Human Evolution - the Future...

[pianistimo]

life might be elongated, but death cannot be controlled beyond torture.  what happens afterwards in the mind cannot be fathomed by science because we cannot see what happens next.  how can we see God taking our spirit.  the essence of us.  how can he ressurrect (in body) those who have been cremated.  yet, all the dead are said to rise in the ressurrection of the dead.  of course, you might say, well- that's a story.  but, what if it's true!  scientific theories alone don't explain our ability to comprehend language - and thus, converse and be responsible for knowledge.  animals don't have libraries - or computers - and, there is no visible signs of animals increasing any knowledge from what instincts they were born with on their own.  scientists try to put them in various situations - but, in the wild, they are fairly consistent.  adaptation, to me, means one is affected only by their environment to survive.  humans go beyond this survival instinct.

and, if revelations is correct, God will open 'books' - books that he has kept on us!  people.  no animals are mentioned.  we are rulers of the world here - and our actions are judged as how they affect others, animals, the environment, and moral and physical laws. 

[prometheus]

Death isn't a simple black-and-white thing. People can be revived after their heart has stopped. People can live on without any brain activity. In the first the result is brain damage because of the lack of oxigen en synaptic pattern degeneration. In the future this will be more and more reversible so people can actually be dead for a longer time before they get revived. So people can be ressurrected. There is no magic involved at all. Anything absurd may be possible in principle

The point of your argument is: "Because God cannot be observed, he is beyond science. And that explains why he has never been observed." Not a nice example of a petitio principii.

I miss all other points.

[pianistimo]

quality of life has to enter somewhere in here.  but, agreed about your statements of extension of life - and recussitation.  recussitation is different than ressurrection, in my mind.  one involves maintaining heart and lung function (despite brain death for a period of time) - and one is a complete stoppage of the mind, heart, lung  - and complete death and complete ressurrection.  like lazarus after several days.  people were at his funeral - then he comes out with gauze bandages like a mummy.  i want to see that.  i will really be glad i believed in faith when the ressurrection happens and the 'dead in Christ' await their reward.  and, i do think faith has a reward.  it's such a small thing to accept Christ (even if you doubt) but a huge thing to lose eternal salvation.  ok.  that's all i have to say.    

[ada]

aaaaaarrrrgggh! I can't believe this topic is still getting oxygen.  It's too silly to even reply to. It's like spending hours debating whether santa claus exists.

Then again, the fact that it's being debated might be a reflection that the looney religious right is actually getting a voice, and what does that say about the rest of us, that we're giving it credence by discussing it?

Creationism, like any kind of ideological dogma, is a cancer. If we're not careful it's going to infiltrate our schools and god forbid even our places of higher learning, and take us back to the dark ages.

It's already happening in the US and the creationists have recently targeted NZ and even Australia with their poisonous rubbish, diguised as "intelligent design" in an attempt to slip through the net of rationality.

Some like to think that history is about progress but the creationist virus shows this isn't true, and history isn't a  linear progression forwards at all. We are at constant risk of sliding backwards, and we have to resist this.

Someone rightly made the comment earlier that it doesn't what people believe privately, if some want to take the bible literally, well that's cute and quaint and fine if it makes them feel better about their lives.

But if these evangelists start trying push their beliefs into the spheres of government and education then it's time to be alert, maybe even alarmed.

ada

 

[rc]

Then again, the fact that it's being debated might be a reflection that the looney religious right is actually getting a voice, and what does that say about the rest of us, that we're giving it credence by discussing it?

hah, it says that some people love to be right and can't help but argue for no reason

It's just a forum though, it's interesting to see the different viewpoints.

Aside from an internet forum, you have a good point in that religion should remain seperate from state. But I don't think there are enough extremists to really pull such things off anyhow. I heard about a school board in Pennsylvania that adopted Intelligent Design somehow, then voters got rid of 8 of the 9 school board members who advocated it. I'm not overly worried.

here's an article: https://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-11-09-pennsylvania-intelligent-design_x.htm

[ada]

well rc, I hope you're right!

 I remember the first time I read a report about some US schools seriously talking about introducing creationism to the classroom, I think there may even have been a court challenge, I thought to myself, ha, ha, those wacky Americans, gotta love 'em.

Then they started trying to get creationist videos into NZ schools and I thought, they've got a bloody hide! And then the videos surfaced here! In my own country!!

And I thought this is getting a bit close to the bone! Not funny anymore!!

My kids are interested in god and jesus blah blah blah because they hear this stuff from their friends and I'm letting them figure it out themselves.

I tell them bible stories because there are some ripper stories in there that are central to a lot our contemporary literature and thought but I stress it's a story, like Harry Potter (although slightly more turgid in parts).

The story about the talking snake and the forbidden apple and sneaky seductive eve and poor hapless adam is a great yarn with tremendous resonance but please! Let's keep things in perspective.

They'll have to work it out in the end, I'm sure, and if they don't well there's not much I can do about it. I'd be much more worried if they turned out politically right wing.

But I swear if a creationist dares come anywhere near my kids' school ..... it just makes my blood boil.

[JCarey]

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/15/12016/649

This is a really good read.

[prometheus]

I am glad I live in the country I live in. But actually there are 'stange' things about religion even in the constitution. There is even a law, though it is never applied, protecting God from insults.

We had a tv program on tv a while ago, called 'God doesn't exist.' The funny thing is that the whole show was recording in a church. It was about how insane monotheists are. They had a credited scientist on every show and asked them questions.

Two minor political parties, one that even excludes woman and barely are able to support democracy, tried to censor the program.

The point one of the scientists made is that humans can be made to believe anything. The person actually used a St. Nicolas analogy, Santa if you will. Children get brainwashed by parents and school and the idea of God gets permanently burned into their brains. For some reason everyday common sense and logic can be totally turned off, amazing how flexible people can think.

The program is actually availible online. Too bad it doesn't have english subs.

Many people in my country are something-ists. They aren't religious and things like creationism are total absurdities. But they have been raised as christians. They cannot step away from the idea of a controlling entity.

Even I am brainwashed. I don't always realise how absurd religion, and monotheism in particular, is.

I would support protecting children from adults and their religious ideas, because it is very damaging. I also suggest that all religion should be banned from state funded education. And the government should also inform people of the dangers of religion and actively discourage them from accepting those views.

[Bob]

(Bob chimes in, though slightly off topic.)

I remember something about this in a class if you want to dive into a new argument/discussion -- the creation of the universe.  I remember hearing that everything was hydrogen -- everything.  Once enough collected together, enough force was created to create a supernova (I think, something like that) which created more complicated elements -- eventually carbon.  We are made of carbon.  That means we have elements in us that came from one of those supernovas.  Cool idea huh?


What if humans are "just things?"  I would imagine a dog or an ant or something, if it has a concept of itself, would probably not think of itself as a "thing."  Who would?  But then we go along hitting bugs on the windshield without a thought.  And if other animals do have all that like we do, what about plants?  (Yeah, that's right.  You walk around that lawn.  And forget about mowing it.  How cruel.)

(Bob shockingly realizes he has eaten a banana while typing this.  According to lisztisforkids, he share 50% of his genes with that banana.  Bob is slightly nauseated, but is glad he is not the banana.  Bob decides to eat bread instead.)

