| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Leo, Sandy wrote:
> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:27:14 -0700
> From: "Leo, Sandy" <atleo@sandia.gov>
> Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: paleonet cautions on biblical interpretation,
> from faith and skepticism
>
> Folks -- If our local paper (Stockton Record) had not recently printed
> the two sides of the story in a so-called balanced view of evolution vs.
> intelligent design, I would have been willing to move on. However, the
> paper did print a couple of articles, so I suspect that the battle
> between science & religion will be moving into our local schools here in
> central California.
The previous sending, also with data mixtures, appeared to be too long.
Thus a shortened.
>From smolka@uni-muenster.de Mon Mar 7 22:30:06 2005
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:04:37 +0100 (MEZ)
From: Peter Paul Smolka <smolka@uni-muenster.de>
To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
Subject: Re: paleonet political challenges to the teaching of evolution
The evolution discussion has a long lifetime. Thus also a piece from me.
Line:
1) There is no contradiction between the geological timescale
and the bible based timescale (not a joke).
A PhD candidate
to whom I said this a few weeks ago was first very astonished, then
he agreed. Evangelicals should read the bible thoroughly, see below.
2) The flood is also not a problem (also not a joke).
Above ((1) and (2)): Possibly both for the praised evolutionary website
of Berkeley and for bible research institutes, who become inclined to
put geological data on their website.
All views expressed during a discussion can from bible-based readers
be thus regarded as "established by god" (and thus permitted) and
by geology-based readers as "result of evolution" (including the view
to doubt evolution) and thus also permitted. That is: Open-mindedness
should for both sides be OK.
It was said on this list that in the US sometimes evolution is
seriously question by young students.
With a religious background they might fear to endanger an already
high score for after death for a credit in paleontology.
Above might take them some concerns.
3) The bible is very liberal (Paleontology and Sociology)
Purpose: Paleontology, Sociology and Religion, possible future PhD
studies (if not done already).
And: Thorough(!) bible studying is required before imposing rules on
humans. Thorough means: As thorough as when tracking an error down
in a program, each variable at each step.
Putting on a bible-research institute: What is really said by god/the angels
as indicated in the bible and what is said by near east goat ranchers,
e.g. human concepts 2500 B.C. needs to be sorted out.
Related of course:
Why bishops/mullahs sometimes impose harsh rules, such as of ascetics,
is a result of paleontology (not a joke).
4) Religious Science
In many religions thought/body interactions are described.
In many religions prayer and "the other side" is important.
Studied open minded in the sense of scattered, often noisy,
still not systematically available data, above might be studied
in the sense of science. Not fighting for or against the one or
the other. Just trying it out, collecting the observations, asking
open-minded "what might geometriucally be fulfilled if the one or the
other concept should be tried out in more detail".
Christian nomenclature: Jesus is regard as shining example.
Which boundary conditions must be fulfilled so the average
visitor of churches gets instructed such that he/she can be
stepwise ever better to approach the abilities of Jesus -
now the teaching in churches shall be based on the background of
21st century in the US.
Didactical example: 20 years ago people need to write programs for
data searches. Then IBM invented SQL (e.g. no programming any more).
Then gopher and lynx took above and applied it worldwide. Now
everybody can do sophisticated worldwide searches with Google.
Churches might feel invited to do good service to their visitors,
teaching them now the abilities of Jesus in the sense of
the power of Google compared to programs 20 years ago.
2500 years B.C. it was not possible. Now churches are invited to do
religion well with the knowledge of the 21st century.
Religious people might feel invited to do science in a field they like.
Churches in the US might feel encourgage to support recognized
universities, just to get religious data as good as possible.
Science in the known term, including equations, programming,
data analysis etc.
Part 4 thus, tries to bring both sides together in the sense of
progress. It contains a brief sketch for an informal study
program (in the sese of a to do list, not in the sense of
a hypothesis to fight for or against).
Nomenclature: Here I regard God as english translation of Allah/Jahwe,
Allah as arabian translation of God/Jahwe and Jahwe as Hebrew
translation of God/Allah. Pragmatically I use the english form.
