Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00156)

Maybe, I should have written that last sentence of mine below as...

> What can we Theosophists, Buddhists, Idealists, Realists, Freemasons, and 
> other scientist-philosophers under one label or another, who are also atheists 
> (or anti religious in the common Judeo-Christian-Muslim sense) do to further 
> spread broadcast this idea of a "scientifically and philosophically 
> intelligent" universe -- in the ordinary "language of this age"... That sees God as 
> nothing more than the impersonal, fundamental cosmic consciousness 
> (awareness-will) and G-force (potential mass energy) underlying and governing all forms 
> and radiant energies of nature, in perfect accord with the fundamental cyclic 
> laws inherent in that original "spinergy"? 
> 
Is there anything wrong with thinking that the motive for all this evolution 
stuff could simply be to replicate itself in individual creatures with all its 
inherent potential capabilities, just to see what happens?   

You've got to admit that would be one helluvan interesting and absorbing trip 
-- just to watch, and maybe get a little wiser along the way. Everyone learns 
from their mistakes, don't they? :-) 

It's fun to imagine... That, when all those creatures evolve to the same 
condition or state of impersonal goodness as the one who dreamed them up in the 
first place, and all that original flung out spin-energy that constitutes the 
individual particles and forms of matter have run themselves down to zero in 
infinite space -- it can go back to sleep in its black hole singularity -- and 
have just as much time to dream up a new system when it awakens in another Big 
Bang and another, even greater loop de loop trip through infinite forms and 
infinite experiences.   WOW I can't wait to see and experience that one for 
myself... </:-)> 

Also, when I come to think about it (just now after instant meditation on all 
that) the universe really had no choice -- since it can only be governed by 
its own inherent nature -- which, being "no-thing" in essence (or Ein Soph as 
the Kabbalists might say) can never change.   Wouldn't that mean that even if 
there were an infinite number of parallel universes (as modern quantum 
cosmology speculates) they would still all have to be governed by the same laws of 
nature? 

Isn't that one for the books? ;-)

Best wishes,

LHM


In a message dated 3/1/06 6:35:02 PM, leonmaurer@aol.com writes:


> In a message dated 3/1/06 2:37:57 PM, pabloreyes@hotmail.com writes:
> 
> 
> 
> FASEB opposes using science classes to teach intelligent design,
> creationism, and other non-scientific beliefs
> 
> Editor's note:
> The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB)
> has issued a statement supporting evolution and opposing the teaching
> of intelligent design and creationism in science classrooms.
> Supported by volumes of scientific evidence in numerous fields,
> evolution is among the most thoroughly tested theories in the
> biological sciences. The FASEB statement affirms that intelligent
> design and creationism are not science. These concepts fail to meet
> the necessary requirements for legitimate scientific theories: they
> are not based on direct observation or experimentation nor do they
> generate testable predictions. The Federation believes allowing the
> concepts of intelligent design and creationism into the science
> curricula will ultimately impair science education. "Evolution is a
> critical topic to science education and is the basis for
> understanding biology and medicine," said FASEB President Bruce R.
> Bistrian. "The scientific community must rise to the challenge of
> defending science education against initiatives that push for the
> teaching of creationism and intelligent design in classrooms," he
> said. "To not do so would be a grave disservice to our nation's
> students."
> 
> 
> I guess that also includes theosophical metaphysics, ABC, and any other 
> scientific theory that might contradict evolution by random mutation and natural 
> selection, or that the DNA code must be created by an intelligent "mind"... 
> That could very well be, if the "scientific" laws of conservation of energy 
> are valid, the Mind (Mahat) of the universe itself.
> 
> See how Perry Marshall effectively refutes the above statements by FACEB, as 
> well as all other theories of evolution based on scientific materialism -- 
> using direct scientific proof that the DNA code had to have been devised by an 
> intelligent mind -- without in any way claiming that such a Godlike Mind 
> justifies the separate personal God idea of the "Creationists." 
> 
> Language, DNA and Intelligent Design
> http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis1.htm 
> 
> Information Theory and DNA: Me vs. 30 Atheists
> http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm
> 
> What can we theosophists do to further spread broadcast this idea of a 
> "theosophically intelligent" universe in the "language of this age"? 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> LHM
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]