Speaking of evolution, how about that bird flu?  Is that a good example of anything?  A mutation, replication and quick spread?  Or maybe that random person that is stronger against the flu for some reason and survives?

[prometheus]

Yes, most elements other than hydrogen were created in stars. When stars burn hydrogen through atomic fusion heavier elements exist. The elements that are now in our bodies were once in the core of a star, who knows how far away.

But only elements heavier than iron come from supernovea exclusively. Supernovae do spread all the heavier elements created throughout space, the explosions being more than a light year across.

The bird flu, there are serveral processe from darwinism involved. First off, virusses reproduce very rapidly and thus evolution occurs relatively fast. Also, these things are rather simple so that also helps.

The problem is that DNA and RNA is messy. Scientists have found viral and bacterial DNA in our genome. It seems either of those were present during a cell division and something went wrong, copying parts of the DNA from the virus or bacteria permanently into our genetic blueprint. Thats also what some virusses do, they copy their genetic information in ours and wait for the right moment to strike. HIV does this. That's why people can have HIV without suffering from AIDS. The HIV is dorment in their bodies DNA. It's called a retrovirus.

Humans can be infected with some strains of bird flu. Imagine a person infected both with the bird flu and a human flu. They could interchance genetic information. This could result in a major chance in the DNA of this virus, it would have properties we have never faced before because we aren't really affected by bird virusses. It could be that this virus and the birds have been in a very long arms race. Both have superweapons and superdefences. And then the information about this superweapon is given for free to a human virus. We would have to catch up centuries. You don't have to think of it as something concrete as weapon per se. All humans alive are humans resistant to common diseases. Remember when the europeans took their 'innocent' diseases to the americas? Millions of them died because they faced something totally new. If bird flu DNA enters the gene pool of a human flu, many people may be totally defenceless. Just as with the Spanish flu.

Then the virus would kill off a large number of people, people with the wrong type of immune system. People with an immune system particular effective at fighting against this kind of virus would survive. So humans would evolve in that respect.

[ada]

just in case anyone's interested in an Aussie angle on creationism:

https://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1486827.htm

[pianistimo]

that's a good read.  here's another one:  www.whitehutchinson.com/news/lenews/2003_10.shtml#9

it's entitled 'mom's reptilian desire for cleanliness.'  i will say that i did take my daughter out of preschool when she kept getting sick.  when she's at home, she'll be free of runny noses and coughs for most of the year.  maybe her immune system was boosted by the 6 months of preschool?

[ada]

Thanks pianistimo.

I agree with you on this one. According to the so-called hygeine hypothesis allergies and asthma are increasing because we're keeping our kids too clean, so their immune system goes ballistic because they're not exposed to normal amounts of dirt.

Ha! no problem in my household.

Anyhow this is off topic eh?

[pianistimo]

no problem in mine either.  in fact,  lately i have taken it upon myself to admit there's a problem.  i asked the cleaning company that recently helped me clean if there was anyone who could help me get the whole family involved again in cleaning.  (and, not just the tops of things).  amazingly, the lady who owns the company says she has a presentation to give my family.  i can't wait.  (might have to drag the kids to the table)  am ready for charts and stuff again. 

about 10 years back, i decided things weren't getting clean enough when my kids attempted it - so i basically just put them in charge of their rooms and dishes and trash.  now, of course, with this broken leg - they see themselves in a temporary situation.  but, i'm enjoying this so much - that it's going to be permanent.  by the time they're 18 they'll be ready to leave, right?  ahahaha 

[pianistimo]

having amateur history interest - i watched the history channel today give a  presentation on the sword of longinvus (sword of destiny).  i'm not into relics, per se, but if one were to present a case for christianity on other terms than the calendar - it would be history and the supposed preservation of relics.  why would so many world leaders be interested in these relics.  probably, imo, because they thought they hold mysterioius powers.  i'm not suggesting the idea - merely wondering why famous leaders would bother with christian relics.  why did they want to possess them?  obviously, in the case of the constantine, and charlemagne - they wanted to show ownership of christianity and hold the empire together.  the christian symbols would give them more followers.  anyway,  why does history prove Christ's existence because of so many followers of relics of the cross, of the nails, of the shroud, of the sword, etc.  and, why are some tales quite consistent about what happened immediately after the death of Christ.  Longinvus was half blind and was said to have received his sight again after piercing Christ.  I have no idea if this story is true, but in Rome there is a site devoted to him (with sculpture).

also, regarding hitler, he also wanted to be in possession of this sword. www.shoaheducation.com/philosophies.html#swordoflonginvus  look way down the list.
www.shoaheducation.com  click on enter and then again (in the black portion when you get the 'hand')  go to philosophy and it's in there under hitler or something 
somewhere in there - you can find darwin's 'origin of the species' complete version

why would hitler want to posess a christian relic?

for some interesting art looks there is another site - just for interest:
www.khm.at/homeE3.html   the treasury is interesting

[prometheus]

Maybe because Hitler was a christian and that christianity was an important part of the nazi ideology.

All those relics and the stories around them are probably highly influenced by the 'holy grail'-syndrome.

[yamagal]

Hey Prometheus, did you check out those links yet?  I'll have to find a better one for the probability discussion.  The examples the guy chose for refuting were really lame.  I've read better arguments (on the antievolution side) - in print though, I think.

[prometheus]

The probability discussion isn't worth much discussion. Lets not question that all life evolved through darwinistic evolution. Did earth 'hit a jackpot'? Or were we just unlucky and was it more likely we would have evolved 20 million years ago?

What would we need to do. We need to estimate the speed the evolutionary process should have had to produce humans in 3.5 billion years. Then we need to measure the actual speed. Lets say we measure the speed of evolution in an experiment lasting 20 years. Then we multiply that number with 175 milllion to match the two. Even with very accurate measurements and estimates the results would be meaningless because the range of accuracy would give very inaccurate results. If we have only 20 years then that is just too short to compare it with 3,5 billion.

Other huge problems with this are that it would be impossible to estimate 'evolutionary speed'. Another crippling one would be that the rapidness of evolutionary chance in virusses or bacteria would be totally irrelevant for that of more complex life forms. We would have to have experiments for several different kinds of life forms, running for thousands of years.


Of course people can try and prove through other means that evolution is improbable. The page you linked has some very poor examples that just ignore parts of the theory or other related fields. So the attempts to refute evolution through proving its improbability is a fair attempt. But it seems all attempts get themselves refuted.

I would like to take a look at the better argument. Give me any argument and I'll see if something is wrong with it. Some may actually be fair. But an argument against the theory of evolution doesn't prove creationism. That's a whole different discussion. And to say that creationism has been refuted would be an understatement to say the least.

