other than the person using the theory of evolution looking back and 'reinterpreting' and reconstructing the facts according to the theory...

Again, it doesnt require any observer or person to decide what is an advantage. It's not necessary for the theory. Someone can decide but it makes not a jot of difference. It is enough that in the world, under your rock, in the environment under that rock, you produce more offspring. No one decides who has the advantage. Wipe at the human race tommorow and the mechanism will still exists, it doesnt take us to be there to discuss it. Did you get my Strep example? You are taking this on from a diagnostic and interpretation of Darwins works by academics. Get away from that for once. It feels like something you hide behind to avoid a proper discussion.

Actually, lets keep it very simple, can an organism have an advantage over another one within its environment?

The notion of advantage implies a degree of 'intelligent' selection af[ter all organisms evolved into a higher and higher state eventually producing cognition. Surely the myth is just this that in some way there is progress to higher and higher forms. Within the idea of advantage is hidden a form of intelligence. Thats why I stated the question (ironcially I might add) about whether or not nature was intelligent? Of course nature is not intelligent but a lot of Darwinists write as though it is...

No, it absolutely doesnt. Advantage in no way implies any degree whatsoever of intelligent selection, this is wrong, its incorrect. It is again a fundamental misunderstanding to think that evolution progresses to higher and higher forms of life (the highest form of life in any environment is the one best adapted for it - we dont swim very well at 2miles down). It progresses to best for environment, and is bound by whatever random changes to an organisms genome occur. You can see this clearly where organisms have adapted to life in caves without light, and they lose their eyes. Its a crude example, but hope you appreciate it.

There is absolutely no idea of intelligence hidden in the form of advantage. Any person who proports to be a darwinist (this is very poor terminology as i pointed out) who proports to guided selection has misunderstood the mechanisms behind species variability totally.



Finally you still completely avoid a real expression of where your thoughts lie.

Do you accept natural selection as a mechanism?
Do you accept the genetic basis for this?
Do you accept that the genotype dictates the phenotype, and that the environment and its pressure cause some organisms to reproduce more successfully than others?
Do you accept that over time, the cummulative effects of these differences lead to the inability for like organisms and then for species speration to occur?

Direct answers to these last question appreciated, without reference to some social, pseudo scientific texts, but from your own opinion.

Oh, and do you believe in god? If so, please tell me your religion.

[Cromcruaich]

Thank you Crom for asking this. I believe that reason is not proof of the existence of God. In fact what I have deliberately gone out of my way to do is to undermine the apparent steady foundation of reason which has been placed in opposition to God.

Likewise I never once said that I have any personal faith in God. Ironic don't you think?

I suspected as much. Good debate though. Tends to get a bit clouded in the social stuff that you like to bring into the discussion though.

[Cromcruaich]

Actually shark,

Im falling slightly into Xest mode on some of those posts. Think we all do, a bit of agression, and some passive agression, add some flowery language, and we can all ensure that we never get anywhere. The discussion seems to me to always end up like a room of art critics discussing how to interpret a Jackson Pollack.A pleasant intellectual excercise, but ultimately unfulfilling.

Do you believe that god created all life on earth? Or that some other mechanism has been responsible for the huge number of species we observe today?

[Sharkith]

Again, it doesnt require any observer or person to decide what is an advantage. It's not necessary for the theory. Someone can decide but it makes not a jot of difference. It is enough that in the world, under your rock, in the environment under that rock, you produce more offspring. No one decides who has the advantage. Wipe at the human race tommorow and the mechanism will still exists, it doesnt take us to be there to discuss it. Did you get my Strep example? You are taking this on from a diagnostic and interpretation of Darwins works by academics. Get away from that for once. It feels like something you hide behind to avoid a proper discussion.

Crom for me the theory very much depends on the observer who uses it. Theories are purposive and used with reason. I don't believe that these things exist out there in the form that people say they exist but that they are thoroughly bound to the human interests generating them. The idea itself is generated with certain 'interests' (in this case Darwin was following Malthus' arguments) and that is what I am particularly interested in tracing.

Technically if there were no human beings there would be no theory of evolution and the principal of natural selection would not exist.

That puts me into the school of thinking that is generally known as a radical constructivist. For me of course there is a reality out there by virtue of the fact I exist but that reality is only accessible through the concepts generated to understand it.

No, it absolutely doesnt. Advantage in no way implies any degree whatsoever of intelligent selection, this is wrong, its incorrect. It is again a fundamental misunderstanding to think that evolution progresses to higher and higher forms of life (the highest form of life in any environment is the one best adapted for it - we dont swim very well at 2miles down).

