I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Another conspiracy theory about the Discovery Institute

First there was the "wedge document" conspiracy theory and now there is a conspiracy theory that the Discovery Institute is in cahoots with radical creationist Islamofascists. Timothy Sandefur said in an article on Panda's Thumb,

There’s an amusing dispute going on between the Discovery Institute and Little Green Footballs, the latter of which recently unveiled some very interesting details about links between Islamic and Christian creationists. Needless to say, the DI folks are demonstrating their usual haphazard acquaintance with the truth.

I agree that the dispute is amusing, but not for the reasons that Sandefur thinks. For starters, the Little Green Footballs blog is highly biased about this subject. Here are some things that Wikipedia says about LGF:
.
Little Green Footballs (LGF) is a political blog run by California web designer Charles Johnson. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Johnson -- who describes himself as "pretty much center-left before 9/11"[1] - transformed his blog's discussion of bicycle racing, programming, web design, and the occasional humorous news item into a very active discussion of the War on Terror, Islam and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Media observers have described the site as "right wing";[2] observes Johnson: "I'm not pretending I'm giving equal time to both sides. But I do think what I'm advocating, and what I believe in, is the right side."[3]

For "promoting Israel, and Zionism" and "presenting Israel's side of the conflict," LGF won the "Best Israel Advocacy Blog" award from the Jerusalem Post in 2005 [4]. According to Gil Ronen, a reporter for Internet news outlet, Israel National News:[5] "If anyone ever compiles a list of Internet sites that contribute to Israel’s public relations effort, Johnson's site will probably come in first, far above the Israeli Foreign Ministry's site." . . . .

R. J. Smith, writing in Los Angeles Magazine, stated that LGF is a "dysfunctional mix of beautiful photos Johnson takes on coastal bike rides and constitutionally protected hate speech" which "believes all Muslims are terrorists until proven innocent."[35]

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) called Little Green Footballs "a vicious, anti-Muslim hate site" and claims that the FBI has "investigated several threats of physical harm against Muslims posted by Little Green Footballs readers".[3]

Columnist Antonia Zerbisias has described LGF as a "virulently anti-Muslim/Arab website".[36]

Journalist Eric Boehlert has written that LGF "oozes disdain for Arabs and journalists (and most of all, Arab journalists)" and is "obsessed with proving that all MSM reporting from Iraq and the Middle East is biased in favor of Islamic terrorists."[37]

Columnist Andrew Sullivan described LGF as "enthusiastically pro-torture".[44]

Vanity Fair theater critic James Wolcott characterized the LGF community as "sort of like a disorganized Nuremberg Rally, a lot of angry ruffians with nowhere to go...."[45]

LGF blogger Johnson is also a co-founder of Pajamas Media. A better name would be "BVD media."

LGF has the following message for those who want to register to post comments:

LGF registration is temporarily closed. Please try again later. (We occasionally open registration during weekend afternoons, Pacific time.)

Also, Sandefur's article on Panda's Thumb is closed to commenting.

LGF says in an article titled "Audio: The Discovery Institute Collaborates with Turkish Creationists,"

Last year CBC radio had a segment devoted to Islamic creationism in Turkey, with some amazing revelations:

The Institute for Creation Research has been heavily involved with Turkish creationists for years, supplying propaganda and teaching materials and DVDs, to the point where Turkey’s school system has purged the teaching of evolution in favor of creationist pseudo-science.

The Discovery Institute is also “working closely with their Turkish counterparts,” and the DI’s David Berlinski (CBC mistakenly calls him “Paul”) explicitly says that Islamic creationists are allies of US creationists.

What is wrong about the DI working closely with "creationist" counterparts who share the same idea of doubting Darwinism? And what's wrong with Berlinski's statement that "Islamic creationists are allies of US creationists"? Isn't that what the preceding statement said, i.e., "The Institute for Creation Research has been heavily involved with Turkish creationists for years"?

