Theistic Evolution?

[emotel]

Religion contains real information, but you do not consider it so.

The reason for that is that I can’t find any such real information.

It is the position of the Catholic Church that science and faith are complementary.

What option does the Church have there. If it claims that science is wrong then it lays itself open to a re-run of the Galileo scenario. So the question is:- “How does the Church Justify that claim?”.

You seem to reject evolutionary science as do some others here. So some levels of compatibility with science seem vastly superior to others and some go against the official position of the Church.

What you define as truth is limited. This is not meant as a criticism of your position from a factual standpoint. It is meant to point out that the Church has valid information. If you do not wish to consider this information, that is your choice.

I do wish to consider that information but, as I said I can’t find any that isn’t either: confirmed by science, of no direct bearing to the big questions, more than just tradition or unsubstantiated belief, or wrong. I thought that this might be a good place to look because this kind of communications ability didn’t exist when I was a Catholic.

However, as some complain that religious believers are annoying due to their prostelytizing the faith, you are attempting to use this forum for a similar purpose. Your constant insistence that your facts makes some of our beliefs untrue is an incomplete argument because, from the Catholic perspective, it lacks vital information.

I seek the truth and I see a lot of truth and integrity is science. If I lack vital information then I seek that also. Where can I find it?

Catholics will not be making decisions based on your factual assertions since we have aditional, complementary information.

How can they know ( rather than just believe that they know) what science cannot know?

So it is not a case of ignoring any facts, but as Pope John Paul II brought up, the facts do not ground the dignity of man. The fact of the matter is that this dignity comes from God and purely mechanistic ideas do not include it.

I can’t see that the evolutionary explanation detracts from human dignity. It surely enhances it? That was also Darwin’s view. He saw “exaltations” and “Grandeur” in it all:
Charles Darwin:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

It also means that because we are now the only species who understands the origin of life we have a profound duty and responsibility for this planet and all it contains. We are “in charge here”.

Duty, Responsibility and Dominion over all are surely the correlates of dignity are they not?

Emotel

 

[emotel]

This might be part of the “cosmic vengeance” you brought up before. Interestingly, disease also seems to play a part in evolutionary trends too. I suspect that incidents like this have probably played a part in the evolution of life on Earth before.

Yes indeed, our immune system is the result of an “Arms Race” with disease organisms. The AIDS virus has evolved to keep infected people alive as long as possible to maximise the chances of passing its genes onto other people.

Many other disease organisms have evolved immunity to our antibiotics.

The Spartans of Ancient Greece understood the principle of selection:

historywiz.com/didyouknow/spartanfamily.htm

as did animal breeders who inspired Darwin.

And it is not outside the realm of God’s Providence to allow bad things to bring about good things too.

By definition, nothing is outside the providence of an all powerful God. Except perhaps the logically impossible.

So who created the AIDS virus and all the other disease organisms if they didn’t evolve naturally?

Who created Satan and allowed him to decieve the naively innocent Adam and Eve.

Why isn’t God able to always do good in good ways?

And why the cosmic vengeneance visited on the whole human race because people who would be putty in the hands of a second-hand car salesman were duped by the supernatural Prince of Darkness?

None of that makes sense to me as a model of reality. The explanatory power of the theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection is, in comparison, rather spectacular in its ability to answer one of the really big questionsl: “Where did we come from”.

Emotel.

 

[The_Barbarian]

We are all descended from hydrogen.

Plus a little helium, and maybe just a touch of lithium. The other elements were fused in the cores of stars. We are made from the stuff of stars.

I think it’s a pretty good conclusion given the raw data.

Yep.

 

[a_priori]

Yes Evolutionary Theory delivers enormous explanatory power that is backed up by evidence. If it can be shown to be wrong then science and scientists would not object to that. They would be very interested in the argument.

Yes, it does deliver enormous explanatory power. This explanatory power describes a very lengthy and wonderful process. But it cannot be writ large to bring us to any understanding of a First Cause setting it in motion.

We are laboring in a little corner of the basement and have convinced ourselves that we understand the entire house and the neighborhood as well.

Describing the automobile assembly line in great detail does not bring us to an understanding of the design process at its inception. It merely decribes how the cars arrive at their final configuration after having undergone well understood assembly process. Who visualized the completed auto and then built the processes necessary to bring it into the world as an auto?

I don’t think we will ever agree here because you seem to hold that the process (ns) is sufficient to have initiated and informed itself to bring about life as it now exists. Describing the process doesn’t answer the big questions, it just reflects them.

