Theos-Talk Archives (June 2007 Message tt00064)

I thought this dialogue between several scientist/philosophers related to 
evolutionary theory and the controversy between Creationism and Darwinism might 
be of interest to all students of theosophy... There is some genetic data here 
that places serious doubt on Darwin's theory.   

While not a part of this dialogue, my own position rests solely on my ABC 
hypothesis that substantially aligns with the Secret Doctrine teachings, and also 
questions Darwinism as well as Creationism in favor of consciously guided 
intelligent engineering following fundamental laws inherent in primal SPACE's 
zero-point G-force or "Spinergy" (ZPE on the physical plane, Fohat on the 
spiritual). http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-colo_F.jpg
 
Leonardo   
http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Philip Benjamin wrote:

June 9, 07
Hi, Alfredo:

You asked: "Why only humans have such physical properties? Are you a
Creationist?"

       I was never a member of any Creationism Society, nor a participant so
far, but I confess and profess that I am a CREATURE a term which is
invariably found in any biological Text or Journal. However, Creature
implies CREATION, a term invariably omiitted and shunned in all modern
biological literature. Natural Selection involves a SELECTOR, in lieu of
which I coined the term Natural Technology (NATEC, for short).

Appended below is an answer from KJ Forum Archives, as requested by Herbert
FJ. Muller, M.D., November 8, 2005

Best Regards

Philip
______________________
81-82-C31BEKARL JASPERS FORUM
TA81-82 (De&Pal)

Commentary 31 (to C27, Muller)

EVOLUTION (GENOME SIMILARITIES)
by Philip Benjamin
8 November 2005, posted 12 November 2005