Another LGF article drivels,

I did not “imply” the Discovery Institute was in league with Islamic radicals. I stated outright that the Discovery Institute is in league with Islamist creationists, a fact that is indisputably true, as we’ll see in a minute . .

(We can argue whether creationism is a “radical Islamic” position, but when even Islamist shill Inayat Bunglawala believes in evolution, it strongly suggests that the creationist position is a radical one).

Here Johnson contradicts himself -- he first says that the question of whether creationism is a "radical Islamic" position is arguable, then implies that he thinks the question is not arguable because even an "Islamic shill" believes in evolution.

And the egregious error: “slander” means a “false spoken statement.” The word for which Chapman was searching is “libel,” meaning a “false published statement.”

That is hardly an "egregious" error -- in informal usage (though not in formal legal usage), both libel and slander can be oral or written.

Johnson then quotes one of Berlinski's statements in a Turkish creationism conference sponsored by the Islamist AKP party’s Istanbul Municipal Authority:

Berlinski: There is astonishingly little experimental evidence in favor of Darwin’s theory. [This is] not about replacing Darwin’s theory, that’s not gonna happen anytime soon. But about areas that I find deeply challenging within biological theory itself, it may be rewarding to you to think about.

Johnson then quotes from a CBC interview of Berlinski:

Berlinski: I think these ideas, these ideas, are current everywhere. There’s a long interesting tradition of design theoretic arguments within Islamic theology that goes straight back to the 9th century. And there are outstanding figures within Islamic theology who participated in these discussions ... there’s no reason to be surprised, this is a very rich tradition. We need to get together, we need to talk. There needs to be an exchange, a current needs to flow.

This is a hot issue. We’re in the midst of a world-wide religious revival. I mean, historians 500 years from now will talk about the religious revival of the late 20th, early 21st century. There are a billion Muslims out there who are taking Islamic doctrine very seriously. Christianity too.

So on the basis of just those few statements by someone associated with the Discovery Institute (who, BTW, happens to be an agnostic), Johnson concludes that DI's agenda is religious:

Notice that despite the Discovery Institute’s frequent denials that their agenda is religious, here’s one of their main spokespersons waxing rhapsodic over a “world-wide religious revival.”

BTW, an article on the website of the National Center for Science Education says,

Adding to the creationism sightings around the world, Reuters (November 22, 2006) ran a story on Islamic creationism in Turkey, where "[s]cientists say pious Muslims in the government, which has its roots in political Islam, are trying to push Turkish education away from its traditionally secular approach." The main source of antievolution propaganda in Turkey is Harun Yahya -- a pseudonym probably for a pool of writers, headed by Adnan Oktar -- which, as Taner Edis told Reuters, "has managed to create a media-based and popular form of creationism." Efforts to popularize "intelligent design" in Turkey are lagging, Reuters suggests, because most Turks "see no need to avoid naming God," but Education Minister Huseyin Celik recently told CNN Turk that "intelligent design" should not be disregarded just "because it coincides with beliefs of monotheistic religions about creation." (emphasis added)

In fact, some Moslem fundies -- like some Christian fundies -- might even regard ID as blasphemous or sacrilegious because they might see it as implying doubt of god's word by suggesting that there is a need to provide evidence to support creationism. Ironically, the Turkish education minister said that ID "should not be disregarded just 'because it coincides with beliefs of monotheistic religions about creation' " whereas the Darwinists say that ID should be rejected for that reason.

Darwinists don't give supporters of ID (or other scientific or pseudoscientific criticisms of Darwinism) any Brownie points for repudiating creationists -- the Darwinists will use the term "intelligent design creationism" in any case. So supporters of ID have no reason to not be friendly towards creationists.
.

Labels: ,

25 Comments:

Anonymous jim said...

"Darwinists don't give supporters of ID (or other scientific or pseudoscientific criticisms of Darwinism) any Brownie points for repudiating creationists -- the Darwinists will use the term "intelligent design creationism" in any case."