Yes Science doesn’t know where the Universe came from and I cannot know what science doesn’t know. So I don’t know where it came from.

At the end of the day, my friend, we are on the same page in this regard.

BTW, if you hear that Pinker is speaking anywhere in New England could you give me a “heads up”? Thanks.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Yes, it does deliver enormous explanatory power. This explanatory power describes a very lengthy and wonderful process. But it cannot be writ large to bring us to any understanding of a First Cause setting it in motion.

It’s not supposed to. For that, you have to use other means of knowing.

We are laboring in a little corner of the basement and have convinced ourselves that we understand the entire house and the neighborhood as well.

Maybe some of you do. Scientists are quite aware of the vast body of knowledge yet to be learned. We stand on the shores of an unexplored ocean.

Describing the automobile assembly line in great detail does not bring us to an understanding of the design process at its inception.

Actually, it can. It’s called “reverse engineering”, and it works. But nature is not designed in the sense that automobiles are designed.

I don’t think we will ever agree here because you seem to hold that the process (ns) is sufficient to have initiated and informed itself to bring about life as it now exists.

Right. God is a lot smarter and more effective than any “designer.” Amazing universe He gave us.

 

[emotel]

Yes, it does deliver enormous explanatory power. This explanatory power describes a very lengthy and wonderful process. But it cannot be writ large to bring us to any understanding of a First Cause setting it in motion.

Hmm… If there was a first cause, it was intelligent and we can understand that it chose to take 4,000,000,000 years of carnage, pain and terror to arrive at a few megabytes of data that fit easily on a USB memory stick then our understanding of that entity is surely not a completely empty vessel?

We can surely deduce that the chosen process was, for whatever reason, inefficient to cosmic levels. Unless, that is, the real purpose was to wallow in the pain and anguish that continues yet in accordance with the “law of the Jungle”. Humans have made impressive efforts to repeal the law of the jungle but there is much work yet to do.

If we look for a “first cause” then Satan seems the most likely candidate to me.

We are laboring in a little corner of the basement and have convinced ourselves that we understand the entire house and the neighborhood as well.

I see the labour in a basement corner but I don’t see the conviction. Science is very clear about what it can explain and what it cannot explain. I don’t claim to be able to explain the whole house and I have never heard a scientist of repute make such a claim. The “Theory Of Everything” is notoriously elusive.

Describing the automobile assembly line in great detail does not bring us to an understanding of the design process at its inception. It merely decribes how the cars arrive at their final configuration after having undergone well understood assembly process. Who visualized the completed auto and then built the processes necessary to bring it into the world as an auto?

I love analogy and that’s a good one. It highlight’s one of the big questions and science says clearly and honestly that it doesn’t know the answer. Meanwhile, the process of auto manufacture remains very interesting does it not?

I don’t think we will ever agree here …

I don’t agree that we will never agree. If we are both honest and there is only one truth then agreement is but a matter of time and information.

because you seem to hold that the process (ns) is sufficient to have initiated and informed itself to bring about life as it now exists. Describing the process doesn’t answer the big questions, it just reflects them.

Well, I have never said that and it is not my view. So I’ll clearly state the opposite (which ***IS ***my view) The theory of evolutionary biology is most decidedly not sufficient to explain the existence of the universe. It restricts itself to how autos are assembled given that the factory exists.

At the end of the day, my friend, we are on the same page in this regard.

Doesn’t that mean that at the end of the day we will be in agreement?

BTW, if you hear that Pinker is speaking anywhere in New England could you give me a “heads up”? Thanks.

If you can get past his haircut ( he really does look like that ) his lecture schedule is up on his website. I met him on his visit to Edinburgh University in Scotland.

pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

Right. God is a lot smarter and more effective than any “designer.” Amazing universe He gave us.

No that isn’t right.

I hold no such view.

… and anyway… How do you know that our amazing Universe wasn’t created by Satan so that he could wallow in 4,000,000,000 years of carnage, pain and terror?

Emotel.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Right. God is a lot smarter and more effective than any “designer.” Amazing universe He gave us.

No that isn’t right.

Sure looks like that.

I hold no such view.

I am truly sorry.

… and anyway… How do you know that our amazing Universe wasn’t created by Satan so that he could wallow in 4,000,000,000 years of carnage, pain and terror?