[Herbert FJ Müller]
Do you have a creationist or not-pseudo scientific explanation for the great
similarity between the genomes of chimpanzees and humans ?
[Philip Benjamin]
<1>
I can only attempt a scientific or rational explanation from well established
facts. Whether they agree or disagree with any particular school of thought
including Evolution, is of no concern or interest to me.
<2>
I have to treat this as a composite question requiring the relevant facts of
molecular biology to be put into the context of convergence, divergence,
homology, typology, paleontology, chromosome numbers, protein/DNA/RNA
sequencing etc. May be a note on C-14 dating also.
<3>
The sequence-divergence between bacterial cytochrome C-2 and various 
euchariotic
cytochromes, ranging from insects to mammals, including monkeys and humans
is a constant 64-65 %. [from Dayhoof, Dayhoff Atlas of Protein
<4>
Sequence and Structure, National Biomedical Research Foundation, Silver 
Spring,
MD, VOl 5 Matrix 1 p D-8]. Transitional or intermediates are totally absent 
from
deductions of the dayhoff matrix. All euchariotes are EQUALLY distant from 
the
bacterium (Rhodospirillum rubrum).
<5>
The actual biochemical differences between monkeys, apes and man are trivial.
When the differences in their protein sequences (Dayhoff Atlas, Matrix 10, p
D-56, 12, p D-88) are considered, they are equidistant from the bacterium and
fall into non-overlapping classes, with no intermediates between them and the
bacterium. DNA or RNA sequences also lead to the same results. None of them
turns out to be ancestral or primitive with respect to the other. Dayhoff 
Atlas
Matrix 1, p D-52 shows no molecular evidence for the typical evolutionary 
chain: 
cyclostome-> fish-> amphibian->reptile->mammal. This finding remains quite
surprising to the Darwinian school of thought.
<6>
The pattern of diversity at a molecular level shows a highly ordered discrete
hierarchical scheme- not gradually changing -ancestral-primitive-advanced
links with intermediates smoothing over, but distinctly isolated sisterly 
links.
This supports the empirical, discrete typology advanced by 19th century 
comparative
anatomists, which they presented as evidences against evolution. Now, 
molecular
biology support that typology. There are very few cases when the degree of
morphological divergence from any out group may not exactly correspond to
molecular divergence from the same out group. Only, the extent of 
morphological
divergence does not always seem to agree with the degree of molecular 
divergence.
<7>
Gradualness is not an essential characteristic of Nature, discreteness is.
Matter/energy is discretely constituted, so also space and time as Planck 
units.
Biological complexities which carry sentience are also built of irreducible
discrete units of complexity, precisely sufficient to sustain life. 
Gradualness
is non sequitur here also. No gradual process can generate a life   
sustainable
unit of life form.
<8>
For Darwin, phenotypic similarities were not governed by the DNA code. He did
not have to encounter the DNA code as a barrier for speciation. In the light 
of
the present knowledge of complicated DNA coding which is quite different for
each true species, in spite of similarities even at the molecular levels, it 
is
too simplistic to imagine that legs prove evolution. Today, Darwin himself 
would
have considered it nonsensical to assume that because a creature needed legs, 
so
it simply grew them ! Solid molecular biological facts say no.
<9>
What is more significant is that close molecular similarities 
notwithstanding,
animals not only have similar structures, but have uniquely different ones 
also
which makes the idea of common ancestry an adult fairy tale. It must also be
noted that the legs of a man, a woman, a bunny rabbit, a spider and an 
elephant
have surely vastly different structures and textures from one another, but at
the molecular level the genetic structures that determine these differences 
are
too close ! The octopus has an eye quite similar to human (convergence), but
that does not make her any biologist*s distant Aunt ! The bubonic plague 
infects
only Norway rats and humans, but that gives no biologist any privilege to
descend from rats. Cytochrome C, an amino acid sequence, in turtles is more
similar to people than in rattlesnakes. Are we therefore cousins of turtles?
Then how can we be cousins of octopus and rats also ? What has octopus to do
with turtle? How about those creatures which look alike in many ways, yet 
have
certain organs which are remarkably different (divergence). For example, some
shrimps have compound eyes with totally different structures from those of
shrimps with *lens cylinders* that bend light efficiently to focus on a
single point. Other shrimps have a **mirror system** within its eyes! Did the
shrimps figure all these out? No way, because at the molecular level they are
identical! Convergence is often specified by non-homologous genetic systems. 
Its
opposite, divergence, is often specified by homologous genetic systems. How 
can 
both prov eevolution? This is no corroboration for gradual evolution. There 
is only an
inscrutable * Natural Technology*, NATEC for short, way beyond the reach of
Darwin*s imagination.
<10>
A grandiose name like **pentadactyl limb, must be very scientific (Penta = 
five,
and dactyl = finger.), but it is only the **five-boned** arm and leg found on
all land vertebrates. In reality, there are many more different bones in the
wrist and hand, in spite of molecular structural similarities, but that is
ignored. Besides, it surely does not prove that the creatures made these for
themselves because they felt a need, or copied one another. The**five bones** 
in
the arms and hands of a mice cannot make it a biologist*s ancestor. It isonly 
a 
*Natural Technology* factor, enabling arms and legs to have the broadest
possible functional movements in different species.
<11>
Darwinian homology (from Origin, 1962 6th edition, p 492) is **relationship
between parts which results from development from corresponding embryonic
parts**. De Beer concludes that this is false. He enumerates the vast
dissimilarities of the early stages of embryogenesis in different vertebrate
classes, such that the adult homologous structures cannot be mapped out to
homologous parts in the earliest stages of embryonic development, neither to
similarities of location of cells in the embryo or parts of the egg from
which
these structures are ultimately differentiated. See Homology, An Unsolved
Problem (1971), Oxford University Press, London by Sir Gavin de Beer. He
further states ** The attempt to find homologous genes, except in closely 
related
species, has been given up as hopeless. What mechanism can it be that results 
in
the production of homologous organs, the same `patterns,' in spite of their 
not
being controlled by the same genes?   I asked that question in 1938, and it 
has
not yet been answered**( p. 16).
<12>
In higher life forms almost every gene is found to produce 
pleiotropy-effecting
more than one organ system. Homologous structures are indicated by very
different genes in different species. See E. Mayer (1970), Populations, 
Species
and Evolution, Harvard U Press, Cambridge, Mass, p 93.
<13>
Sir Alister Hardy(The Living Stream, Collins, London, p 493) concludes; **
The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to evolution- yet in truth 
we
cannot explain it at all in terms of present day biological theory**. Randall 
as
quoted in William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 189: ** Homologous organs are 
now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different
species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a
common ancestor has broken down.**
<14>
No biologist can assume that Homology is determined by ancestry and then
conclude that homology is evidence of ancestry. That is circular reasoning
very characteristic of evolutionary thinking. Add to it the complete lack of
paleontological evidence. All that is left is *the facile and irresponsible
speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the 
Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology.** See *Evolution 
and Taxonomy, Studia Entomologica*, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.
<15>
**Taxonomists [those who classify plants and animals according to their
appearance] have never had an objective basis for homology . . they cannot
at present give it any objective basis, even though it is a logical necessity
in the evolution of animals.**—*R.E. Blackwalder, Taxonomy: A Text and
Reference Book (1967).
<16>
**A great darkness had settled on the majority of British zoologists in the
early decades of this century.**—*G.P. Wells, quoted in Perspectives in
Experiential Biology (1976). **If, then, it can be established beyond dispute
that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species 
is
not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common
ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in
ruins.** Thomas Hunt Morgan, The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the
Species,** in Scientific Monthly 16(3):237 (1923)].
<17>
**Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary
processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the
[totally opposite] idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the
literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of every 
evolutionary
paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of 
medieval
astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a
reality for evolutionary biologists . . Yet in the face of this extraordinary
discovery [of structures so totally diverse], the biological community seems
content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetictautologies.** 