That's because we're not fooled by the claims that the designer doesn't have to be God. Major ID supporters readily identify God as the designer when in front of the right audience. Otherwise they only pay lip service to a secular ID because they know a blatant admission of designer=God would leave them no chance of ever winning in a court again.

It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest and most people, other than those who choose to be blinded, see through it and recognize ID for what it is: repackaged creationism, just with shinier wrapping paper and a bigger bow.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>>Well, interesting. It seems that the sequence of events went like this:

1) LGF put out a post alleging that the DI was in league with Turkish creationists.
2) The DI put out a response to this in it's usual manner - being very economical with the truth in order to set up a complete strawman and then knocking down this strawman and declaring victory.
3) LGF put up another post laughing at the DI's antics, pointing out that the DI had utterly failed, in any way, to actually address the real facts in the original post, just the ones it had invented with it's strawman.

Oh, and as for the 'wedge document conspiracy theory', I take it you are using the scientific meaning of the word 'theory', as the wedge document exists, and has been admitted by the DI as having originated from them.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:14:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Jim said,
>>>>> Major ID supporters readily identify God as the designer when in front of the right audience. <<<<<<

That's just guilt-by-association stereotyping of ID supporters. And Darwinists change their stories according to the audience. When talking to atheists, the Darwinists say that Darwinism makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. When talking to religious folk, the Darwinists say that Darwinism can be accepted without abandoning religion.

Also, the NCSE article said, "Efforts to popularize 'intelligent design' in Turkey are lagging, Reuters suggests, because most Turks 'see no need to avoid naming God,' " so it makes sense to use a creationist approach when discussing ID with Turks.

Anonymous said,
>>>>>> 2) The DI put out a response to this in it's usual manner - being very economical with the truth in order to set up a complete strawman <<<<<<

The alleged straw man -- the claim that LGF claimed that DI was “somehow soft on Islamic radicalism and terrorists” -- was only part of the DI's response. Anyway, Little Green Footballs is just a hate blog with no credibility.


>>>>> as for the 'wedge document conspiracy theory', I take it you are using the scientific meaning of the word 'theory' <<<<<<

As I pointed out in a recent post, "scientific theories" are not necessarily strong -- scientific theories can be weak.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>>That's just guilt-by-association stereotyping of ID supporters.<<<<

No, that's listening to what ID supporters actually say.

>>>>And Darwinists change their stories according to the audience. When talking to atheists, the Darwinists say that Darwinism makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. When talking to religious folk, the Darwinists say that Darwinism can be accepted without abandoning religion.<<<<

Both statements are true and fail to contradict each other. Evolution actually makes no claims about the origin of life, contrary to popular perception amongst IDiots/creationists, so whether or not you believe in a god is pretty much irrelevant to evolution. It does, however, give a non-religious explanation for how modern life came to be.

Conversely, it cannot be the case that ID is not religiously based creationism, as claimed in, say, the Dover trial, but is religiously based creationism, as claimed in Turkey, by David Berlinski, at the same time.

>>>>Also, the NCSE article said, "Efforts to popularize 'intelligent design' in Turkey are lagging, Reuters suggests, because most Turks 'see no need to avoid naming God,' "<<<<

So no need to bother with the silly 'Intelligent Design' nonsense, just call it what it is - creationism.

>>>>The alleged straw man -- the claim that LGF claimed that DI was “somehow soft on Islamic radicalism and terrorists” -- was only part of the DI's response.<<<<

The main thrust of it, you mean.

>>>>Anyway, Little Green Footballs is just a hate blog with no credibility.<<<<

Sorry, but I'd never heard of this blog until you posted this. Upon reading through it, I'm failing to see the 'hate'.

>>>>As I pointed out in a recent post, "scientific theories" are not necessarily strong -- scientific theories can be weak.<<<<

And, as has been explained to you there, even 'weak theories' have been tested (and, if you had any knowledge of scientific practice at all, you would also realise are based on evidence). In any case, this one would appear to be a 'strong theory', for the reasons I stated above.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:01:00 PM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

Thanks for yet another brain fart, Larry. (BTW, please stand downwind!)