I notice that nature is pretty much O.K. Humans are the problem. And that pretty much because they rebel at their place in the world.

I’ve spent a lot of time observing animals in nature. Most of them seem pretty happy, most of the time.

The terror of a predator attacking, or lingering death is not the whole world for them. It’s bits of bad and good together.

Pretty much like my life. And I’ve had pain and suffering and anguish and I’ll someday die.

Still happy.

 

[emotel]

I notice that nature is pretty much O.K.

Would you think that if you were, say, a sardine?

They seem to have to contend with: sharks, dolphins and gulls who eat them in great profusion. Those that survive these “natural” predatorial hazards have a high probability of ending up in a tin on a shelf in a supermarket.

But then, thoses that evade these hazards do get to have fun spawning the next gereration.

Humans are the problem. And that pretty much because they rebel at their place in the world.

Gosh! You seem to be saying that Humans have a defined “Place in the world”!

Please tell! I would love to know what that is.

I’ve spent a lot of time observing animals in nature. Most of them seem pretty happy, most of the time.

The terror of a predator attacking, or lingering death is not the whole world for them. It’s bits of bad and good together.

When I approach a wild animal in my garden ( We get squirrels and lots of birds) they react with alarm and leave as quickly as they can.

O I concealed myself and I captured a video of a sparrow hawk tearing a pigeon apart and eating it.

It’s entirely possible that the pigeon was entirely happy about that becaus he lived longer and produced more offspring than pigeons that worried about being eaten by sparrow hawks.

I worry about why it’s call a Sparrow hawk when it eats pigeons?

Emotel.

 

[Camron]

Yes indeed, our immune system is the result of an “Arms Race” with disease organisms. The AIDS virus has evolved to keep infected people alive as long as possible to maximize the chances of passing its genes onto other people.

Many other disease organisms have evolved immunity to our antibiotics.

The Spartans of Ancient Greece understood the principle of selection:

historywiz.com/didyouknow/spartanfamily.htm

as did animal breeders who inspired Darwin.

For this I have really not much doubt. The science is valid. I really have no problem with theistic evolution.

By definition, nothing is outside the providence of an all powerful God. Except perhaps the logically impossible.

So who created the AIDS virus and all the other disease organisms if they didn’t evolve naturally?

I’m quite sure that evolution created them.

Who created Satan and allowed him to deceive the naively innocent Adam and Eve.

Satan created his own evil in my opinion. He was originally good.

Why isn’t God able to always do good in good ways?

It seems to me that whatever He has done is good. It also seems that whatever good He has done is sufficient.

And why the cosmic vengeance visited on the whole human race because people who would be putty in the hands of a second-hand car salesman were duped by the supernatural Prince of Darkness?

The problem with this assertion is that, being created in original justice, they did have the sufficient grace necessary to withstand the assault of the fallen angel.

None of that makes sense to me as a model of reality.

It’s probably because you seem to be viewing them as children. Others might have that opinion. I don’t. They knew full well what they were doing and the evil that it would bring.

The explanatory power of the theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection is, in comparison, rather spectacular in its ability to answer one of the really big questions: “Where did we come from”.

Emotel.

No doubt. But I don’t have a problem with evolution. Before evolution even started, however, there is much doubt involved, especially the very beginning.

 

[edwest2]

The reason for that is that I can’t find any such real information.

What option does the Church have there. If it claims that science is wrong then it lays itself open to a re-run of the Galileo scenario. So the question is:- “How does the Church Justify that claim?”.

You seem to reject evolutionary science as do some others here. So some levels of compatibility with science seem vastly superior to others and some go against the official position of the Church.

I do wish to consider that information but, as I said I can’t find any that isn’t either: confirmed by science, of no direct bearing to the big questions, more than just tradition or unsubstantiated belief, or wrong. I thought that this might be a good place to look because this kind of communications ability didn’t exist when I was a Catholic.

I seek the truth and I see a lot of truth and integrity is science. If I lack vital information then I seek that also. Where can I find it?

How can they know ( rather than just believe that they know) what science cannot know?

I can’t see that the evolutionary explanation detracts from human dignity. It surely enhances it? That was also Darwin’s view. He saw “exaltations” and “Grandeur” in it all:

It also means that because we are now the only species who understands the origin of life we have a profound duty and responsibility for this planet and all it contains. We are “in charge here”.

Duty, Responsibility and Dominion over all are surely the correlates of dignity are they not?