Also note, with so much hostility against evolution, if it is a weak theory then why hasn't it been utterly destroyed yet? If evolution would be false it would be easy to prove it. Also note that evolution by itself doesn't exclude something like Intelligent Design also adding it's share. But there is no proof for ID plus it makes bad predictions. And as far as we can tell evolution could have done it alone. It would be God creating a world 'programmed' to produce life. But, after 15 billion years of waiting, adding just a little bit to one particular species, just to be able to say he had a hand in it. Doesn't make sense. Whats the probability of that happening


So it would be impossible to know how probable or improbably it is. But very very very improbable things do happen. But here we are and evolution fits all our observations. If it is ever proven that the chance of humans evolving in aprox. 3.5 billion years does exist  but is only one in a googol but evolution matches everything else perfectly, then it must just be right. We have no alternative.
Actually, what are the chances of evolution matching all observations while it has nothing to do with how we came to be? Also very unlikely, although we would also never know how unlikely. So in that case we have to pick one of the unlikely's; maybe that's 50/50

Probability arguments make no sense. You could say that the probability is against this universe by one to a googol. But what would be the chance of us being here to observe the other possible universes? We can only obserse those universes with the very improbable set of universal constants and the very improbable process of evolution (and  remember that this second improbability is pure speculation), so that's a 100%

Sometimes probability is used in juridical cases. In one case there was a nurse suspected of murdering several elderly people. For some reason she was there in every case an elderly person died, I think there were 14 cases. The prosecuted has a probability mathematic tell the judge there was a probability of 10,000 in one, or something, that the suspect could have accidentally be present at every murder.

Of course this proves nothing. She could just as well be innocent, but it would only be very unlikely, the judge can never know. If you are going to accept it as proof, then where draw the line. Because 10000 against 1 odds do happen. But you can also calculate odds so small they are almost zero. So she/he could rule the case, knowing the chance of the ruling being incorrect. Note that I am no expert on law and I don't know how much doubt a judge should generally accept when declaring someone guilty (of murder).

[pianistimo]

another site:

www.everystudent.com/wires/aboutevolution.html

ps  about hitler, he was into the occult.  and, as i understand it, after he destroyed all the jews (juda) he was going after christians.  i think having relics made him feel that he could become 'god.'

[yamagal]

What would we need to do. We need to estimate the speed the evolutionary process should have had to produce humans in 3.5 billion years. Then we need to measure the actual speed. Lets say we measure the speed of evolution in an experiment lasting 20 years. Then we multiply that number with 175 milllion to match the two. Even with very accurate measurements and estimates the results would be meaningless because the range of accuracy would give very inaccurate results. If we have only 20 years then that is just too short to compare it with 3,5 billion.

Other huge problems with this are that it would be impossible to estimate 'evolutionary speed'. Another crippling one would be that the rapidness of evolutionary chance in virusses or bacteria would be totally irrelevant for that of more complex life forms. We would have to have experiments for several different kinds of life forms, running for thousands of years.

"Evolutionary speed" - interesting.  Laypeople like me have a distorted view of that, perhaps, thanks to stuff like the time-lapse evolutionary sequence shown on Cosmos.  That sequence makes it seem like evolution progresses smoothly, at a constant speed, from one level of complexity to the next, from one life form to the next.

I would like to take a look at the better argument. Give me any argument and I'll see if something is wrong with it. Some may actually be fair. But an argument against the theory of evolution doesn't prove creationism. That's a whole different discussion.

Ok,  see if either of these is better.  Source:  an old-earth creationist site.  These guys don't believe in evolution. 

 https://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml
 Design and the Anthropic Principle

article quote:

"The bottom line is that the universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude (a factor of 10^10,000,000,000 times) too small or too young for life to have assembled itself by natural processes.i  These kinds of calculations have been done by researchers, both non-theists and theists, in a variety of disciplines.43-58"

https://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200404_probabilities_for_life_on_earth.shtml
 Probability For Life On Earth

And to say that creationism has been refuted would be an understatement to say the least.

I assume you mean young-earth creationism?

Also note that evolution by itself doesn't exclude something like Intelligent Design also adding it's share. But there is no proof for ID plus it makes bad predictions.

It has been asserted that the Big Bang alone is proof of ID, or at least of an extra-universal Originator.

And as far as we can tell evolution could have done it alone. It would be God creating a world 'programmed' to produce life. But, after 15 billion years of waiting, adding just a little bit to one particular species, just to be able to say he had a hand in it. Doesn't make sense. Whats the probability of that happening

You never know with God, though that does seem rather improbable.

[leahcim]

You never know with God

On the contrary, that is one subject for which there is no shortage of information available nor mystery surrounding it at all. Quite the reverse in fact.

[prometheus]

"Evolutionary speed" - interesting.  Laypeople like me have a distorted view of that, perhaps, thanks to stuff like the time-lapse evolutionary sequence shown on Cosmos.  That sequence makes it seem like evolution progresses smoothly, at a constant speed, from one level of complexity to the next, from one life form to the next.

Do note I am no expert on this field either and that the way I phrased this argument is probably also pseudoscience. But we are talking about huge time scales. Humans live for about 80 years. So we can never imagine more time that a lifetime. For us a thousand years is just as much time as a billion years, but only with 6 more zeros.

How evolution processes exactly is hard to tell and I am not really into which theory inside Darwinism is the most popular or sound. But there is the Punctuated Equilibrium theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_Equilibrium

The fossil record is very much snap-shot like. There may have been a smooth evolution and a few snapshots of this in the fossil record. Then these two creatures become two species. And then we have a 'missing link' between the two. Of course that would be natural since fossils just are so rare.

It seems that evolutionary biologist are genuinely still consirned about this thus the Punctuated Equilibrium theory.

There are also different issues. About 99% of the species have died out. A large part of the all life todat is just as simple as almost all life a billion years ago. Mammals and birds, probably our most advanced life forms, only make up a small part of all life. Most life is still single cell life.

We know tat 65 million years ago most life forms we would consider as 'complex' today died out. This may happen again some day.

So evolution is higly erratic.

And about science itself. Science doesn't deal with universal or absolute truth. Science wants to create models that match and describe reality. Sometimes the argument is made that Lucifer changed reality so it appears the have evolved to trick man and lead them away from God. If this is the case and if this would be proven then everyone would still use the theory of evolution, since it explains reality. The theory of evolution explains reality. Creationism doesn't.

Ok,  see if either of these is better.  Source:  an old-earth creationist site.  These guys don't believe in evolution. 

 https://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml
 Design and the Anthropic Principle

article quote:

"The bottom line is that the universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude (a factor of 10^10,000,000,000 times) too small or too young for life to have assembled itself by natural processes.i  These kinds of calculations have been done by researchers, both non-theists and theists, in a variety of disciplines.43-58"

This is largely not about the likelyhood of evolution. First it talks about the universal constants. I already mentioned this.

If one would pick a random set of values the universe would never be of the organised nature of this one. Atoms wouldn't even form. There would probably be one big mess of sub-atomic particles and energy, just as 'seen'  right after the big bang. Many other combinations would be possible that would allow stars to form and burn theis mass into energy and planets to form. But that wouldn't allow life or any form of complex biochemical molecules. This is also explained in the first part of the article.

What does this tell us? We don't know what makes the universal constants, what is at the basis of it. String theory was mentioned in another topic. One could postulate that strings only allow a small set of possible universal constants or combinations, rather than any real number.

But even if our galaxy is one out of a trillion or one out of a googol? First of, it has nothing to do with evolution, with mutations and natural selections, with DNA. But it is interesting.

Maybe a googol universes do exist.
Maybe it is just pure chance. Why not. The whole existence of a universe at all is bizarre.

The problem with God is that it doesn't explain anything. You could explain the unlikelyhood by saying God made sure the universe would result in this. But how does one explain God? For christians, God doesn't require explenation. But scientists do.
It would be taking the problen and 'solving' it by labeling it with 'God'. If God actually created this universe scientists want to know how just as much as now. And after that they want to know where God comes from. Actually scientists don't even care if you can label something with 'God' or not. They want to know what happened and how. Not why.