Thanks also for the "heads up" about LGF. I have bookmarked it -- looks like a valuable resource.

(BTW, it seems appropriate for you to move from defending Nazis to defending Islamists.)

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:01:00 PM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

"whether or not you believe in a god is pretty much irrelevant to evolution"

Touché. The explanatory power of belief in "G_d" falls way short of the hype. Theists know zilch more about G_d's motives and purposes for humankind, than atheists do. Indeed, the Bible itself fiercely rebukes the notion of having this kind of knowledge, considering it to be hubris and sacrilege.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:15:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:21:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Darwin-addicts seem to be unable to believe that anyone could honestly disagree, on the basis if the evidence, with the archaic Darwinist doctrine. So they become paranoid and think that there is a conspiracy afoot!

One Darwin-fan here recently wanted to know why I can't believe that a mindless "natural process" produced us? The answer is that I certainly can believe it: if I see should see some good evidence to support it. But no such evidence exists: and the evidence rather clearly supports intelligent involvement, of some sort.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:40:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

These befuddled Darwin-fans are apparently so ignorant that they think that all ID scientists and ID theorists think that God is the intelligence involved.

One of many good examples to the contrary is DaveScot (David Springer), one of the chief moderators of William Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent.

DaveScot is an agnostic. He believes that the intelligence is something of physical origins, and has sometimes speculated that it is space aliens.

A couple of months ago DaveScot, who didn't like the movie Expelled, started ranting against the Judeo-Christian God, on Dembski's blog: calling him "the bearded thunder," and saying that the Judeo-Christian God was apparently murderous and immoral in his habits.

Google "bearded thunderer" etc., to read all about it, Darwin-fans. DaveScot is still one of the chief moderators on Dembski's blog.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:14:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

These clueless disciples of Darwin should try to be less gullible. It seems that they think that PZ and Eugenie are their Holy-Holy Gurus who would never, never lie; or even misrepresent anything. If they began to do their own independent research, they might soon find out otherwise. (And by "research" I don't mean Wikipedia, which is a highly inaccurate source and follows the Official Darwinist Propaganda Line.)

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:14:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff has written a favorable review of the intelligent design book The Design of Life, by Dembski and Wells. Mohrhoff isn't a Christian, and writes "I do not subscribe to any religion." I don't see any evidence that he's a theist. He writes, "There's no doubt in my mind that specified complexity is the 'smoking gun' of some other-than-human intelligence at work, as the authors maintain...[The intelligence], however, could be very different from how it is conceived by theists."

Google "Mohrhoff," "Dembski," and "Koantum" for the 7-page review. One short rather technical passage about specified complexity has confused some, but the review is generally readable. Of course Mohrhoff can only give a brief summary of ID thinking in his review, not a complete discussion, and he thus doesn't "prove" ID. But he presents some idea of what ID is all about.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:34:00 PM  
Blogger Nada Platonico said...

Jim Sherwood wrote, "DaveScot is an agnostic. He believes that the intelligence is something of physical origins, and has sometimes speculated that it is space aliens"

Of course, if life on earth was designed by space aliens, then what to make of their origins? Were they designed by other origins or were they created by some sort of god? In either case, DaveScot is simply idiotic in supporting ID on this basis.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:09:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

DaveScot doesn't "support" ID: he thinks that the evidence indicates that ID is correct; but that he can't identify the intelligence involved, so that he remains agnostic on that point.

The great astrophysicist Fred Hoyle also thought that an intelligence of natural origins had probably designed the first carbon-based life on earth. At first he thought that it was space aliens, but later that it may have been "a cosmic intelligence that emerged naturally in the Universe." (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, in their book Cosmic Life-Force, 1990, p.138.)

And perhaps you should ask quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff (above),why he concludes that ID is correct, but isn't certain about the nature of the intelligence involved?

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:38:00 PM  
Blogger Nada Platonico said...

