Evidence for God from Science

Oops. My apologies. It was bluesman who told me to "ask Bono", not Blacknad (although he probably would agree).

Wonder what Bono really thinks of capitalism? I'd say 1.3 million dollars per week (see http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/003/29.37.html) would have eliminated that oral hygiene problem in Africa that Blacknad pointed too. (Ron Sider gets along pretty well in this capitalistic society as well. Perhaps that's why he now embraces it.)

Sorry about the Bono U2 thing. It was meant as a joke more than anything. Although, I think it was in a different topic area.
I don't really care for his music except that thing he did with BB King. This free concert stuff and all that not really sure it helped much.
I don't really know how much of his own riches he gives to good causes.
Its not up to me to be his judge. I was surprised to find out that Bill Gates gives quite a sum of money to good causes though.

Just because they are not Christian doesn't devalue what they have to say.

Mike the Bluesman

No problem. I'm glad it was meant as a joke. Bono does have a good heart, but as I pointed out in the other thread, his solutions are deadly.

bluesman wrote: I was surprised to find out that Bill Gates gives quite a sum of money to good causes though.

He makes enough during the year he has to make sure he has some tax Write Offs.

bizzt wrote:

bluesman wrote: I was surprised to find out that Bill Gates gives quite a sum of money to good causes though.

He makes enough during the year he has to make sure he has some tax Write Offs.

While that is no doubt true, it is just a bit cynical. He actually gives far beyond the maximization of those considerations. He and his wife actually have a pretty strong commitment to a lot of 3rd world projects and he is very deliberate about making that contribution develop into something perpetual in the changing of infrastructure and opportunities.

Their wealth is going primarily into these foundations and not to their children in their estate planning, because they believe each person needs to make their own way in the world.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure their family is well cared for, but all in all there is certainly some very strong commitments and values being displayed in their handling of the vast wealth that Bill Gates has created and he is probably a better example than most of someone who is using it responsibly.

That being said, I'm sure there are flaws, failures and rooms for improvement as well. Microsoft's business practices in some instances have left some to be desired. That's a legitimate place for government involvement to keep the playing field level in terms of opportunity. Government has no business at all in seeking to ensure equal results.

There is now a new page at Pianka's website http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html
While things may not be as bad as he says (but what do I know), I do agree with some of this. So many "pro-family" people today seem to have no concern whatsoever for what kind of world is left for their children and their childrens' children. As with all things political and so many opposing vested interests, separating fact from fiction is not easy or perhaps even possible for someone like myself.

Thanks for the link. It is good and fair to hear the other side.

My general response is that he is right on some issues as far as they go. History does demonstrate that humans are susceptable to plagues and that possibility does exist in the future.

The underlying values he has, are subtle but still clear:

1. He equates humans as equal in status with all other "evolved" lifeforms.

2. On that basis of that "equal status" he sees mankind's moral role as limiting our growth so as to allow other lifeforms the opportunity to enjoy or inhabit the earth.

3. He builds on this foundation, to incorporate such environmental issues as rain forest reduction and global warming to argue for such population control.

In contrast to this, I happen to believe that humans are in an elevated role to all lifeforms. I have theological arguments for this but there are also equally valid naturalistic arguments.

Concurrant to this disagreement in relative value of life, I do have to agree that we have a responsibility stemming from our roles as stewards to manage the resources of this world, for the benefit of man and also in view of our responsibility to the creation God placed us in charge of.

That is anthropocentric. It is also theocentric.

I suspect it is this core value that makes "Dr Doom's" assessments and apparent lack of any widescale remorse for such an occurance beyond his 2 grandchildren to come off as pretty detached and uncaring. Beyond that, he almost seems to have elevated his values and faith in the natural order to be a good thing, elevated over any inherent value in mankind in general and therefore has distanced himself from having any real, deep, sympathetic care for his own fellowman or mankind in general.

Thinking does result in something. In this case I think we see clearly the end results of this kind of thinking and the inherent amorality that comes with a purely naturalistic set of values.

His warning to the dangers is real and should be heeded. It's what he does after that, that I think most find distasteful.

Canuckster1127 wrote: In contrast to this, I happen to believe that humans are in an elevated role to all lifeforms. I have theological arguments for this but there are also equally valid naturalistic arguments

.

In understand your theological basis for this conclusion, but what are the naturalistic arguments you have in mind? What is your definition of an elevated role? Do you mean "more important", "having the potential to have a greater impact", or something else

I do have to agree that we have a responsibility stemming from our roles as stewards to manage the resources of this world, for the benefit of man and also in view of our responsibility to the creation God placed us in charge of.

I couldn't agree with you more, but few look beyond the whole "benefit of man" aspect...it's very disheartening and frustrating to someone such as myself who works in science and constantly faces the public opinion that strip malls and cookie-cutter housing developments are more important than preserving habitats of endangered, threatened, or keystone species or habitats. The devastation of Hurricane Katrina is just one example of this...if most of the wetlands and surrounding floodplain of the area hadn't been paved, channelized, and developed, much of the flooding could have been prevented.