For me in both cases the huge problem remains. I don't get why there has to be an universe. Why not nothing? I must admit that the thought about this is a bit more strange that the same thought for a monotheist. They reach God and can stop thinking. I can't. Is the whole universe one big accident? Just a small fluctuation in total nothingness that will eventually resolve itself?

With this huge mystery, I find it kind of strange to assume God must have created it, otherwise it would be extremely unlikely. Even more stranger because the concept of God originates from the bible.

When we reach part two, about the conditions on earth. I don't know much about meteorology and geology. But the climate on earth was just the way it was and there are no signs of God adjusting the climate. The same goes for the universe. There is absolutely no sign someone is 'at the controls', adjusting things to make sure everything works out right. It just unfolds perfectly. So this has nothing to do with evolution itself.

So again we are talking about a fine balance. But the balance was just there and there are no signs of adjustments. We would expect that if we pollute the earth too much, God won't intervene and rebalance our environment.
So both the universe and the earth have a fine balance. But there is no sign that someone has been balancing it out on purpose. It either arised accidentally, or God planned very very well ahead and all his calculations were on the mark, as far as earth is concerned.

While life on earth absolutely has no sign of design at all, you could make a case for the universe being designed. Let's assume God designed the universe and that he meant earth to be one of the planets with life. Why did he design the rest of the universe the way it is? We know he designed earth and did an incredible accurate calculation. All the rest of the universe should have been though out in great detail also. Every little particulatity in the universe should be an important part of the 'master design'.

Do you actually see this? What had God in mind? If he felt lonely, why didn't he just create one sun with one planet? This makes no scientific sense, so be it wrong or right, at this time it is not part of science, since it isn't really a part of a model describing reality. God is irrelevant because she is just looking at her creation unfold.

I have no idea how accurate the numbers about the conditions on earth actually are. But since they mention the Drake Equation, the numbers people used in that equation where of such a big range the result had a range so big any outsome was concivable. I suspect the same for this calculation. They just adjusted the range in a way that favored them a little, then after the calculation the little adjustment just dictated the outcome. Just as with the less complex Drake Equation. There are still scientists who think life will be common throughout the universe, ones that think it will be very rare and also many just admit they haven't a clue. And this is the answer. We don't know how special the conditions on earth are or how special life in general is.

I don't really like the 'man created the universe' hypothesis. And of course it is also pure speculation. The article accurately mentions there is no evidence for this. But so is there no evidence supporting God as a creator or any creator. And even if the universe looks created, noting that it actually looks highly unlikely, it doesn't mean it is.


So we have a big gap, a gap where christians can put their God. Fine with me.


The article goes on about this:

    What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP? In my not so humble opinion I think the last principle is best called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.41

In their persistent rejection of an eternal transcendent Creator, cosmologists seem to be resorting to more and more absurd alternatives. An exhortation from the Bible is appropriate, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy."42

I agree with the first part. I had actually never heard before about Anthropic Principles, they don't seem to be very popular within the astrophysicist community. It seems they are pure philosophy, metaphysics, or even theology.

While all of them may be CRAP, I don't see how this validates an 'eternal transcendent Creator'. Again, God doesn't explain things because it doesn't require anything. So God doesn't solve the problem. How did God come to exist?

About the size of the universe. The article is incorrect here. We have absolutely no clue how big the universe is. We only know how large the observeble universe is since we do  know its age: 13,6 billion years. Information from more than 13,6 light years away hasn't reached us yet because of the age. So we don't know how big the universe actually is. It might be milions times bigger than the observable universe. In science 'universe' and 'observable universe' are sometimes used as synomiems because they are scientificly almost the same. If we can't observe it we can't do science.

The bottom line is that the universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude too small or too young for life to have assembled itself by natural processes.

This is a strange statement. First the article explains that the universe is very strange because it allows life to occur naturally while this requires a really special and rare type of universe. And then the article explains that it couldn't have happened naturally. We know everything just seemed to have happened naturally. No adjustments have been made. It all may be very unlikely, but it did happen. We don't know why but we don't see any adjustments either. It may be God has thought all this out and then watched it all happen. But this is pure speculation plus this is not what tha article claims.

Seems to me the article had two writers. One explaining some science and another drawing strange conclusions from them.

https://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200404_probabilities_for_life_on_earth.shtml
 Probability For Life On Earth

Again this is not about evolution. This time we deal with abiogenesis exclusively. I didn't consider abiogenesis in my previous posts because we haven't a clue and because the discussion was about evolution. Again these numbers used are very raw estimates and produce useless results.

I assume you mean young-earth creationism?

No. Creationism in general. Life on earth doesn't look designed, period. All mammals have backpains because of their 'stupid' spine, which is quite a good idea for a sea creature. The list goes on. I am not talking about directed evolution, but normal creationism just contradicts reality. The life forms on earth are just too inefficient, redundantly and stupidly put together to be designed. Or God/Lucifer designed life to look evolved, if you want to believe that.

It has been asserted that the Big Bang alone is proof of ID, or at least of an extra-universal Originator.

You are confusing things. There is no real Intelligent Design theory I can use but the Big Bang theory is about how the universe originated from a singularity 13.7 billion years ago that expanded to that what it is now. This is just what we observe. We don't know how or why it happened.

Intelligent Design is very unclear. But the point is that there is an intelligent designer in the total sum somewhere. I am not sure where I should put her to be able to give a clear example. I always throught it was about directed evolution, that God has some hand in creating mutations and seleting genes. But it also seems to be about the universe itself.

It seems that whereever there is a hole in a theory we put God:

We live in this very special universe with these very rare combinations of universal constants that make life possible. We don't know how or why so God did it.

We had a big bang 13,7 years ago. But we don't understand why a big bang could happen from nothing. God did it.

We don't know the abiogenesis/origin of life, through we know that after it appeared it evolved to what we see now. So God did it.

Then single cell life started to evolve and then multicellular life appeared. We don't understand how or why. God did it.

Then humans evolved. But we think they are very special, and it all happened very quick. Isn't that curious? And we don't know how and why. God did it.

[panic]

Oh, man. I can't wait to read this topic in full.

Personally I disagree with those who say evolution has ground to a halt. I think the new mechanism will be world overpopulation, drain on resources and destruction of the environment - perhaps it'll start to really take effect in the year 2200 or so. Perhaps there will be massive world strife over resources and the ones who make it through will be those with access to resources - the rich, who are not necessarily the most physically fit to survive as has always been the case in nature. I live in one of the richest communities in the U.S., although not personally wealthy, and it's weird to look around and think that it may be people like these that guide how the world community evolves.

My basic view on the evolution vs. creation argument is:
-Evolution has been scientifically proven and there is no need to tote the belief that it is somehow "wrong" any longer (19 of every 20 world countries have already accepted it)
-Evolution does not in any way refute the existence of God
-Religion is a necessary thing, however - it has given us holidays, architecture, festivals, great works of literature, and great music. Without it the world would be an impossibly cold place.

[yamagal]

Hello prometheus,

I thank you for the quick and complete reply, for taking a look at those links and for answering my questions.  I know those links do not cover evolution per se (haven't found anything really good & online yet - haven't looked very hard, though), but they do talk about probability and creation/nature and I was curious as to what your response would be, especially vis a vis the anthropic principle.  I would like to discuss this topic (evolution & probability) further but will not have much time for the next couple weeks, owing to the holidays, vacation, etc.  Plus I seem to be fighting off a cold.