Jim Sherwood wrote, "DaveScot doesn't "support" ID: he thinks that the evidence indicates that ID is correct; but that he can't identify the intelligence involved, so that he remains agnostic on that point."

Does it matter if he's an agnostic (on that point) or not? If he thinks that there's intelligence involved, then he believes in a form of god: see first cause.

Neither Hoyle nor Mohrhoff are biologists. Wasn't there a discussion about these two about a month ago? As I recall, you failed to respond (at least adequately) to objections made by Phae and an anonymous or two (I was one of them). So I've answered your appeal to authority with a discrediting of that authority, as well as your failure to address those issues in earlier discussion.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:17:00 PM  
Blogger Nada Platonico said...

I'm sorry to imitate Jim with the multiple post, but I just saw the he has yet to answer Phae's challenge in another thread: Jim -- if you think that ID is scientific, should some prediction that ID can make. If it's science, there is one. If it's not, then there isn't. Scientific explanations have predictive abilities.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:20:00 PM  
Anonymous jim said...

"Quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff has written a favorable review of the intelligent design book The Design of Life, by Dembski and Wells."

Last I checked quantum physicists and evolutionary biologists aren't the same thing. Would you ask Ken Miller about the validity of string theory? No. So why does Mohroff's opinion of ID/evolution make a damn of difference? Probably because his opinion agrees with yours.

"Darwin-addicts seem to be unable to believe that anyone could honestly disagree, on the basis if the evidence, with the archaic Darwinist doctrine. So they become paranoid and think that there is a conspiracy afoot!"

See, you claim to be a fence rider but your use of terms like "darwin addicts" betrays your true side. Anyway, no one would automatically dismiss a hypothesis offered as an alternative to evolution. They would, however, expect said hypothesis to stand up to the same scrutiny and expectations as evolution in order for it to be taken seriously. ID has not stood that test, in fact it has failed miserably but yet it fails to die.

"These clueless disciples of Darwin should try to be less gullible. It seems that they think that PZ and Eugenie are their Holy-Holy Gurus who would never, never lie; or even misrepresent anything."

This is pretty rich coming from an ID (or is it DI?) parrot. You seem pretty taken by a "theory" that is full of shit and is either based more on ones pre-formed conclusions or lack of understanding of evolution, but yet you want to claim proponents of evolution are clueless?

"He believes that the intelligence is something of physical origins, and has sometimes speculated that it is space aliens...A couple of months ago DaveScot, who didn't like the movie Expelled..."

He probably didn't like the movie because its supporters openly ridiculed the very idea that it could have been aliens that seeded life on this planet (I don't remember who's interview it was). So pointing out ONE person who supposedly "believes" an idea openly ridiculed by major (and even minor) ID proponents scores you exactly zero points. Try again.

"but I just saw the he has yet to answer Phae's challenge in another thread"

I may have missed it, but I've yet to see Jim Sherwood the explaination of the evidence that contradicts evolution that I asked for in another thread.

I'm not holding my breath...

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>>One Darwin-fan here recently wanted to know why I can't believe that a mindless "natural process" produced us?<<<<

Hmm, you've left out a detail or two. I'll quote the point made vertabim:

Even if you were to accept the idea, for a moment, that all life here was created by some Designer, where did the Designer come from? You could say that He, in turn was designed, but, if so, where did THAT Designer come from? If you follow it back, eventually you come to a first Designer, and he has to arise from either a natural process, such as evolution, or, basically, be a god. If you're saying he arose from a natural process, how is it that you can accept that a natural process can result in such a complex being as to be able to artificially design and create life itself, but you can't accept that a natural process can simply result in us? If you're saying he's a god, well, essentially, what you're proposing is 'creationism by proxy', but you also have to definitively prove such a being exists in order to design and create anything. And also, which god is he? God (as in the Christian God)? Allah? YWHW? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Something else entirely?