Emotel

There is no dignity if you are simply following programming that is embedded in your genes. If you are just an organic robot there is no basis for any sort of dignity. Your genes predetermine how you will respond to your environment, and those responses are preprogrammed to make certain that you and your family group or tribe reproduces successfully. Just look up the peer reviewed journal Evolutionary Psychology. They will explain it to you. Your abstract thoughts are just your genes again, pumping feel good chemicals into your brain so that you will perform all the necessary functions for successful reproduction.

What are we in charge of? The deaths of over 100 million people in the last century? The ongoing abortion of millions of human beings? Governments don’t want expensive environmental controls, they want more money than they can know what to do with even as they choke to death.

Darwin is dead. What he thought about anything does not matter today.

I am against Stephen Jay Gould worship, “I don’t want to believe, I want to know!”

The final answer exists outside the narrow confines of the scientific method in divine revelation. If you regard that as mythical or unscientific, then I cannot help you further in that regard. However, there is a flaw in man in every generation that is not genetic. The Church talks about it in detail.

And this dialogue was possible for Catholics even before the internet, but the following of the mind of man, and the restriction of limiting the truth to the five senses, got in the way.

If you are just a mobile collection of chemicals programmed by your genes, then this exchange has little actual meaning. Please consider that.

God bless,
Ed

 

[emotel]

For this I have really not much doubt. The science is valid. I really have no problem with theistic evolution.

Does this mean that you accept the general picture of what human beings are and how they function that is currently presented by evolutionary psychology?

Satan created his own evil in my opinion. He was originally good.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? How can you know what science doesn’t know?

It seems to me that whatever He has done is good. It also seems that whatever good He has done is sufficient.

Ditto.

The problem with this assertion is that, being created in original justice, they did have the sufficient grace necessary to withstand the assault of the fallen angel.

That doesn’t make sense to me. If the grace was “sufficient” then why did they demonstrate insufficient grace by sinning?

Where do Adam and Eve figure in the evolutionary scheme of things? When did this happen? Did they have parents? Could they speak a language? Did they know about fire? Etc.

It’s probably because you seem to be viewing them as children. Others might have that opinion. I don’t. They knew full well what they were doing and the evil that it would bring.

So you think that Adam and Eve could see clearly into the future? If that was true than why did they choose that future? Surely the point is that the serpent painted a different futue and duped them into believing that it was atainable? Isn’t that how deception works?

No doubt. But I don’t have a problem with evolution. Before evolution even started, however, there is much doubt involved, especially the very beginning.

Tell me then. Where, in the evolutionary model, did Adam and Eve appear?

Emotel.

 

[edwest2]

It’s not supposed to. For that, you have to use other means of knowing.

Maybe some of you do. Scientists are quite aware of the vast body of knowledge yet to be learned. We stand on the shores of an unexplored ocean.

Actually, it can. It’s called “reverse engineering”, and it works. But nature is not designed in the sense that automobiles are designed.

Right. God is a lot smarter and more effective than any “designer.” Amazing universe He gave us.

I must disagree with your designer reference. You seem to have only political concerns regarding it, which is not relevant to the faith. Pope John Paul II spoke of actual design in nature. Cardinal Schoenborn has written about it. Censoring this idea from that standpoint closes off or dismisses access to a real idea, free of political concerns.

God bless,
Ed

 

[emotel]

There is no dignity if you are simply following programming that is embedded in your genes.

I agree with that.

If you are just an organic robot there is no basis for any sort of dignity. Your genes predetermine how you will respond to your environment, and those responses are preprogrammed to make certain that you and your family group or tribe reproduces successfully. Just look up the peer reviewed journal Evolutionary Psychology. They will explain it to you. Your abstract thoughts are just your genes again, pumping feel good chemicals into your brain so that you will perform all the necessary functions for successful reproduction.

But I don’t agree with that.

You bear false witness against evolutionary psychology. It does not say what you say it says.

Here’s what Richard Dawkins wrote in “The Selfish Gene” in 1976
Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene 1976:

We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth can rebel against the tyranny of our selfish replicators.

You can read this on page 201 here via the Amazon “Look inside” facility.

amazon.com/gp/reader/0199291152/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

Just type 201 into the text box and click the GO button.

What are we in charge of? The deaths of over 100 million people in the last century? The ongoing abortion of millions of human beings? Governments don’t want expensive environmental controls, they want more money than they can know what to do with even as they choke to death.