One thing I would like to talk about is this idea that animals are poorly designed, therefore they must be products of God-free evolution rather than the planned work of a Creator.  I've read that elsewhere, a long time ago -- I forget if it was at talkorigins online, or in the pages of Scientific American. 

"All mammals have backpains because of their 'stupid' spine"

All mammals?  Back pains?  I would like to know the research behind this one.  How can we know this?

"The life forms on earth are just too inefficient, redundantly and stupidly put together to be designed."

Inefficient?  Compared to what, a manmade machine?  A star?  A virus?  Redundant?  Not sure what you mean here.  Is it redundant to have 2 lungs, 2 kidneys, 2 eyes, 2 ears?  If one fails, than you still have the other one.  That's how they design stuff on aircraft, redundancy (by way of backup systems) is built in for a higher factor of safety.  Stupidly put together??  I suppose we smart humans could do better..? 

I wonder, in making this claim about stupid design of lifeforms, if the entire biosphere is not being considered.  What looks stupid when viewed close-up makes more sense when viewed as part of the broader scheme of things.  For example:  the stupidly-designed horse, with skinny legs topped by a massive body, for whatever reason breaks a leg and goes down, and dies.  It becomes food for scavengers and microbes, the cleanup crew.  They benefit from the "stupid" design of the horse.

But is the horse that stupidly designed?  I am wondering if there would be any way to compare frequency of leg breaks of wild vs. domesticated horses.  Wild horses would be eating grasses, the diet for which they have been "designed".  Domesticated horses are fed grains in addition to grasses.  The grains are a human addition and render the horses' diet suboptimal, and might perhaps have an adverse effect on bone formation or some other aspect of the horses' health.  Also, domesticated horses are not living in conditions for which they were "designed":  they may be confined (relatively speaking), exercised infrequently (relatively speaking), etc.  I am not a "horse person" and this is all speculation (extrapolation based on reading about grass-fed cattle and bison), so I don't know if this is in any way on the mark.

Another "stupid design" claim that I have read is the one about how childbirth is a stupid process.  It is "unduly difficult" for women because their babies' heads are proportionally so large (compared to the heads of other newborn mammals).  It is asserted that women should have been designed with larger pelvic outlets, or babies should have been designed to be able to handle being born sooner, or etc.  This claim itself is stupid because the claimant's thinking has been muddled by the western notion of How To Give Birth, i.e. while confined to bed and in the "classic" lithotomy position, which constricts the pelvic outlet by up to 30% over upright or gravity-friendly postures.  That stupid, on-your-back hospital position is counter to physiology and sets the stage for all kinds of difficulties during birth. 

In contrast, the unhindered birth process is an incredible, intricate interplay between body (mom & baby) and instinct (mom & baby) with gravity assisting.  It is most helpful if the mother has quiet, privacy and complete freedom of movement and position during labor and birth.  None of these things is present in the typical hospital birth, at least not in the U.S.  Since the vast majority of American mothers choose to go the hospital route, the myth that birth is intrinsically painful and risky is perpetuated.  Only a few of us catch on and break free of that mindset. 

I can speak with some authority here because not only am I widely read on this topic, but I myself have given birth naturally 5 times, the last 3 at home & midwife-assisted, the youngest being 10lb and our easiest birth to date.  His birth was largely painless, too.  Getting off one's back makes a huge difference as to whether birth is easy or difficult.  I don't know if you have any interest whatsoever in childbirth, but maybe you could look at it from an evolutionary standpoint -- as a research topic.   Here are a few excellent sites that are great for cultural mythbusting:
 
https://www.unhinderedliving.com/childbirth.html
https://childbirth.org/
https://www.birthpsychology.com/messages/intro.html - interesting take on traditional hospital birth, from the excellent book Birth as an American Rite of Passage.

Any women reading this would do well to check out these sites if they are at all likely to bear children someday.  These sites and others are great for helping to break free of our cultural brainwashing about birth.

All this to say that a design that seems "stupid" at first glance might not actually be stupid at all.

[ada]

Sorry, but what does childbirth have to do with intelligent design? Childbirth is disgusting and painful and traumatic. Anyone who designed it must be a misogynist with a sick sense of humour.

oh yeah, but that's the whole point eh? It was part of god's punishment to womankind for being troublemakers and leading man astray. I haven't got my bible handy but didn't he get in that bit about women having to suffer bringing forth children while he was busy creating the world? So that's why women should suffer through childbirth without pain relief eh? Too right. So they should. Serves us right.

Well geez at least the god who created the earth was fair and reasonable kind of bloke. Nice touch on the women. But hey yeah, we were created as an afterthought out of Adam's rib, weren't we?

Come ON girls, get real, please.

Bring on the pethedine, I say.

[yamagal]

Sorry, but what does childbirth have to do with intelligent design? Childbirth is disgusting and painful and traumatic.

This is the cliche, western view of birth.  This is unfortunately how birth unfolds for many women because of hospital procedures and protocols (see previous post) and because women themselves have absorbed the idea that birth will be "the worst pain they will ever experience".  This view is presented relentlessly by the popular media, and many a "horror story" about birth has been passed from mother to daughter, or shared among friends. 

Decades ago, Dr. Grantly Dick-Read wrote of the fear-tension-pain cycle in birth.  In other words, women fear that birth will be painful, they tense up and fight labor sensations, and voila, they get pain.  But birth does not have to be this way, nor do we need to resort to epidurals or other drugs, which themselves carry a number of risks.

Anyone who designed it must be a misogynist with a sick sense of humour.

Nonsense.  I think many an obstetrician would fit that bill, actually.

oh yeah, but that's the whole point eh? It was part of god's punishment to womankind for being troublemakers and leading man astray. I haven't got my bible handy but didn't he get in that bit about women having to suffer bringing forth children while he was busy creating the world? So that's why women should suffer through childbirth without pain relief eh? Too right. So they should. Serves us right.

I did not say that women should suffer in childbirth.  I am saying that unhindered birth (unhindered by fear or unnatural interference) is a positive, straightforward process that can even be painfree for some.  Also, I firmly believe that many more women could have quite bearable births if they would simply learn how birth works, and respect their physiology instead of their doctors' convenience.  Birthing on one's back is certainly going about it the wrong way - it makes birth much more difficult than it needs to be by fighting gravity and constricting the pelvic outlet.  It all too often causes the "birth is suffering" mantra to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When you look at Gen. 3:16, consider the original language in which it was written.  The same word is used to describe Eve's experience of childbirth as is used to describe Adam's experience of cultivating the soil.  The word means toil, hard work.  Unfortunately, especially in modern Bible translations, the word is translated "pain" for Eve and "toil" (or equivalent) for Adam.  I feel this translation practice reflects modern biases, this modern cliche that birth is always going to be agony for women.

Bring on the pethedine, I say.

It is your choice.  You can dull the sensations if you prefer -- most women choose to.  But most of them have no idea what they have denied themselves.  Birth really isn't that bad, as long as it isn't undermined by standard medical procedure.  Yes, for some births, medical intervention is necessary and good, but many other births could unfold relatively easily and naturally if women and their doctors would only allow it.  You write "Get real, girls" as if those of us who advocate natural childbirth are the ones in denial.  On the contrary, it is the many who have chosen to continue in fear and ignorance, who have no clue what their bodies are truly capable of when it comes to childbirth, who are in denial.