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306
<18>
**The concept of homology is fundamental to what we are talking about when
we speak of evolution, yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of
present-day biological theory.** Sir A. Hardy, The Living Stream (1965), p. 
211.
<19>
**By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between 
organisms
cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship . . it 
is 
unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove 
relationships 
and evolution of the higher categories of units.**—*N. Heribert Nilsson,
Sysnthetische Artbildung (1953), p.
<20>
Chromosome Counts:
If all life forms have a common ancestry, number of chromosomes, and the 
DNA count should be the same for all. This is not true at all. Homology is 
often
superficial physical similarities between various creatures, such as the
emphasis on **five bones** in the arm ignoring crucial factors, such as finer
details of bone structures, chromosome counts etc). More closely related
creatures have been found, in fact, which are entirely different in many 
ways,
especially at the molecular levels. Chromosome and its DNA counts are much
better indicators of closeness of species. However, there are no numerical
similarities in each **family branch, only a confusion of numbers at all 
levels! 
This lack of numerical similarity is highly revealing. It is clear that there
cannot possibly be any relationship between the various species—even those
supposed to be **closely related.**
<21>
No respectable biologist would suggest that by removing one or several
chromosomes, a new species would be produced. That could not be, for the gene
factors containing the millions of DNA codes are to be found all along those
chromosome strings. To remove even one chromosome would remove millions of
vital body factors.
<22>
**Chromosome number is probably more constant, however, than any other
single morphological characteristic that is available for species 
identification.**
Eldon J. Gardner, Principles of Genetics (1968), p. 211.
<23>
Because the genes determine all body parts and functions, we would expect 
that
the smaller life forms would have fewer chromosomes, and there is a tendency
in this direction; but, even in this, there are striking exceptions as will 
be seen 
below. (The Cosmarium, a simple algae, can have as many as 140 chromosomes,
and Radiolaria, a simple protozoa, has over 800, whereas human beings only 
have 46.)
<24>
At the bottom of the evolutionary plant tree are the ALGAE: What similarity 
do
you find in any of these numbers? Chlamydomonas, 16 / Chorda, 56 / 
Cladophora,
22, 24 / Closterium (n=194) / Cosmarium, 40, 120-140 / Cystophyllum, 32-48 /
Laminaria, 62 / Nitella (n=9,18) / Sirogyra (n=16, 32, 50). Just up the trunk
from the algae, we come to the FUNGI: Bacillus, 1 / Clavaria (n=8) /
Escherichia,1 / Neurospora (n=7) / Phytophthora, 8-10 / Saccaromyces, 30,
45, 60.
<25>
Further up the plant kingdom trunk we go out onto the branch marked
PTERIDOPHYTES: Adiantum, 60, 120, 116 / the DICOTYLEDONS: Brassica, 18, 20 /
Chrysanthemum, 18, 36, 56, 138, 198 /It is called the ANIMAL INGDOM. Moving
upward from bottom to top, here are the chromosome counts of a few of its
branches: PROTOZOA: Euglena, 45 / Radiolaria (over 800) / Amoeba, 30-40.
REPTILA: Elaphe, 36 / Hemidactylus, 46 / Alligator, 32 / Chamaeleon, 24 /
Lacerta, 36, 38 / Emys, 50 / Anguis, 36, 44 MAMMALIA: Ornithorhynchus, 70 /
Didelphys, 17-22 / Erinaceus, 48 / Sorex, 23 / Lepus, 36-46 /
<26>
It is obvious that each branch of the ancestral trees is but a jumbled maze 
of 
chromosome numbers, having little mutual correspondence. What about size of
organism, from small to large? We already referred to the fact that even   
here we
do not find a clear-cut pattern. The smallest life form ought to have the 
fewest 
chromosomes and the largest ought to have the largest. That would be a fact
which would encourage the evolutionists, but consider the following list:
Aulacantha (protozoa): 1600 / garden pea: 14 /man: 46 / deer mouse: 48 /
donkey: 62 / small monkey (Macaca rhesus): 42 / cow: 60 gorilla: 48 / 
Gypsy moth: 62.
<27>
The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern Evolutionary Biology
**/wiki/Evolutionary_biology**, due to the so-called two-fold cost of sex.
Several explanations have been suggested by biologists including 
W._D._Hamilton, Alexei_Kondrashov, George_C._Williams, to explain 
how this cost of sex is overcome. In an asexual species, each member
of the population is capable of bearing young. Intrinsically, 
this implies that with each generation, an asexual population 
can grow more rapidly. What then is the evolutionary selection
advantage here?
<28>
**It might reasonably be thought that the amount of DNA in the genome would
increase pretty steadily as we advance up the evolutionary scale. But, in 
fact,
measurements of total DNA content are quite confusing. While the mammalian 
cell 
seems to have about 800 times more DNA than a bacterium, toads (for an 
example)
have very much more than mammals, including man, while the organism with most
DNA (of those so far studied) is the lily, which can have from 10,000 to 
100,000
times as much DNA as a bacterium!**—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery.
(1983), p. 174. bacterophage-0x174: 0. 000,003,6 / bacteriophage-T2:0.000,2
/ colon bacteria: 0.004,7 / yeast: 0.07 / snail: 0.67 / sea urchin: 0.90 /
chicken: 1.3 / duck: 1.3 / carp: 1.6 / green turtle: 2.6 / cattle: 2.8 /
man: 3.2 / toad: 3.7 / frog: 7.5 / protopterus: 50 / amphiuma: 84.
<29>
Here is what *Dobzhansky had to say about that table!
**More complex organisms generally have more DNA per cell than do simpler
ones, but this rule has conspicuous exceptions. Man is far from the top of 
the
list, being exceeded by Amphiuma [an apode amphibian], Propterus [a 