I find that paragraph very disturbing Ed. World war II did indeed cause a terrible loss of life but I am convinced that the good guys won and the world is now a rather better place because of that.

We must not abdicate responsibility for this planet. The buck stops with us and we must strive to ensure that the good guys continue to win. Sitting back doing nothing because you think your God is in control and then blaming Satan when is all goes wrong is not, to my mind, an optimum philosophy for the 21st century.

We must get off our butts and fix stuff because we are in charge and that carries both duty and profound responsibility to future generations.

Darwin is dead. What he thought about anything does not matter today.

If you say the same about all of the other great scientists then you say that science doesn’t matter today. If you single out Darwin for such treatment then why do you do that? Because you think he was wrong or because you can’t face the fact that he was right?

The final answer exists outside the narrow confines of the scientific method in divine revelation. If you regard that as mythical or unscientific, then I cannot help you further in that regard. However, there is a flaw in man in every generation that is not genetic. The Church talks about it in detail.

I ask for insight into this mysterious information of which you speak. You provide none. All you do is restate that you believe it exists. You don’t bring it out into the light where it has to dare to speak its name.

If you are just a mobile collection of chemicals programmed by your genes, then this exchange has little actual meaning. Please consider that.

See above.

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

It’s not supposed to. For that, you have to use other means of knowing.

What “other means”?

How can you know ( rather than just believe that you know) what science doesn’t know.

Emotel.

 

[reggieM]

How can you know ( rather than just believe that you know) what science doesn’t know.

You can know your own thoughts, imaginations, dreams and emotions among many other things.

You can know through mystical experience, certainly.

Science has no category for the mystical. This reduces human beings to matter and reduces knowledge to scientific and empirical only. But science relies on a philosophical construct. You can’t know or prove anything in science without accepting the philosophical foundation first.

Many scientists accept the validity of mystical knowledge.

Science is not even capable of denying the reality of such knowledge since it exists outside of the scope of science itself.

To imagine that the only knowledge that one can have is reduced to the scientific is to deny the long and diverse human history of mysticism in East and West. It wipes out the core values of most of the greatest literature in the world.

But more importantly, it asserts that mystical knowlege does not exist. It uses scientific methods to measure something that is outside of science.

How does one gain mystical insights? Through testing in a laboratory? Please excuse me while I laugh at anyone who would think such a thing.

There are tried and true methods for finding God and communicating with Him. There are methods that have been used for centuries to reach mystical insights that go far beyond what science can offer.

We are called to seek God. Science may help somewhat in this search but it is far from the only tool (and certainly not the best one).

What methods have you used to seek God?

 

[Jim_Baur]

emotel

I hope that you do not mind me asking these questions.

Does science have a chronological list of the evolution of the laws of nature? (How many laws are there?)

According to the scientific community, did the laws evolve before the expansion of matter?

Did the laws come into existence with the expansion of matter?

Did matter cause the laws or did the laws cause matter?

Do the laws exist extramentally of the human mind?

(If humans were not here, would the laws exist?)

You do not have to answer any of the above questions.

And of course, if the questions are phrased poorly, you may correct my ideas and go from there.

These are from my heart. I have pondered them for years.

THANKS!!!

I made your name green. Green is a color of hope. I am hoping that you answer my questions.

Oh, I am not looking for an argument.

Again, THANKS!

 

[edwest2]

I agree with that.

But I don’t agree with that.

You bear false witness against evolutionary psychology. It does not say what you say it says.

Here’s what Richard Dawkins wrote in “The Selfish Gene” in 1976

You can read this on page 201 here via the Amazon “Look inside” facility.

amazon.com/gp/reader/0199291152/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

Just type 201 into the text box and click the GO button.

I find that paragraph very disturbing Ed. World war II did indeed cause a terrible loss of life but I am convinced that the good guys won and the world is now a rather better place because of that.

We must not abdicate responsibility for this planet. The buck stops with us and we must strive to ensure that the good guys continue to win. Sitting back doing nothing because you think your God is in control and then blaming Satan when is all goes wrong is not, to my mind, an optimum philosophy for the 21st century.

We must get off our butts and fix stuff because we are in charge and that carries both duty and profound responsibility to future generations.

If you say the same about all of the other great scientists then you say that science doesn’t matter today. If you single out Darwin for such treatment then why do you do that? Because you think he was wrong or because you can’t face the fact that he was right?

I ask for insight into this mysterious information of which you speak. You provide none. All you do is restate that you believe it exists. You don’t bring it out into the light where it has to dare to speak its name.