[timothy42b]

But hey yeah, we were created as an afterthought out of Adam's rib, weren't we?

Well, no, you haven't read Genesis lately.

On the sixth day, God created man, male and female.  Nothing in there about making Eve out of Adam's rib.  Or Adam from mud, for that matter.

That is in the second creation story, the one that has man and the animals created in a different order from the first, and which most fundamentalists think is allegorical.  (The two stories cannot be reconciled, so it is necessary to assume one is literally true and the other is symbolic.) 

[pianistimo]

symbolic?  they were actually one flesh because of that.  no matter.  it's really hard to describe what your personal experiences have been to others -because childbirth is really a matter of faith, too.  you look at your stomach and think, how in the world is this watermelon getting out the 'natural' way - or any other way.  then, it's incredible what the body does.  to stretch that far, and back again.  nursing is the other half of childbirth that is unexplainable (yet explainable scientifically) - as how God made the woman's lactation to have an effect on her womb to tighten and close again.  often women experience this first as a sort of 'labor' after labor - because the contractions are quite intense the first day - but after that - it's much better.

another thing i find amazing is the body's ability to heal from broken bones or cuts.  that's no casual creation.  when my leg was broken - a lot of stuff was released into the blood stream from the inside of the bone.  how it comes out of the body through waste is  the first thing. then, the leg swelled to 3x the size (or more) and it makes a sort of 'natural cast' so the leg is semi-immobile (you might notice this if you sprain an ankle).  then, i felt the bone healing together again, and lastly, these sort of bee-sting like pains around my knee.  i know that i pulled tendons-  how does the leg know how to constrict - pull the tendons and ligaments together, and repair them - inside of me?  it's like you feel each thing happenning (sometimes several at a time) and just marvel how God made it so perfect.  the perfection of the creation as well as it's ability to perfect itself again!  what God made was originally 'good'  so i don't think we can judge if we can't create anything better.

[prometheus]

The second chapter of genesis just contradicts the first one. It makes no sense.

I don't really understand how one can say that part of the bible is allegorical while another part is literal. You will end up selecting parts you prefer to be allegorical as allegorical texts and the same with the literal texts. So you either have no idea, which is probamatic. Or you either say the bible is totally literal, which cannot be because it contradicts itself. Or the bible is totally allegorical. From the point of logic I can't see how the bible can be a basis of a faith.

Actually, there are 74 different interpretations of the first paragraph of Genesis 1:1.

Another humiliating fact is that theologians don't even agree on the ten commandments. And if you look at the actual text it is easy to see how this can be because it doesn't make sense. If there are going to be ten rules then line them up as ten rules. It seems people have added commentary to the original commandments and some religions have made an individual commandment out of the commentary.


Back to the discussion. The childbirth issue, first off I am very skeptical. But this is irrelevant. The fact remains that many people will have a painful experience because of the way childbirth occurs.

The problem with humans is that the head of the baby is too big because of the brain, which actually grows a lot more after birth than the brains of other mammals. If the human body was to be designed and the designer settled on a creature with a huge brain then the obvious solution would be to have childbirth not occur through the pelvis. This would be a minor adjustment.

But if creatures evolved then this very simple adjustment would not be so simple because all our ancestors give birth through the pelvis already. So what happened? Babies are born several months too early. Our babies are totally helpless while most other mammals that give birth to one child have more able babies that learn to walk almost instantly. If babies are born later they are way too big to fit through. Also, the female body has made other adjustments. It is obvious that the 'design' was adjusted and not redesigned.

Another thing about human reproduction. When a egg cell gets fertilized then numbers range from 15 to 50 percent that the fertilized eggs/embryo get ejected at some time without the mother even realising she was pregnant. Seems like a strange error margin for a design. Not to mention the amount of sperm cells needed to fertilize an egg cell. Or what about the continous production of sperm cells in males. I don't want to make a genocide joke, but what kind of design is this?

For more suggestions how to redesign the human anatomy look here: https://www.dnaftb.org/bioinformatics/Resources/sciam/sciam_p94.pdf

So humans can make a better design than God would have done if ID is right. You can discuss if God would make a perfect design. But that is a theological discussion and not a scientific one. If humans were designed by an intelligence we would have looked differently. So ID makes inaccurate prediictions and is therefore useless as a scientific theory. And actually, a scientific version of ID has never been proposed. ID is not part of science.

[pianistimo]

if God created everything good - he must have made a way for childbirth to have been normally much easier.  in our day we have people with diabetes and many other complications from diet and lack of exercise (obesity) that sometimes are at risk for larger babies than normal.

i'm not against science and theology combined - and think that if it weren't for the ability of doctors to perform cesearan sections - many babies and women would die.

but, if death, also is a natural part of life - and has been around for many years - who are we to tell God when it is correct for us to die.  I'm not saying that i wouldn't choose to have my baby live by getting a cesearan section - but some women die from the section and natural childbirth, too.  so either way, childbirth is still a risk for some women more than others.

and, in terms of a conflict on allegory vs fact in the bible- i believe that when Christ told parables - he told us that they were such.  there is no such statement in genesis by God.  (that this was an allegorical story).  there is no allegory to the ten commandments.  the things that were spoken are real - unless proven otherwise (which no one can disprove them - especially since archeology keeps revealing the truth of the bible).  in iraq there are places that have uncovered tablets with phonecian writing that tell about the flood and events that are also biblical.  we see many places that are spoken of in the bible as real locations even now. 

to my way of thinking, it's better to take a small risk for something with huge potential, than a huge risk for something small like death forever.  i like the idea of a challenge and looking into the heavens and galaxies as a beginning to a journey that will be heavenly when we understand our true potential (that God made us like him, in the image female/male now) and that we are like caterpillars that go into a cocoon and emerge butterflies.  we have no idea what a spirit body would be like - to feel no physical pain, to be able to ascend to God's throne?  what will it look like?  what will God be like?  look like? talk like?  i'm very curious.  we know, even now, He can be reasoned with.  that is why he makes himself analogous to a judge (in several parables).  He is the judge of this earth that He has made.  He has given us lawbooks, and also freedom by His sons sacrifice to redeem ourselves with His blood.  He's a good teacher - and teaches by example.

[leahcim]

if death, also is a natural part of life - and has been around for many years - who are we to tell God when it is correct for us to die?

The people that gave him existence, eternal life, omnipotance, omnipresence, a beard and so on. He should be grateful, if we'd been Egyptian he could have had a pig's head and man boobs.

[prometheus]

but, if death, also is a natural part of life - and has been around for many years - who are we to tell God when it is correct for us to die.

https://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

[ada]

Dear Yamagal

I do hate to harp on about this but I would like to set the record straight and present another less rose-coloured perspective on childbirth.

I have been there myself so I too am talking from personal experience. I had a baby in a birth centre with a midwife, no pain relief, not a thing, not a whiff of gas or a drop of opiate. Sure I was up and walking around soon after and I experienced the entire thing with glorious clarity and without being off my face on drugs.

I'd rather that than being trussed up in stirrups and at the mercy of a bunch of whitecoats but I can tell you it f***ing hurt.