Rabbi, Rinpotche and other religious person I summarize under above
for reasons of pragmatism (and because I am not aware of all titles
in all religion including the Brazilian extension of Catholicism (Macumba),
the Indian knowledge on the other side (in the sense of Manitou),
the Hindu knowledge etc. I write with respect to any religion
that exists.
In religious nomenclature: Considering cosmic distances religion,
if it becomes in the future a science, can be anyway only universal
with the regional preferences being a respected local setting of
religiuos options, e.g. the "differences" being only translations /
emphases of principles that apply anyway to all.
This post is written such that evangelicals can read it open-minded
and that geologists can read it open minded.
Under science (extremely shortened) I understand _testing_ hypotheses
open minded, e.g. optimizing the own view based on the observations.
Fighting "for or against" a certain hypothesis I do not regard as part
of science.
Regarding my own reading: I read parts of the bible. Being naturally
curious I looked also into the Koran (German translation),
the Sohar (also in German), the Tibetan Book of the Dead (in German)
and some other texts.
(didactical: "Are there any other stratigraphies beyond planktonic
foraminifera?)
On the subthread studying nature vs. ID I do not comment as
it makes no difference whether someone studies nature versus someone who
studies the concepts of god as documented by nature. What counts is
the right facies-interpretation that results.
Above-mentioned Religious Science might be at high aiming (e.g. what nobody
dared to think before) universities like Berkeley be an object of thinking
of an informal group (and if later NSF supports it or churches with
their financial abilities support it:) Also fine.
As on this lits Berkely was mentioned as scientific hothouse
(with the euphemic metaphoric term: University of Euphoria) I think
above sentences might be permitted as contribution to discussion.
To avoid any misunderstanding: I mean a subject being part of the
faculty of science.
This e-mail addresses both geologists on this list and possible bible
researchers who might read it as forwarded. Thus I change frequently
between geological nomenclature and bible nomemclature.
Some priests might by above lines swallow. Everything is written
friendly, respectfully, constructive and progress oriented.
If I unintentionally offended a religious person: It is not intended.
And: Please, if applicable, let any punishment to god and/allah don t
throw creamcakes at me.
If religion is taken seriously, it can be studied in terms of the 21st
century.
See Andrew Rindsberg recent posting on the historical location
of Hebrew Cities and his comparison (summarized) "How would we think
if the same documents would describe ancient Greek cities".
I just think: If people take the bible so seriously, the bible
should be studied thoroughly, including all things Jesus said.
So (Details):
Members of the school-board of Gergia are reported to value
the bible and Jesus high. One important thing to do, as outlined
by Jesus is, "metanoie". Translated it is: "Reassessment", "Rethinking"
(and not buses, expiation, repentance, penitence, ascetics and/or
suffering).
If they reassess own presentations at schoolboards they are thus in
the best tradition of Jesus.
It is inferred that going to church is also valued high in states like
Georgia.
In case of doubt they might silently go to church, remember that Jesus
has full access to all data, including all solutions of all unsolved
geological questions. Thus they might ask silently to receive
inspiration such that their written and oral presentations at
schoolbaords approximate to what Jesus might have done himself in the 21st century,
e.g. if Jesus would do the proofreading or look over their shoulders
while presenting, he would regard it as OK
(applies also to reverends, bishops).
Overall (part/no 1 and 2) the biblical version and the geological
version of earth history do not contradict. If after reading this reply
members from bible-research institutes approach geological institutes
to assist extending stratigraphic tables in school-books by an
additional column DD1 to DD7
geological institues should be happy to assist providing
the data to recognize the boundaries between DD1 and DD2 and so forth
in terms of geological knowledge. This requires for members of
bible-research
instutes to read the bible thoroughly. It is assumeed that they
are open-minded to this.
Ad 1) The biblical version of the earth history and the geological
version do not contradict. Disputes arose because the evangelicals
did not read the bible thoroughly.
In bible-nomenclature:
No human has any idea of the length of a divine day expressed on a human
timescale. No human has any idea about equidistance of divine days.