lungfish],
and even ordinary frogs and toads. Why this should be so has so long been a
puzzle.**—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics of the Evolutionary Process
(1970), pp. 17-18.
<30>
Colin Patterson Senior Palaeontologist at British Museum of Natural History 
In
an address given at the American Museum of Natural History on November 5, 
1981
commenting on the gaps/missing links stated: **These gaps might be due to
failure in fossilization, or to mistakes in the genealogy, or to wrongly
identified fossils; or they could be (and have been) taken to show that the
theory of evolution is wrong** . [Evolution (1978) p.133].
<31>
** Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says
that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and
progression, (after the FIRST SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF LIFE, this added by
me, Philip Benjamin). This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the
history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, 
about
unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science,
for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test**.
See Evolution (1978) pp.145-1
<32>
** Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is
whether they were ancestors of anything else**. [Evolution (1999) p.109]
<33>
Michel Denton (1996) notes in EVOLUTION p 286 that ** molecules give no
support to the traditional view of the vertebrates as a series of 
increasingly
advanced classes leading from the cyclostomes to the mammals. In fact, when 
the vertebrates are compared with non-vertebrate organisms, all types are
equidistant apart.** What has been revealed as a result of the sequential
comparisons of homologous proteins is an order as emphatic as that of the
periodic table. Yet in the face of this extra ordinary discovery the 
biological
community seems to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic
tautologies** ( ibid, p 306). Why ? Because it is blasphemy to question the
goddess of Evolution!
<34>
David Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779 (Collins London,
1963, part 7, p 149) considered organisms as only superficially machine-like, 
but
organic or natural in essence. How would Hume have assessed a modern high
speed battery operated speech-processing computer to which he was suddenly
exposed? Perhaps a *natural brain* with ears and all, preserved hidden in a 
silver
box. How will he reconcile with its speed and versatility? An 
Extraterrestrial
objet d*art? That is precisely how Darwin found Evolution.
<35>
Even in what Darwin would ignorantly call a simple single cell, there is a
Cosmic perfection and a constancy of numerous well-managed operations, 
natural
but verging on transcendence, beyond all comprehension bestowed under the
aegis of randomness or complexity. It is an ingenuity of ethereal elegance 
beyond
the scope of the combined intelligence of all science and technology. Even 
so,
only a miniscule fraction of the real is known today and most probably for 
ever.
Try to assemble one, it will be guaranteed dead on arrival. Only a fanatic 
dogmatism
of the dark-age type can deny that. Evolution is one such view, unless one
equates microevolution with macroevolution.
<36>
A final facetious note about HM question. If a Ford truck has 60%, and a 
Chevy
van 80% of the parts that make a Toyota sedan, it simply means these parts 
are
designed, engineered and produced by a single source somewhere, unless they
are counterfeits. No Biologist will assume that Ford and Chevy are the 
prototypes
(*ancestors*) of Toyota, because of the common and massive similarities.
That will be a blatantly bad and unacceptable logic, except when some rigid
religious superstitions are associated with it. The unique and discrete 
dissimilarities
between them soon become evident, which make each of these vehicles distinct
and different- not a *descendent* of one from another.
<37>
A more Scientific Name than Evolution:
Genetic engineering, molecular engineering, nanotechnology are all in vogue 
now,
but not during Darwin*s time. What he was proposing was in fact, a *Natural
Engineering* rather a *Natural Technology* for a sudden transition from
inorganic to organic, then from inanimate to animate, and from animal 
sentience
to human consciousness/mind via a Natural Information Technology. Darwin 
mcould
not have coined any of these words, instead he adopted an ancient/primitive 
fad
of Evolution. (Darwin himself was not of much formal education, he failed in
everything he tried, including theology. Besides, nothing of molecular 
biology
did exist in his days).
<38>
It is high time that Evolution be considered obsolete and replaced by 
*Natural
Engineering* or Natural Technology, NATEC, for short. The first stage of this
will be to Life Sciences what the unfalsifiable Big Bang theory is to 
Physics. 
Those who want to append to it their pet philosophy or religion or faith or
design can do so outside the academic curricula and with no bearing on
scholarship. They do that all the time to the Big Bang theory also, causing
no academic apprehensions and consternations or scholastic suspicions.
------------------------------------------------------
<39>
P.S.
Carbonate rocks are abundant both above and below the Paleozoic Precambrian
boundary. How can C-14 isotope be present in any measurable quantity here?
After 5730 years half of it will be gone through radioactive decay. After 
about
ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. Eventually, all of it will be 
gone.
So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at
all. If C-14 is detected in samples which are millions of years old, that is 
either
confusion or contamination. By the way, there is C-14 even in diamonds!
------------------------------------------------------
Philip Benjamin
medinuclear@hotmail.com