I suspect it is this core value that makes "Dr Doom's" assessments and apparent lack of any widescale remorse for such an occurance beyond his 2 grandchildren to come off as pretty detached and uncaring. Beyond that, he almost seems to have elevated his values and faith in the natural order to be a good thing, elevated over any inherent value in mankind in general and therefore has distanced himself from having any real, deep, sympathetic care for his own fellowman or mankind in general.

Not to be a doomsayer myself, but the simple idea of reducing the human population to curb global catastrophes is neither new nor limited to a small group of mad scientists! Ecologists have known for decades that reducing the human population is the quickest step to reducing most of the world's problems. I think Pianka's downfall is that he hypothesized how this could happen and it makes it seem as though he's been in his basement plotting and scheming about how to make it come to fruition. This seems to be a simple case of "kill the messenger".

thereal wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: In contrast to this, I happen to believe that humans are in an elevated role to all lifeforms. I have theological arguments for this but there are also equally valid naturalistic arguments

.

In understand your theological basis for this conclusion, but what are the naturalistic arguments you have in mind? What is your definition of an elevated role? Do you mean "more important", "having the potential to have a greater impact", or something else

I do have to agree that we have a responsibility stemming from our roles as stewards to manage the resources of this world, for the benefit of man and also in view of our responsibility to the creation God placed us in charge of.

I couldn't agree with you more, but few look beyond the whole "benefit of man" aspect...it's very disheartening and frustrating to someone such as myself who works in science and constantly faces the public opinion that strip malls and cookie-cutter housing developments are more important than preserving habitats of endangered, threatened, or keystone species or habitats. The devastation of Hurricane Katrina is just one example of this...if most of the wetlands and surrounding floodplain of the area hadn't been paved, channelized, and developed, much of the flooding could have been prevented.

I suspect it is this core value that makes "Dr Doom's" assessments and apparent lack of any widescale remorse for such an occurance beyond his 2 grandchildren to come off as pretty detached and uncaring. Beyond that, he almost seems to have elevated his values and faith in the natural order to be a good thing, elevated over any inherent value in mankind in general and therefore has distanced himself from having any real, deep, sympathetic care for his own fellowman or mankind in general.

Not to be a doomsayer myself, but the simple idea of reducing the human population to curb global catastrophes is neither new nor limited to a small group of mad scientists! Ecologists have known for decades that reducing the human population is the quickest step to reducing most of the world's problems. I think Pianka's downfall is that he hypothesized how this could happen and it makes it seem as though he's been in his basement plotting and scheming about how to make it come to fruition. This seems to be a simple case of "kill the messenger".

Nice to meet you and interact with you.

Maybe I overstated above in terms of naturalistic reasons, but what I had in mind is that mankind, by virtue of their raising to the top of the chain of influence etc, has the ability, if not the right, to manage the resources of this system to their primary benefit.

In fact, if you think about it in the purest sense of evolutionistic philosophy, in the absence of any absolute values, there is no basis to curb man's using things to his own satisfaction and maximum benefit. In that context, even environmentalism is simply recognizing the need to manage those resources so as not to curtail them. It's the old "don't poop where you eat" type of value system.

Ultimately, a theocentric Christian viewpoint has more to offer in terms of environmental balance when mankind accepts their role as stewards to maintain the trust given us.

What really amazes me, is when environmentalism embraces what seems to be the equivalent of pantheism or gaiea worship and elevates nature itself over mankind, almost to a point of self-loathing. There' more at work there than meets the eye.

I am seeing more and more, that there is a need for the longer view in issues of the environment and that immediate enjoyments at the expense of setting renewable ecological functions back carries a price.

It's a hard balance to find.

The problem with generic approaches to "population control" is that is depersonalizes and puts at risk the value of the individual within the system. Unfortunately, this "surplus population" to borrow the terminology of the illustrious Ebeneezer Scrooge, is usually found to be in those geographiuc regions and socio-economic stratas that I believe Jesus called us as Christians to reach out to, and recognize their value before God to be the same as out own. How do you seek to manage populations (a pretty impersonal term) without compromising the individual value before God?

I agree, there's a lot of spin to a situation like this. Plianka makes an easy target and he doesn't help his own cause by seeming to take glee in depopulation, despite his protestations to the contrary. We are present in this world, and what happens here affects us whether we recognize it or not.

I'm glad there are those who study to understand better what the implications are of our stewardship and we do need to take that responsibility seriously, yes, sometimes even to the detriment of my suburban home going into a wetland region.

Ouch.

I'm not prepared to give Pianka a pass on this yet. Whether he meant for it to come across and be interpreted in the way that it was or not, it is clear that the general interpretation that his students get was that he wants the majority of humans to die:

Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness. I found Pianka to be knowledgable, but spent too much time focusing on his specific research and personal views.

I am also still amazed at the sheer stupidity of his argument. Firstly he wishes to assert that humans have no more value than lizards or bacteria, but then he goes on to implore humanity to save the planet. If humans are worth no more than any other living thing, why should humans bear the responsibility of saving the planet? He goes on to say that "we can be gods".