Didactical example:
Currently on earth a few ethnicities of stone-age type civilization
exist.
How would anyone of us formulate if anyone of us would have to explain
3G (German term: UMTS, Japanese term: FOMA) wireless internet,
the concept, the benefits and the principles to these people?
He/she might use terms like:
A large part of existing knowledge is accessible, comparable to a brain.
It exists around the earth.
The knowledge has no body, no sound,
no voice. It flows through all persons. By tuning into the right
frequency the knowledge is accessible. In rare cases the persons
accessing this knowledge hear it as a voice.
Explanation:
Acoustical output of books etc.: Available as service for the
optical impaired (blind and semi-blind) at Muenster university
since the eighties (the acoustical output plus Braille input/output).
Respective tooth implants (output of mobile phones)
experimentally in the UK. Radio receivers for snorkling (similar
principle, vibrations through the mouth piece) demonstrated
some years ago by West German Radio 2 (listening to the music while
snorkling).
Reformulating "frequency" accordingly, the eplanation of todays
3G (UMTS, FOMA) Internet to stone-age people might look like
a biblical text.
With such an approach the stone-age people might get an idea of
wireless internet.
Formulating with reference to the bible:
The bible was written down in the near east. The first thoughts
had been directed (in the biblical sense: By god, the angels)
through inspiration to members of a nomadic civilization growing
sheep and goat and living in tents. A concept of millions or billions
of years did at that time not exist.
In biblical nomenclature: If a professor of geology of the 21st
century would have served 2000 years B.C. as angel
how might, using a bishop-compatible formulation, an angel
with knowledge on earth history, have formulated to explain
above-mentioned people earth history?
"In the beginning the earth was vast and empty" (at least pre Devonian/ pre
Upper Silurian).
"and his spirit hovered above the waters" (post early Archaen,
after formation of the oceans).
In case an English speaking feels offended by above: I translated
directly from the German version of the bible "Und sein Geist schwebte
ueber den Wassern"
"... let there be light, .... stars ..." (after reduction of clouds)
and so forth.
What is described can be plotted on the currently known
timescale allowing any length (in human scale) for any divine day (DD).
No bible research institute should have any problem leaving the
length of a divine day (DD1 to DD7) to god.
Schoolboards in Georgia might thus extend existing stratigraphic
tables with m.y. and zones (e.g. showing a variety of columns)
by an additional column on the very right, showing Divine Day 1 to
Divine Day 7 (e.g. one more column). Where the boundaries are
put, e.g. whether the boundary between DD1 and DD2 is put at 3.5 b.y.
or 3.2 b.y. should be assessed with the help of people working
in these times. The boundary between DD6 and DD7 I would suspect
in the Upper Miocene (e.g. recently found hominid fossils)
(the base)
The top of DD7, e.g. DD7 to DD8 (or: bible researchers know better:
are we still living in DD7, what does the fact-based comparison of
the bible and the geological record possibly allow as hypotheses?)
Formulated politely: When, according to the bible, people had to
leave paradise, they discovered the need for fashion. That is:
In paradisic times, Late DD6 to DD7 they did not need fashion.
>From vertebrate paleontology (to establish the boundary): When
had humans lost the natural fashion so much that they had technically
been able to discover
(although they didn t do it in paradise) the need
for fashion?
Understanding the biblical text such that the wish for fashion
ocurred together with self-reflective consciousness ("they discovered
they needed fashion") data on human evolution might be pulled
to establish DD-Units (here the DD6/DD7, possibly DD7/DD8 boundary).
I would thus supect the DD7/DD8 boundary to be well in the Holocene
and to be a diachronous facies boundary.
When, motivated by establishing the boundaries between divine days
(DD-Units), members from bible-research institutes get interested in
geology, we should welcome them and provide the necessary data.
Side aspect: In many religious contexts the approach to paradise
is a desire. Implementing paradise on earth is thus on the agenda.
The need for fashion, according to the bible, would thus also
disappear (at least in summer).