 It was no walk in the park. It was exhausting and painful and messy and raw and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.

This is the cliche, western view of birth. This is unfortunately how birth unfolds for many women because of hospital procedures and protocols (see previous post) and because women themselves have absorbed the idea that birth will be "the worst pain they will ever experience". This view is presented relentlessly by the popular media, and many a "horror story" about birth has been passed from mother to daughter, or shared among friends.

I get a bit suspicious of people who try to construct childbirth as some sort of spiritual rite that women have to experience to be whole. This is nonsense. This is a myth perpetuated by a patriarchal society bent on keeping women silent and in their place as  attractive packages for a womb.

To not let women know the real truth about childbirth is the real conspiracy.

In fact, the whole motherhood myth  is a conspiracy and we're experiencing someing thing of nasty little backlash at the moment but don't get me started. I'm off topic again already.

You write "Get real, girls" as if those of us who advocate natural childbirth are the ones in denial. On the contrary, it is the many who have chosen to continue in fear and ignorance, who have no clue what their bodies are truly capable of when it comes to childbirth, who are in denial.

You misunderstand me yamagal. I am not an opponent of natural birth at all; quite the contrary. I just think we should be truthful here. My comment "get real" refers to your belief in such a blatantly sexist and male-centric religion.

apologies, from ada

[pianistimo]

both men and women have experienced pain from the choice that adam and eve made.  women can try to be like men as much as they want - but they will never supercede them.  same for a man trying to be like a woman.  it doesn't get you anywhere.  it's a false hope to abandon having children at all - or give up on God.  He doesn't want us to have pain.  sin, pain, death - it all goes together in this mode that we are in.  but, it's not the final place that we are in forever and ever.  character is built.  how can you ever see what you are capable of unless you have something to test it against.  if the bible is correct, which i believe it is, then the reason for our existence is to learn to love despite difficulties in our lives, despite our children doing things we wish they would just learn by us telling them (respect?), to care for others, to basically give up on our ideas of fortune and perfection and be content with what we are given and learn to be happy.  when you relax and just let be - trials, whether they are childbirth or a job related difficulty can turn in your favor.  for christians, part of coping is prayer - to have the strength to finish or do whatever it is we're supposed to.

[ada]

God...doesn't want us to have pain.

So what exactly does he mean by telling eve "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children"? Is it that he doesn't want us to have pain, he just wants us to be miserable? I see.

And he's also decreed that husbands should "rule over' their wives. Fine and good. Just the way it should be. Just a hop skip and jump to god-sanctioned domestic violence.

Does god also sanction incest? the bible kind of glosses over who young Enoch's mum was. Who was she, out of interest? Surely not eve? that would be too gross. Equally gross if it was his sister, although she doesn't rate a mention, but then she's just a female isn't she? Or was Enoch's mother perhaps another woman god whipped up from a spare rib?

I'm sorry to be sarcastic but you see it's just so silly! How can otherwise apparently intelligent people take this dross literally???  I just don't get  it.

[leahcim]

both men and women have experienced pain from the choice that adam and eve made. 

If you try living without pain for a week, you'll go straight back.

[prometheus]

Some people are born with a defict so they cannot experience pain. They have all kinds of problems. They frequently burn their bodies for example.

Pain is never the problem. Fitting the baby through a hole that's too small is.

[timothy42b]

And he's also decreed that husbands should "rule over' their wives. Fine and good. Just the way it should be. Just a hop skip and jump to god-sanctioned domestic violence.

I'm sorry to be sarcastic but you see it's just so silly! How can otherwise apparently intelligent people take this dross literally???  I just don't get  it.

Well, you might want to remember that "Thou shalt not kill" is actually not in the ten commandments at all.

And that is the answer to your last question.  People don't actually read it themselves.  Much of it is silly if you read carefully.  Much of it has great wisdom read in the right way - but that is not literally.  For about 1800 years people have read the Bible for the symbolic wisdom - including those who wrote the bible.  In the last 90 years a few wacko fundamentalists have jumped to the conclusion it is all literal, except for those places that aren't.  The fact that there are contradictions impossible to explain is just ignored - no need to read those parts.

On the commandments thing:  there are four places in the Old Testament that have some elements of what we commonly think are the Ten Commandments.  Three of them don't seem to have ten - more like 19 to 23.  So you have to mingle and merge to get traditional Ten, and they don't really make sense.  Fortunately, there is one and only one place in the Bible that says "These are THE Ten Commandments."  (Exodus 34, if you're interested.   But you're not.)  Unfortunately, it does NOT include "Thou shalt not kill," or any of the common ones you'd expect.  But don't worry, it does have "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk."  (Don't boil your dinner in goat's milk.)  This is good, I've never even wanted to violate that one and am unlikely to go to hell over it. 

[Dazzer]

thought this is a interesting find

https://www.disenchanted.com/dis/lookup.html?node=1860

[prometheus]

Cool story and it seems to be totally accurate.

So these mutated cancer cells really became a new form of life. I should note that this isn't a real form of evolution. While it does show how flexible and messy the system is. There is no added complexity or function. On the contrary; almost all of it is lost.

The funny thing is that the human genome is present in those cells DNA but it turned into total junk DNA.

About taking things litterally. This is common. Take Plato's Atlantis. Almost every Plato expert agrees this is an allegory. But the Atlantis story got a life of its own and now several 'Atlantisis' have been found. Funny thing is that no one takes Plato's other Allegoric stories literally. No one is looking for Plato's cave.

The same thing happened with the Holy Grail. Some fiction writer called Chrétien de Troyes wrote a story about a Holy Grail. The same person also wrote some of the King Arthur stories.

[yamagal]

Dear Ada,

The fact is that there is a broad range of sensation when it comes to unmedicated childbirth.  Many would call what they experience pain.  Others would say it is intense, but painless (that would be me - I have no pain except when my back temporarily hurts as baby's head descends into pelvis).  A few would even classify the sensations of giving birth as ecstatic, similar to what they felt when baby was first started.   There are many, many online birth stories and websites that you can find by a simple search, that attest to this. 

I think it is as incorrect to say that drugfree birth is always painful, as it is to say that all women can have naturally painless births (which is *not* what I have been saying).  All I'm saying is that I believe many women could have easier and more comfortable births than they are having, and not by resorting to drugs, either.

I have had 5 midwife-assisted births, the first two in hospital.  Those were the most difficult because I was made to stay in bed, and to gave birth on my back in the "classic" position with feet up.  I almost passed out because I had to push so hard to get those babies out.  You are fighting gravity in that position, which makes things much more difficult for mom and baby.

Our last 3 births were at home and they were much easier, especially the last 2.  I had complete freedom of movement and position.  Our youngest weighed 10lb at birth, yet his birth was much easier than our first two babies' had been, because I stayed off my back.  Yet I clearly recall what our first midwife told me, years ago (with babies #1 and 2)... that I had a "compact pelvis" and that if either of those babies had been 1/2 oz larger (they each weighed 7lb 6oz), I would have had to have been c-sectioned.  That is total nonsense, but when you (general you) are stuck in the "mom has to give birth on her back" mindset, it seems perfectly reasonable. 

My perspective on birth is by no means rose-colored.  If anything, the general consensus on birth is much too negative, and inaccurate, because of how most births are "done" in the western world. 