How can you decide what is the best form of adaptation? How can you say there is no 'intelligent design" and at the same time assert: "the highest form of life in any environment is the one best adapted for it - we dont swim very well at 2miles down"? I don't see any escape for you here at all whatsoever.

You cannot make these judgements without drawing on the idea at the heart of the theory.

It progresses to best for environment, and is bound by whatever random changes to an organisms genome occur. You can see this clearly where organisms have adapted to life in caves without light, and they lose their eyes. Its a crude example, but hope you appreciate it.

There is absolutely no idea of intelligence hidden in the form of advantage. Any person who proports to be a darwinist (this is very poor terminology as i pointed out) who proports to guided selection has misunderstood the mechanisms behind species variability totally.

I am not so sure Darwin himself was totally free from making this error. I think I would need to dig out Cronin again to give a more direct answer. Nevertheless I can agree that in some ways there is an error here. However and this is the killer for you. How can one evaluate what is the 'highest form of life' in a given environment.

How would you actually do this?

Finally you still completely avoid a real expression of where your thoughts lie.

Do you accept natural selection as a mechanism?

I think its a very elegant theoretical account of how structural changes in species can occur. There are alternative theoretical models available however and I am also interested in those. The theory of autopoiesis for example is one I am particularly interested in.

Do you accept the genetic basis for this?

I am not convinced on this point.

Do you accept that the genotype dictates the phenotype, and that the environment and its pressure cause some organisms to reproduce more successfully than others?

I am not that convinced about the basis of this either. I have stated that I believe that this a retreat to find a deeper truth as a result of flaws in the orignal Darwinian position and I remain unsure about wether or not this is a good theoretical solution. I hope this is clear?

Do you accept that over time, the cummulative effects of these differences lead to the inability for like organisms and then for species speration to occur?

I do not think there is conclusive proof of this but the theory seems to work quite well.

Direct answers to these last question appreciated, without reference to some social, pseudo scientific texts, but from your own opinion.

Can you define science please?

Oh, and do you believe in god? If so, please tell me your religion.

How many times to I say I have no faith in God?

[<ankh>]

I find Ankh's position much more honest (and frightening).

Thank you for understanding that Im honest, but why frightening?? I guess you mean that everyone need something to belive in?

/Ankh

[Xest]

Sharkith you're still taking the things I say completely out of context, I'm really not sure why you suggest that I feel there is no place for people who beleive in god, that is extremely different from saying there is no place for their beleifs, the form equates to the kind of anti-Jewish sentiment that led to extermination camps in World War II and if you're suggesting I follow that path then you're completely wrong.

On the contrary with the brain thing I wasn't pretty sure I knew precisely where it exists, whilst I'm sure it exists as part of us the reason I said the brain was because it seems the most likely part of the body (and there's still no evidence that it isn't there, just no conclusive evidence that it is). The reason I did say the brain was because it was something you seemed stuck on and if the only way to move the discussion along was to give perhaps the most likely place then so be it, that's what I chose to do, had I known you'd use this as a key point to try and then turn back on me and use as a basis to claim that everything involving logic is flawed in arguing against god which, is rather rediculous still imho which leads to:

Now if your statement is not really conclusive on what ground can you categorically state that there is no place for belief in God in this modern/developed world?

Is there honestly anything that we couldn't acheive without beleif in god that we can acheive with beleiving in god? Couple that with the fact that many religions teach hate for other religions and teach hate for homosexuals and so forth and to me that paints a negative picture of the balance between the good and bad that religion provides. Of course there are good religious people but there's nothing stopping them being good without religion either, I also realise that religion isn't the only thing like this but it's also not the only thing I disagree has any beneficial place in a developed country. At very minimum all politicians should either be somewhat like Ankh in being very neutral, the whole reason George Bush got into power is because of religious factions, there'd almost certainly be one less war and hundreds of thousands of people not killed had America's president been elected on their merits rather than their beleifs.

Again, I'll state it in a seperate paragraph as it seems to have been ignored on countless occasions, I'm not suggesting people shouldn't beleive in religion if they want to, that's entirely there choice, what I am suggesting is that:
a) I feel we'd be better off as a race if they didn't beleive those things
b) That their beleifs should be just that, their beleifs and not pushed onto anyone else

If people want to beleive in religion that's fine, just don't make people die as a result of it, don't shun homosexuals because of it, don't shun muslims or whatever because they don't beleive the same as you and so on, if people continue to do these things because of religious teachings then that's when I'd rather they weren't religious, again yes these problems would exist without religion but at least not quite as frequently, if even one person hadn't shunned a person of another faith because they hadn't been given the idea to do so from their religious teachings isn't that in itself a benefit to humanity?