"We could be gods," he said. "We could be such great stewards of the Earth."

How does that tie in with humans not having more value than other life? So, in summary, humans have no more value than other life, but can be the "gods" that save it all by dying off in droves.

The evolutionist attack machine is also out in full force against Forrest Mims. If you don't want to deal with the arguments, just launch personal attacks.

thereal wrote: The devastation of Hurricane Katrina is just one example of this...if most of the wetlands and surrounding floodplain of the area hadn't been paved, channelized, and developed, much of the flooding could have been prevented.

[Minor quibble] No paving. Since 1930 about 1900 square miles (about the size of Delaware) of coastal area have been lost in Lousiana. This is primarily due to channelization of the Mississippi (no yearly silt additions from spring floods) and cutting canals (for oil exploration etc) in the marshes allowing intrusion of plant-killing salt water.

August wrote:The evolutionist attack machine is also out in full force against Forrest Mims. If you don't want to deal with the arguments, just launch personal attacks.

Canuckster and thereal have addressed other issues very well. I was going to atempt to respond to this but have given up.

Eric Pianka of course is a herpetologist at the Section of Integrative Biology, UT-Austin. Friday at 7pm CDT there is a scheduled lecture by Dr. Lauren Ancel Meyers Assistant Professor, Section of Integrative Biology, UT-Austin.
Fighting Deadly Diseases: Strategies for Prediction and Containment
What is the Lecture About?
Are you concerned about the bird flu? What would happen if a case appeared in the US? Emerging global public health challenges like bird flu and SARS require innovative methods to understand and control the spread of new diseases. Dr. Lauren A. Meyers will discuss how strategies for stopping the spread of deadly diseases can be developed by creating mathematical models of the transmission of diseases.

So what are the odds that before or during this lecture Dr Meyers will be devoured by a giant lizard? Will anyone suspect foul play?

August wrote that someone wrote:He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, “What good are you?”

You know, I would probably have said exactly the same things about lizards in a similar situation.
Anyhow, here is a transcript of essentially the same talk given a month later (and perhaps toned down slightly according to at least one comment from somewhere I don't recall). It's kind of long, but it is interesting to see what kind of remarks generate death threats these days.

http://www.seguingazette.com/story.lasso?tool=print&ewcd=3817403731ee3d74 wrote:The Gazette-Enterprise

St. Edward's University transcript

From staff reports
The Gazette-Enterprise

Published April 6, 2006
The following is the bulk of the transcript from Dr. Eric Pianka's speech at St. Edward's University on Friday, March 31, 2006.

We are attempting to locate the audio from some sections of the speech to complete the transcript The Gazette-Enterprise also hopes to make the audio of the presentation available in the near future.

---
...

Sorry that's all I've got to say.

Copyright © 2006 The Gazette-Enterprise

Actually it is pretty long; I'll just leave the link.


http://www.seguingazette.com/story.lass ... 4&page=all

sandy_mcd wrote:

August wrote that someone wrote:He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, “What good are you?”

You know, I would probably have said exactly the same things about lizards in a similar situation.
Anyhow, here is a transcript of essentially the same talk given a month later (and perhaps toned down slightly according to at least one comment from somewhere I don't recall). It's kind of long, but it is interesting to see what kind of remarks generate death threats these days.

http://www.seguingazette.com/story.lasso?tool=print&ewcd=3817403731ee3d74 wrote:The Gazette-Enterprise

St. Edward's University transcript

From staff reports
The Gazette-Enterprise

Published April 6, 2006
The following is the bulk of the transcript from Dr. Eric Pianka's speech at St. Edward's University on Friday, March 31, 2006.

We are attempting to locate the audio from some sections of the speech to complete the transcript The Gazette-Enterprise also hopes to make the audio of the presentation available in the near future.

---
...

Sorry that's all I've got to say.

Copyright © 2006 The Gazette-Enterprise

Actually it is pretty long; I'll just leave the link.


http://www.seguingazette.com/story.lass ... 4&page=all

Sandy, I'm interested to know why you are defending Pianka. Here is someone who at the very least is equating human life with that of lizards and bacteria. I note that you say you would have responded in the same way. Is it your contention then that lizards have the same worth as humans? Can you explain how lizards are "good", in the same way that humans are good? That account, by the way, is from Pianka's website, I did not just relate a second-hand hearsay story as you seem to indicate.

I have read everything I could find around this, including the transcript you refer to. Pianka is following through to the logical moral conclusion from his worldview, where if everything has a naturalistic origin (as per the ToE), then everything has the same intrinsic moral worth. I am saying that from the Christian worldview that is wrong. I also find it concerning that he seems to be transferring his worldview to his students. No doubt it is tough and a fine line, but there should be a boundary between being good stewards of the earth, or allowing that to be taken to the extreme where you equate the value of human life with that of animals. When that extreme is reached and preached, I believe it to be our duty to call attention to it.

I will also say that to issue death threats is disgusting. Whoever does that is stupid and despicable.