I get a bit suspicious of people who try to construct childbirth as some sort of spiritual rite that women have to experience to be whole. This is nonsense.

I did not say this and am not sure if you are implying it's what I wrote.  I agree with you that it's nonsense.

This is a myth perpetuated by a patriarchal society bent on keeping women silent and in their place as  attractive packages for a womb.

Western society has gone post-patriarchal and postmodern.  There are subcultures within western society that remain patriarchal, or that look patriarchal on the surface, but are in fact egalitarian.  As long as the adults in those subcultures are there by their own free will, I see nothing wrong with it.  Women have a choice today and if they choose to be stay-at-home moms, with dad the breadwinner, that's fine by me.

To not let women know the real truth about childbirth is the real conspiracy.

I think women are snowed under by info that childbirth is always agonizing and dangerous, therefore it must always happen in a medical setting with all the bells and whistles available.  But it's those very procedures and protocols that can often put mother and baby at risk.  The obstetric model views pregnancy and birth as a disaster waiting to happen.  I very much prefer the traditional midwifery model.  Sounds like you do, too.

You misunderstand me yamagal. I am not an opponent of natural birth at all; quite the contrary. I just think we should be truthful here. My comment "get real" refers to your belief in such a blatantly sexist and male-centric religion.

Christianity originally was *not* sexist and was quite a departure at the time.  For example, Paul wrote, (Galatians 3:28) "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."  But people are good at messing things up, and the *institution* of the Christian church, Catholic and later Protestant, and broader society, was quite sexist. 

Also, I don't think God was telling Adam that he "should' rule over his wife.  I think he was stating flatly that this is what would happen as a result of the Fall.  That in his fallen, selfish state, Adam (and men in general) would be inclined to rule the roost.  I have also heard it taught that the original Hebrew of "your desire shall be to your husband" indicated that Eve would desire her husband's place or position of power... meaning that marriage would (or could) entail a power struggle.  I think the original intent for marriage was that it would be egalitarian and harmonious.  This is something that is certainly worth striving for, even though we all struggle with power issues from time to time.

I wish I could participate more here, but I really need to stay away till after New Year's.  I have really appreciated this dialogue and especially pianistimo's posts - the one about the leg healing up was especially good and interesting. 

[rob47]

What is the
view on evolution?

[yamagal]

Sorry to continue to drag this thread further off track, but I have a feeling I'm going to get called on the carpet for this claim:

"Christianity originally was *not* sexist and was quite a departure at the time.  For example, Paul wrote, (Galatians 3:28) "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." "

After further thought, I remembered that there are several passages in the NT that could definitely be seen as sexist.  Like the ones about how women should not teach men in church, and that women should be silent in church.  What of those?

Here is a page that talks about this in historical context. 

"Women should be silent in the churches" - Did Paul really write this?  Explains how Paul's original vision for the churches was full equality for men and women, and how this was suppressed with succeeding generations.

[prometheus]

The civilizations from the OT are comperable to the Taliban.

But the romans and greeks where quite liberal with a lot of things. So possibly the early christians too. But when we reached the middle ages the catholic church rewrote history and the bible was written as we now know it. They of course were very anti woman. So it is hard to know the original stories which the bible is based on.

[timothy42b]

"Women should be silent in the churches" - Did Paul really write this?  Explains how Paul's original vision for the churches was full equality for men and women, and how this was suppressed with succeeding generations.

Oh please.

This is apologetics in its worst form.

Anything disagreeable in the Bible must be a forgery sneaked in.  Anything we like is the inspired Word of God, literal and without error.  And we tell the difference by, er, um, well we just know it. 

The fact is that even a cursory reading of Paul's works suggests a sincere and faithful man who had not a clue about his own sexuality or women.  The entire history of Christianity might have been different had he been a bit more self actualized.  (A "confident" heterosexual, if you remember Rustler's Rhapsody." 

Reading it in that context, we realize that the NT writers and the NT times society did discriminate against women.  We have made progress since then - they were simply wrong.  This is how over time we come closer to realizing the nature of God, and therefore slavishly worshipping the scriptures holds us back and is evil.  There are other examples.  We now know that homosexuality is not a sin, merely an orientation, and the church needs to open its doors, despite the fact that the early church did not.  Capital punishment was routine in those days, nobody in the church opposed it.  Yet today many faithful people have prayerfully come to the position they must oppose it.  Is this wrong, because the early church hadn't got there yet?  No, of course not.  Safe medical abortion was unknown in Biblical times.  In the OT causing an abortion or miscarriage was not a crime at all.  (life began and was defined by breathing, so no murder could exist prior to that time)  However monetary compensation was required if you caused somebody else's wife to miscarry after a certain time.  No crime, just obligation.  Now many religious people would argue otherwise.  Right?  wrong?  Well, wrong certainly on purely biblical basis, but perhaps we have come further, or could come further. 

[yamagal]

Oh please.

This is apologetics in its worst form.

Anything disagreeable in the Bible must be a forgery sneaked in.  Anything we like is the inspired Word of God, literal and without error.  And we tell the difference by, er, um, well we just know it. 

::sigh::  Ok, try this article:  Patriarchy, Is It God's Order?  Quote:

"The early church did not embrace patriarchy, teaching that both male and female are created in the image of God.  The scripture shows men and women moving together to spread the gospel.  The few scriptures that seem to limit the ministry of women stand in stark contrast to the whole of the record.  In the last few years, traditional understanding of a woman’s “place” has become even more suspect as scholarship has provided accurate translation and interpretation of these passages.  (3). 

"So what went wrong?  As Christianity spread through the Gentile world and a second generation of Christians emerged, equality and freedom slowly faded. Replaced by the traditional male domination that filled secular society, Greek philosophy and pagan customs made their way into Christianity.  The church adopted the secular governmental structure of the Roman Empire.  Clergy separated from laity, and women were barred from this new ministerial class. (4) The supernatural gifts of the Spirit, so present in the early church, were stifled; and the Dark Ages fell on the church. 

"The attitudes of the early church fathers were molded by pagan ideas that women are evil, inferior, unequal and unclean. (5)  These concepts along with Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy influenced how they interpreted Scriptures as they applied to women and male/female relationships.  Their writings birthed traditional theology, which generally displaced Jesus' teaching about women.(6)"

Also, Ada is right in that patriarchy still exists in the undercurrents of modern society, e.g.

"Even in developed countries, male primacy, while not as blatant as it was even twenty-five years ago, is still clearly present in society and in the home."

I was saying more that it's being removed as the "official" way modern society operates, if that makes any sense.  In the realms of media, academia, and government.  Also, many married couples now try to be more egalitarian and less patriarchal than in past generations.

In the OT causing an abortion or miscarriage was not a crime at all.  (life began and was defined by breathing, so no murder could exist prior to that time)  However monetary compensation was required if you caused somebody else's wife to miscarry after a certain time.  No crime, just obligation.  Now many religious people would argue otherwise. 

I wouldn't go so far as to say "causing an abortion or miscarriage was not a crime at all."  It was considered a crime (appear before judge, pay a fine), just not one punishable by death.  Pro-life Christians do use that passage (Exodus 21:22-25) *together with* Psalm 139 and other verses to  justify their stand on abortion.  I think Ps. 139:13-15 clearly speaks to the humanity of the unborn, and of God's care for the unborn.  My own view is that the life of the unborn should be respected and preserved if at all possible.