See above.

Emotel.

Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion? Why do you bring him up?

If you are just a bilogical robot then, of course, you are interested only in the genetic survival of your species. World War II? I wasn’t just talking about World War II. Pol Pot, and the killing fields, the millions who were starved to death by Stalin, the millions killed by abortion, and the millions of others who have died from starvation since 1945. I think the evidence points to a fatal flaw in man. In each one of us. As Os Guinness points out in his book Unspeakable, it would not be enough to collect the worst among us in one place and destroy them. The fatal flaw is contained in each one of us.

I lived through the Cold War. I walked past buildings with the yellow and black Civil Defense sign. I knew I had 28 minutes to do something if the USSR attacked, but that I would not likely siurvive. That threat has diminished but nuclear technology has proliferated.

Science is not the only answer, and you follow it at your peril. If you think a society ordered around science would usher man into a utopia, you still have to account for the greedy, manipulative and purely evil among us. They do not want cooperation, they want your service. They do not want your dissent but you to say yes to whatever they want. History bears out the fact that the rulers of today are no different from the past, they just have new toys with which to kill the enemy and to impose their will, first on their own citizens, and then, on others.

Philosophies and experts come and go, and are deposed by the next set of philosophers and experts. If you have a plan for saving the planet, great. But many interests and individuals stand in your way.

Oh, and about Darwin. What was he right about? That you and I are simply biological mechanisms that came to exist in a cold, pitiless universe that did not have us in mind?

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[emotel]

You can know your own thoughts, imaginations, dreams and emotions among many other things.

You can know through mystical experience, certainly.

Science has no category for the mystical.

Isn’t that the same as saying that there is no evidence that mystical experiences are something that is beyond the reach of science.

Many scientists accept the validity of mystical knowledge.

I accept that many people talk of the mystical. Some call themselves mystics. But I see no evidence that there is anything supernatural about that or that the mystics can know ( rather than just believe they know) things about reality that science cannot know.

Science is not even capable of denying the reality of such knowledge since it exists outside of the scope of science itself.

Science can, and does say that there is no evidence that mystical information is a source of knowledge to which science has no access.

To imagine that the only knowledge that one can have is reduced to the scientific is to deny the long and diverse human history of mysticism in East and West. It wipes out the core values of most of the greatest literature in the world.

Why so? Science accepts that gifted people thought themselves to be mystics and it well understands that many people believe things that are not true.

But more importantly, it asserts that mystical knowlege does not exist. It uses scientific methods to measure something that is outside of science.

Same old question. How can you know what science cannot know?

How does one gain mystical insights? Through testing in a laboratory? Please excuse me while I laugh at anyone who would think such a thing.

I’m always in the market for a good laugh if it helps. The converse of that is to remember that some mystics still believe that the earth is flat and others believe that they are Napoleon.

There are tried and true methods for finding God and communicating with Him. There are methods that have been used for centuries to reach mystical insights that go far beyond what science can offer

.

Why does that make me think of poppies?

We are called to seek God. Science may help somewhat in this search but it is far from the only tool (and certainly not the best one).

Would you fly in an aeroplane designed by a mystic? I don’t think I would.

What methods have you used to seek God?

Well the method that I’m into at the moment is to come here and ask people who claim to have found him how they manages to do so and how they clambered over all the obstacles along the way.

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

I hope that you do not mind me asking these questions.

Not at all. Keep them coming.

Does science have a chronological list of the evolution of the laws of nature? (How many laws are there?)

It is important to draw a clear distinction between Cosmological Evolution and Biological Evolution. Darwin’s theory is about Biological Evolution and it says nothing about Cosmological Evolution.

According to the scientific community, did the laws evolve before the expansion of matter?

There is no evidence that the laws of nature have ever evolved

Did the laws come into existence with the expansion of matter?

The expansion of matter is a prediction of theories that model the laws of nature. If the laws were not in place then the prediction would not apply.

Did matter cause the laws or did the laws cause matter?

Science doesn’t know.

Do the laws exist extramentally of the human mind?(If humans were not here, would the laws exist?)

The human mind is the result of biological evolution and that requires the laws to be in place before the human mind evolved. There is no reason to suppose that the laws would cease to operate if the human species when extinct.

I made your name green. Green is a color of hope. I am hoping that you answer my questions.

I like green but others here might object to the prominence of my nik.

Emotel.