[Sharkith]

Actually shark,

Im falling slightly into Xest mode on some of those posts. Think we all do, a bit of agression, and some passive agression, add some flowery language, and we can all ensure that we never get anywhere. The discussion seems to me to always end up like a room of art critics discussing how to interpret a Jackson Pollack.A pleasant intellectual excercise, but ultimately unfulfilling.

Do you believe that god created all life on earth? Or that some other mechanism has been responsible for the huge number of species we observe today?

I prefer to see this as enthusiastic debate - so much gets lost in writing. If we see it like that it is less divisive I at least trust you to know this. Its harder with Xest because I don't know the poor sod so I tend to be a bit more brutal - and I should stop that of course.

What I believe about God is an unresolvable part of my biography. Believe me that is much too complex an issue to deal with here. Especially when people are being so aggressive.

[Sharkith]

Thank you for understanding that Im honest, but why frightening?? I guess you mean that everyone need something to belive in?

/Ankh

Yes Ankh I feel it is much more difficult to live holding out for the truth than to grasp something and try to make it work. I honestly feel we all have to try and do both.

[<ankh>]

Yes Ankh I feel it is much more difficult to live holding out for the truth than to grasp something and try to make it work. I honestly feel we all have to try and do both.

Maybe - but I'd rather spend my life with nothing than with something I don't fully belive in.

/Ankh

[Sharkith]

Is there honestly anything that we couldn't acheive without beleif in god that we can acheive with beleiving in god?

Again, I'll state it in a seperate paragraph as it seems to have been ignored on countless occasions, I'm not suggesting people shouldn't beleive in religion if they want to, that's entirely there choice, what I am suggesting is that:
a) I feel we'd be better off as a race if they didn't beleive those things
b) That their beleifs should be just that, their beleifs and not pushed onto anyone else

Xest,

thanks for a careful reply. I didn't think I was taking you out of context I was simply turning the discussion around to balance the thread a bit. As you can see now (I hope) that much of this discussion is based on the opposition between reason, science and religion.

What I was doing was to challenge the foundation of reason and science as the best place to begin to address the problems of religion. I did that through probing you for the location of reason - I had no idea you would claim it was in the brain which I felt was a gift at the time. Yes the dangers of locating it in the brain is not very far away from defining who is sub human and who is better. So be very careful of biologisms - though I can see you recognise the risks of this now. I agree reason is a much more complex thing than biology.

The second part of my strategy was to probe further into a controversy I know exists behind Darwinian theory to illustrate that in fact not even that 'foundation' is as solid as it is often presented. I can get more details of this if required like I have said Cronin is someone I know quite well and I am certain that the geneotype and phenotype distinction was generated in modern times to counter negativeevidence against Darwins theory.

Part of the problem is the unit of analysis of the organism (which reflects the ideology of individualism prominent at the time) was not subtle enough to explain how life varied in some key respects. Like I said in response to Crom I am not convinced this is the answer and even though we can now map the gene we now realise that the theory explains very little indeed (a good theory though should be a theory about something rather than everything).

May approach was deliberately designed to counter the oppressive debate against religion. I honestly don't think that these are the best places to begin to challenge a belief in God.

Now to respond to you directly. In your response you say the following and I will take the opportunity to directly respond:

Again, I'll state it in a seperate paragraph as it seems to have been ignored on countless occasions, I'm not suggesting people shouldn't beleive in religion if they want to, that's entirely there choice, what I am suggesting is that:
a) I feel we'd be better off as a race if they didn't beleive those things
b) That their beleifs should be just that, their beleifs and not pushed onto anyone else

I think that in a) your albiet inadvertedently suggesting that society would be better off without them. At very least your suggesting that they and we would be better off if they would/could change. For many of them that amounts to telling them it would be better if they didn't exist. I am sorry but I have to profoundly object to this. I would do it on the basis that you have no way of proving that society would be better off. The argument you seem to be making to support this is kind of utilitarian and I am profoundly against this approach.

I agree with b) but like I said earlier in the thread religion is relatively unintrusive in comparison to science. I think you can say no to religion but science is everywhere. So on this issue I find religion much less of a problem to worry about in society.

I hope you feel I am now taking you rather more seriously Xest.