Adam and All.
First two corrections. In my previous "Scientific Mind" message I wrote
> > I am a little surprised at the imprssion given that the Jempties are
> > antagonists regarding the MOQ. Pirsig takes as much leave of Darwinism as
> > of Creationism, but I should think he would be considered a creationist by
> > science and an evolutionist by the Church. Adam Aurich said:
it should read ...takes as much leave of Darwin evolutionism as of
creationism. Next I spelled Adam's family name incorrect. I recently visited a
German town call Aurich, must be the reson. :-)
Over to your message of 24th. A readable and relevant piece which I
brought a snippet from yesterday. May I just add a few of my inevitable
remarks?
> I’m writing in hopes of getting back into the roots of
> this thread. To me, Intelligent design is just plain
> unconstitutional. Intelligent design may not be
> promoting any one religion (which is an idea advocates
> for the intelligent design theory proclaim), but it is
> still promoting the idea of a higher power, which is
> clearly in the realm of religion, and therefore is
> promoting religion, it doesn’t matter if it’s
> promoting any one of them over another.
True, yet "religion"? Isn't that a rather modern term - a SOM term in my
book? Humankind before the Greek revolution as described in ZMM (or
some similar developments at the "other shore" of the Mediterranean Sea)
did hardly look upon their worldviews as faith, it was the way they explained
their observations.
This you realise lower down in your message, but in SOM this usually leads
to the conclusion that our scientific explanation is a modern myth ...etc. but
the MOQ don't take that path.
> Anytime the
> concept of “God” is introduced into any field of
> scientific study, promotion of religion is present and
> that is clearly not allowed b/c the separation of
> church and state. Evolution is a purely scientific
> theory and truly the best we have to date, so
> naturally it should be taught in science classes.
Right you are, but the said separation was a result of something more
fundamental, namely a new value level - INTELLECT - which don't mean
that people started to think, but to think in a very special way. ......started to
seek for eternal principles behind what people think ...(or something to that
effect in ZMM) ...which spelled for a new reality". And if this meant the
introduction of Q-Intellect then the previous era was Q-Society. This is
horribly important for my understanding of the MOQ.
People at the "other shore" in the era described in ZMM meant the Semitic
tribes on the Arab peninsula and I have been told by Jonathan and Rasheed
that they reached an intellectual level as lofty as the Greeks, but I suspect
they (J & R) lean to the intelligence-defined Q-intellect" (in which case I
understand why J. rejects the Q-Intellect!!). Now, Jonathan, Rasheed,
George may say that God plays the same role as Quality in the MoQ, and if
so "religion" is abolished - we are all moqists - but as it looks from the Middle
East events, it's very much a lapse back to the Social level values ...as DMB
maintains.
> Of
> course there are holes, but that’s only because we are
> still learning (remember its just a theory! not a
> fact!). Both the theory and its holes should be
> taught together (of course which holes are real holes
> is an entirely different matter altogether), but I’m
> not really very comfortable with anyone but a doctor
> in biology teaching about evolution.
Intellect's S/O attitude DEMANDS an objective explanation an thus the
Evolution theory is the correct explanation from those premises. The Quality
explanation (which Wim reminded people of) is supposed to cover
EVERYTHING - even the "evolution" that brought the material world into
being ...and the evolution that followed biology. Science does in fact have a
theory for the first evolution, but no notion of any social or intellectual "big
bangs".
> People in the
> non-scientific community tend to have an incorrect
> view of what evolution really is. One of the most
> amusing comments I tend to here in my bible-belt town
> is “Any idea that says we came from monkeys is just
> plain ignorant.”
I am from a bible era. It once was at least.
> Of course, I do not wish to shield anyone from any
> religious view. Actually, I wish for everyone to
> experience every single religious view. But science
> classes are not the place. Maybe in an English class
> where we learn about other myths, like those of the
> antiquity, because many people believe these days
> believe their ideas of higher powers and stories of
> creation to be truth, but how is that any different
> from the ancient Greeks who believed their myths to be
> truth also.
Right. In the last line you say it, but notice my (up) above qualifications.
> Science has no place for gods, if it did, it wouldn’t
> be science.
Amen.
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:28 BST