Fw: More Fun And Games

From: Steve Drew (srdrew_1@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Mar 14 2002 - 22:09:38 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Drew: "Re: Cultural traits and vulnerability to memes"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA10683 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:18:11 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.3
    Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:09:38 +0000
    Subject: Fw: More Fun And Games
    From: Steve Drew <srdrew_1@hotmail.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Message-ID: <B8B6B992.320%srdrew_1@hotmail.com>
    In-Reply-To: <200203141737.RAA10212@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk>
    Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2002 22:11:53.0341 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F32A2D0:01C1CBA5]
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    Hi Kenneth

    > Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:12:49 +0100
    > From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    > Subject: Fw: More Fun And Games
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: Steve Drew <srdrew_1@hotmail.com>
    >>> This seems to be a sneaky way to put god back into creation.
    >>> In the Kansas saga they tried to get evolution describe as a theory that
    >>> required equal weight be given to the bible. If i am correct, the people
    >> who
    >>> enacted this were thrown out once the parents found that their kids
    >> biology,
    >>> geology etc qualifications would be worthless if this BS continued.
    >>> This is more subtle and deserve some attention. They do not deny Darwin
    > or
    >>> geology for now, but have opted for the Intelligence By Design idea.
    > I.E.
    >>> the universe is too well integrated and complex to have come about,
    >>> therefore it must have been designed. Though they say it doesn't have to
    >> be
    >>> god as the designer, to my mind that is the eventual aim.
    >> Hi Steve,
    >> Yes I agree, we need to watch out for this and those !
    >> Just yesterday I saw a TV- program eloborating such a view.
    >> The people interviewed, ( it was a catholic network), don 't indeed deny
    >> Darwin, how could they, but come up with the application that the uni-
    >> verse and everything in it, can 't came about as it does now without a
    >> ' design or designer ', what in their meaning can be god or something
    >> called god.
    >> The arguments they use are based onto the mathemetical order by which
    >> the universe is constructed. Their main point is that the universe is so
    >> precise in its mathemetical order, that the numbers used just end up to
    >> sustain life. They argue that this can 't be just coincidence... god or
    >> some-
    >> thing ' created ' out of nothing matter ( via quantum- processes) in such
    > a
    >> way that it will automatically lead up to us....
    >> The IMO, still, silly counter- argument of science is that our universe
    >> is one of many, taking away the opposite its points by denying that god
    >> or something created our universe and only ours, to support us.
    >> Of course, the new counter- counter- attack of the followers of the
    >> Design- concept argue now that science has no proove... what is right
    >> in any way.

    Yes, that is always the problem. The one thing IMO we will never know are
    those instances at and just after the big bang. [One thing that might shut
    them up is if someone managed to create life in test tube. (might have to
    wait a while for that)], and the smarter one's know it and use it against

    >> But I agree, we must watch out, but on the other hand, I don 't think
    >> that those memes are released without knowing they were, though !
    >> People, supporting the Design- concept, like those yesterday, are
    >> working close, and are in many cases scientists, with NASA and other
    >> space- related programs.

    Actually i saw a newspaper article that suggested NASA contains less god
    bothers than any other area of science

    >> They are sitting right on the blink of new
    >> discoveries made, they see new phenomenons emerging right on their
    >> screens and in front of their eyes, they talk about this with fellow
    >> scientists but they say nothing about god or something. They are just
    >> doing their daily job, but at the end of the day they twist and shuffle
    >> the readings about in order to get a more god- like picture.

    They always have. For many people the need for belief in the afterlife can
    undermine their common sense, and scientists are not immune from this.

    >> That is in my opinion the real danger. Those people get access to
    >> information where you and I know nothing about. They got a headstart
    >> from the beginning. In Nazi- times, the torturers went home at the end
    >> of the day and played the piano beautifully like nothing happened.
    >> The same thing can be applied here, but it is indeed more subtle...
    >> In many ways, what people don 't understand or the things which can 't
    >> be explained will be the work of god. That is a very old statement.
    >> Regards,
    >> Kenneth



    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 14 2002 - 22:50:58 GMT