>From: "apj60" <apj60@itelefonica.com.br>
>To: "medinuclear" <medinuclear@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: Ontic units and phonons
>Date: Fri,  8 Jun 2007 12:12:12 -0300
>Dear Philip:
>
> > Yes, dear Alfredo, I am a Physicalist just as you and Chris Lofting and
> > some others are, though we differ in the definition of physicalism. What
> > stupifies me is this ionordinate affinity of Tucson Pundits for Eastern
> > Mysticism as if that is what the West has been missing all along.
>
>OK, I understand. I was there last year. There is an aura of mysticism in
>the air - and lots of parties and drinking...
>
> > As a matter of fact and as you have implied, your ion based digital
> > Physicalism is not different from quantum physicalism or neural or any
> > other ORDINARY materialistic physicalism in explaining Taxonomy. It is
> > *garbage in, garbage out* or psychism in psycism out. When Psychism 
> > of fundamental particles is assumed or implied in the very premise, 
> > then panpsychism is an inevitable conclusion. 
> > There is absolutely no ground to accept that premise, empirically
> >   or experimentally or experientially, unless the Swamian monistic
> > pantheistic mysticism is accepted as the fundamental principle of all
> > living matter, which is the stark reversal of scientific methodology-
> > Experiment to Observation to Inference.
>
>I am not a materialist. My physicalism refers to dynamic energy/information
>patterns that occur in entangled ion populations. This is not "ordinary". I
>am not assuming Psychism in fundamental particles. I am proposing that
>mental activity emerges in an entangled ion population under special
>initial and boundary conditions (low-entropy living tissue interacting with
>environmental information).
>
> > You wrote: ** In the past you stated that consciousness would be related
> > to dark matter and other 'hidden' aspects of the physical world. 
Therefore,