As can be seen from the above, the point seemd to have flown totally over your head, as usual. If this first Designer did, indeed, arise from a natural process, then, as ID, if you genuinely remove all religion from it, essentially boils down to, 'life cannot possibly have arisen from a mindless natural process, such as evolution, so it must have been designed', how is it that a natural process can result in a sufficiently more complex organism that this first Designer must be, in order to have the capability of designing and creating life, including us (or the Designer of us, or the Designer of the Designer of us), yet a similar or identical process cannot possibly have created us? Simple logic says it can't. This means we are left with the two possibilities that either the first Designer is a god, which would make ID creationism, and thus facing the scientific problems of creationism, or He doesn't exist, which makes ID wrong.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:57:00 PM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

"moderators"

:-) What a term to use to describe Dave Scot! LOL!

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Another conspiracy theory about DI...lol...Militant atheists love to make fun of Christians who believe in various conspiracy theories, but let me tell you, it's not surprising they come up with conspiracy theories of their own. It's quite amusing to say the least...

Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:03:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> Conversely, it cannot be the case that ID is not religiously based creationism, as claimed in, say, the Dover trial, but is religiously based creationism, as claimed in Turkey, by David Berlinski, at the same time. <<<<<<<

Yes, it can be the case that different claims are made by different people. And LGF's quotes of Berlinski don't say that ID is religiously based creationism. In fact, Berlinski is an agnostic.

>>>>>>> So no need to bother with the silly 'Intelligent Design' nonsense, just call it what it is - creationism. <<<<<<<

So let's not bother with that "evolution" nonsense -- let's just call it atheism or methodological materialism.

>>>>>> Sorry, but I'd never heard of this blog until you posted this. Upon reading through it, I'm failing to see the 'hate'. <<<<<<<

But what about the description in Wikipedia? You Darwinists have a penchant for ignoring inconvenient facts.

========================

ID doesn't identify a designer, but evolution theory doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. Both ID and evolution theory ignore particular questions.

>>>>>>> Jim -- if you think that ID is scientific, should some prediction that ID can make. <<<<<<<<

What predictions does evolution theory make? It cannot predict the future of evolution -- for example, the evolution of citrate-eating E. coli bacteria in Lenski's long-term evolution experiment was merely luck.

Thursday, July 31, 2008 8:18:00 AM  
Blogger nada platonic said...

Larry wrote, "What predictions does evolution theory make?"

It tells us what to expect to find in the fossil record, for one.

Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:27:00 AM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

"What predictions does evolution theory make?"

Just for one (but an important one), it predicts that every available ecological niche will eventually be filled.

Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:34:00 PM  
Blogger Adamgv said...

Those who raise gas prices are already killing our children. Take back our country! Acquire the Red Alert Newsletter.

Saturday, August 02, 2008 3:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Martian Buddy said...

Jim Sherwood wrote: And perhaps you should ask quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff (above),why he concludes that ID is correct, but isn't certain about the nature of the intelligence involved?

They could just read this and get some idea of his beliefs. A sample:

"The manifestation of the supermind will change all this. Any level of consciousness-force touched by the supermind in its descent must perforce become fully integrated into the supramental dynamism. For while even the highest mental-spiritual force acts as one among other forces, the supermind is by definition the one and only force in the world. All other forces are its fragmented workings, which are automatically integrated into their parent dynamism wherever that manifests itself in its own right. That is why instead of adding one more level to our psychodynamic make-up, the manifestation of supermind will once again abolish its hierarchical structure. Even the interactions between the body's constituent particles will become part of the supramental dynamism. Every aspect of the body--form, function, behavior--will be the visible side of an immediately effective act of consciousness. Obviously, there would no longer be any need for the body's intricate quasi-mechanical physiology, and eventually this would be abolished, too."

Friday, August 08, 2008 9:12:00 AM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

MB, that is FUNNY! :-D

Obviously there is no free will in that scheme.

JS, are you sure Mohrhoff is a "quantum physicist"? (Maybe he's just rebelling against the foolish mysticism of QM?) LOL!

Friday, August 08, 2008 10:40:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home