2) Next controvery: The flood:
Potential views of nomadic near-east goat ranchers (the names I forgot,
e.g. which person added what)
have,
according to the bible, not the relevance of views of God/Jesus/the
angels. Thus reference to Isaac/Jacob and others is reference to humans
but not to God/Jesus/the angels (= points to sort out on a bible institute
website, what is based on humans can be assessed freely at any time).
The science in biblical times (e.g. about 2500 BC)
might have been comparable to nomadic Arabians in Arabia before
the discovery of oil. To what might, orally, have these nomadic goat
ranchers referred to?
Directly: Schoolboards in Georgia, not reading the bible thoroughly,
try to cut down US knowledge of the 21st century to the science of
Arabian goat ranchers about 2500 BC.
So: How can the bible be interpreted in terms of current knowledge
(see Andrew Rindsbergs hint on ancient Hebrew cities):
(1) The "size" of the world was for these people quite small, e.g.
at maximum above region. Terms like "the whole world" mean:
"The whole known world to these people at that time".
(2) Glacial aridity (18K/LGM) is known.
The bible says: "It rained 40 days and nights".
(e.g. no tsunami, no waterfall in the Marmara Sea following a
Pleistocene lowstand).
Applying error bars to these numbers: An extremely long
period of nearly uninterrupted rain occurred in an otherwise
desert-like environment (must have been remarkable to them).
Compared to the glaciations the deglaciations occurred fast.
Rapidly rising temperatures imply more moisture in the air
If this moisture laden air (see the respective circulation
system)
precipitates in environments that had been without rivers for a long
time floods are natural - at least until new discharge networks form.
For people living in Iraq a flood in Mesopotamia might well have
killed many Arabian ethnicities.
Some years ago I briefly scanned through an article referring to
more than 1 m thick sediments of about that time that most
likely indicated a large temporary lake in the area of Euphrat
and Tigris (referred to as flood).
Thus bible research institutes, if they consider science, might
feel cordially invited by a respective extended website to link
biblical texts and geological data: Of course including the
knowledge of the biblical people: A flood THERE (in Iraq) was surely not
a flood in the United States. To the biblical goat ranchers it might
have appeared like a global event
(and Noah being one of a regional ethnicity that contributed to the bible
who survived with his wife). E.g.: T
They might of course refer to the symposium "Myth and Geology" on the
32th IGC in Florence linking oral reports and geology.
Whether that symposium
coveres also the bible, Israel and Iraq I don t know
(= a hint to the abstract volume on CD).
If in the US students of geology ask about the biblical flood,
they might be happy about a geological explanation linking knowledge
about near-east societies of that time, Pleistocene/Holocene
paleoclimatology and geological data.
3) The bible is very liberal (Religion and Paleontology).
Summary: It might be a result of paleontology why various
religious persons impose harsh rules and think it is good.
The bible does not require sacrifice, buses, etc.
Relevance:
Churches, also in Europe, have, sometimes hidden, a high influence
on society, politics, also on universities (even recommending
or omitting recommendations to people for career).
Pope John Paul II got for example recently the Karls-Prize. That
prize is awarded to distinguished politicians who have merits
in terms of the EUropean Unification.
On the other hand those church members who are active in politics,
both US and outside US, appear to view "imposing ascetics and suffering"
as good, nice conditions, having a good life etc. as bad.
That is: Single persons appear to favor large centralized states
where the individual has little influence and the centrally made
rules do not aim at stepwise improving life for citizens
but at stepwise making life more and more a hard.
Single, individual members of the catholic church for example say
"Salvation comes only through suffering" (also reported in widespread
general journals).
This is a result of paleontology.
If any politically active (in the sense of political lines, curricula
etc.) church member reads it he/she might feel encouraged to optimize
the own position, particularly regarding shaping universities,
societies etc. If for example a large European State is as centralized
as a church and if indirectly "hardships, suffering" are implemented
in the people (see the views of Hillary Clinton in her book on
US politics) it is not nice for the people.
If they track down some of their behaviours to paleontology and/or
religion, they might feel encouraged to work for good lives of people.
I do not want to critisize anyone personally. I observed some
developments, such as on this list, and I hope to contribute to
progress.