> > it seems you are a Physicalist about consciousness, like me**. All 
perceptible
> > phenomena, be they Psy or Phy, must have a physical substrate, since they
> > are perceived in the physical realm by physical devices of all kinds both
> > live and dead. Visible phenomena relate to visible (ORDINARY) matter.
> > Invisible phenomena must relate to invisible (EXTRAORDINARY) matter.

> > Since ordinary matter has an Aufbau , extra ordinary matter has its own
> > corresponding extraordinary Aufbau. Invisible implies non-electric
> > (charge-less) and of negligible mass ( not mass-less). Whether it is the
> > Dark Matter of Astrophysics or String Theory or something else need not
> > be the primary concern.
>
>Do you consider quantum information visible or invisible??? I think it is
>indirectly measurable, but the measurement affects the information.
>Therefore it may be classified in a third class in the Taxonomy...
>
> > This proposal has no need for panpsychism, as all other physicalist
> > theories. There is a differential presence of different invisible but 
real
> > particles in the different tax, culminating in humans having all the 
three
> > invisible particles corresponding to proton, and neutron (or sublevels
> > thereof) and electron. In Plants only the electrons may have their dark
> > counterparts, in animals only electrons and protons have their dark
> > counterparts. Thus there is a dark physical substratum for the psy 
phenomena
> > (qualia) as there is a visible physical substratum for psy phenomena
> > (properties). The Chris Lofting method seems sound, if applied in this
> > differential context.
>
>Yours is a good and interesting hypothesis, but how could it be tested?
>
> > Resonance has an awareness built into it. Resonance between the visible
> > and the invisible bodies couples with entanglements is the basis for self
> > awareness. The three primary taxa cannot be a mere continuum of
> > concatenations of ordinary matter, only one taxon (humans) is complete
> > with ALL dark and light matter particles. It is not quantum theory which 
is
> > incomplete, but particle physics.
>
>Why only humans have such physical properties? Are you a Creationist?
>
> > Again you wrote: *Also it seems that Rudolf Steiner made a good job to
> > conciliate Eastern Theosophy with Cristianism*. I have not seen this work
> > yet. IMHO, if he has reconciled the two, it is either a compromise or he
> > does not correctly understand either or both. However since he uses the
> > term Christanism he may have a point. Christianism, nor Christendom is 
not
> > the same as a representation of a Biblical world view. More often than 
not,
> > they are contrary to the Bible. Physical Resurrection which is the
> > foundation of Christian faith, has no place in Eastern Mysticism. That 
will
> > be an oxymoron. Physical means physical or bodily, not metaphysical or
> > mystical. Most of those having a Christian world view, conveniently 
ignore
> > the fact of an Omnipresent Physical but Invisible Reality. I wonder why 
or
> > how they can do that in these days of pocket technology of omnipresent
> > and all-seeing waves of information.
>
>Your analysis of this problem seems good to me. I do not know the details
>of Steiner´s doctrine (called "Anthroposophy"), possibly his synthesis was
>not based on a physical analysis like yours. Did you find a Physicalist
>interpretation for the Bible? Very interesting...
>
>Best
>
>Alfredo Pereira Jr.


**************************************
 See what's free at 
http://www.aol.com.


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