In short: According to the bible what god, the angels and Jesus said
is very liberal. Why do religios leaders often say the opposite?
On which principles of paleontology might this be based. What does
sociology say to this?
It can in addition also be studied by Sociologists/Ethnologists
(informal, in publications, in some cases PhD works of Sociology).
So: 3a: The bible is very liberal (through reading required)
3b: Wha, paleontology based, do religious leaders sometimes regard
ascetics as good and good life as sin.
Ad 3a) Why is the bible liberal?
Directly: The moral standards, as established by the bible,
are very liberal (= if one really looks what is forbidden).
Example (outlines also how thorough the evangelicals should read the
bible, free of bishops/mullahs interpretations):
Spring brake holidays (in the US/Florida sense) conform to the bible:
The bible forbids braking the marriage (one of the ten rules).
If people are not married, nothing to brake exists (Don t cry out).
I only refer to the bible, not to a bishop/mullah who thinks imposing
ascetics is good; potential differences between the bible and bishops
can be regarded as result of paleontology (below) and be subject to
additional studies of sociology / ethnology.
In bible nomenclature: What god/the angels said is relevant (the ten rules) -
not bishops/mullahs/goat ranchers 2500 years B.C.
ad 2a) Guildelines of the bible
In short (condensed, = add more thoughts accordingly):
Jesus helped the poor towards a good life. He encouraged others to
do the same.
That is: A good life is a value, hardships, ascetics etc. are to be
avoided. That is: A goverment that calls itsself Christian,
creates better lifes for the poor. If it makes the rich richer and
the poor poorer it cannot be called Christian.
The ten rules of the bible are also very liberal.
From the biblical context it can be understood that working against
them is regarded as sin.
For bible research institutes two simple examples:
a) You must not brake the marriage.
b) You must not kill.
Rule (a) does not forbid flirtations (including mild, normal, heavy,
elaborate and consequential). It does not set an age limit. It only
says: Braking a marriage into pieces (= bringing a couple apart)
is forbidden.
Some bishops/mullahs might have a different view:
If a woman, aged 34, has a 16 year old daughter and two other children
aged 8 and 4 an additional child by the 16 year old daughter is
according to the bible not a sin.
It is of course expensive, unpractical, ruines any education etc.
If the 34 year old woman is wealthy enough to afford two nannies
or the 16 year old person has no wish for study, none of them,
according to the bible, committed a sin (and with the 4 year old child
the infracstructure for small ones exists anyway).
A marriage as pre-requistite for flirtations is, at least according
to the bible, not necessary (but if a marriage exists it must not
be smashed).
Bishops/mullahs might optimize their instructions according to the
bible. E.g. recomendations for teenagers can be formulated as
"questions of career and money" but not as "sin".
Rule (b) "You must not kill" optimizes also bishops/mullahs
presentations:
Understood as:
"Everything that leads to dead persons is a sin."
A bible research institute can thus establish rules how, for example
in the bible-belt, aspects of daily life might be handled:
Of course: No car driving under influence of alcohol (zero),
observing speed-limits and red traffic lights (so slow pedestrians
who cannot accelerate can cross the street safely).
Airline customers/managers (bible based, not a joke) might think
accordingly, such as avoiding planes with known software errors
or some old planes with cables that tend to self-ignition (removed
by the US Airforce).
and so forth.
Changing school curricula cannot be deduced following above principle.
Parts 3 and 4 I deleted as this reply got too long.
If the bible-based people sort however clearly out what according to
the bible is labeled as "by god/the angels" vs. "based on a near east
goat rancher 2500 B.C." very little is forbidden and progress
encouraged.
Best regards
Peter
**********************************************************************
Dr. Peter P. Smolka
University Muenster
Geological Institute
Corrensstr. 24
D-48149 Muenster
Tel.: +49/251/833-3989 +49/2533/4401
Fax: +49/251/833-3989 +49/2533/4401
E-Mail: smolka@uni-muenster.de
E-Mail: PSmolka@T-Online.de
**********************************************************************
Partial index: