Darwinism, education, materialism's fatal flaw

1. to gain a lot of knowledge about things2. perhaps materialism and naturalism have led to much boredom about knowledge. Supposedly we now know basically with much precision how the universe got started, anybody excited about it? I think not. The most favourite words for describing the universe of scientists are: bizarre, weird, strange, odd. That's scientists using their own words, not reporting of science by journalists. Materialism / naturalism makes it so that no connection is made, or is allowed to be made, to "what's it all mean", or something like that, hence infinite boredom ensues.3. That they ignore decisions. Whether it is colonalial policy, environmental policy, or the impact of contingent historical happenstances, or massive determinatons at the beginning of the universe which determine half of everything, they ignore, they neglect, they don't know.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The brain is the machine, it goes by cause and effect. The mind is the control, so it is a matter of decision, therefore it can't be part of the brain. Who believes otherwise says that they have no choice but to believe as they do.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As before, that's a bit doubtful to mention Thomas Paine in this context, as he was an anti-evolutionist creationist, of a very generic theism kind, specifically wanting God to be included in science.http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?R..."In fact, Dr. Henry Osborn, curator of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, describes the third period in the history of evolution [28]the period in which our framers livedas a period which produced the evolution writings of Linnaeus, Buffon, E[rasmus] Darwin, Lamarck, Goethe, Treviranus, Geof. St. Hilaire, St. Vincent, Is. St. Hilaire. Miscellaneous writers: Grant, Rafinesque, Virey, Dujardin, d’Halloy, Chevreul, Godron, Leidy, Unger, Carus, Lecoq, Schaafhausen, Wolff, Meckel, Von Baer, Serres, Herbert, Buch, Wells, Matthew, Naudin, Haldeman, Spencer, Chambers, Owen. [29] Clearly, then, it was not in the absence of knowledge about the debate over evolution, but rather in its presence, that our framers made the decision to incorporate in our governing documents the principle of a creator.Thomas Paine provides one example affirming this. Although Paine was the most openly and aggressively anti-religious of the founders, in his 1787 Discourse at the Society of Theophilanthropists in Paris, Paine nevertheless forcefully denounced the French educational system which taught students that man was the result of prehistoric cosmic accidents or had developed from some other species:It has been the error of schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the Author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles; he can only discover them, and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So what, Thomas Paine was referring "to astronomy, and all the other sciences" needing reference to the Author, not specifically mentioning evolution, altough it was already broadly discussed at the time.I think this is a classic example of people stubbornly believing what they like to believe, as I already posted this about Thomas Paine on a previous occasion to Schrafinator.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think the context that matters here is Schrafinator talking about science ignoring God, which is not much the position of Thomas Paine, as he didn't want science to be treated as human contrivance, and neither human rights. So the role of the Creator is pretty important in Paine's beliefs, not to say crucial.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I figure that deist / theist is irrellevant nitpicking in this context. I should correct a misunderstanding I might have created, that Paine probably did already accept evolution, or at least might have, but that this didn't affect his stance as a creationist. Anyone who would say the following would be noted as a creationist in my opinion."It has been the error of schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the Author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles; he can only discover them, and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author"regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's the same thing on a skeptic site.Page Not Found - HolySmoke!Besides it's central to Paine's beliefs, it's not like it is some odd thing that is inconsistent with other things he wrote, so to lead to suspect that it might not be genuine."RELIGION has two principal enemies, Fanatism and Infidelity, or that which is called Atheism. The first requires to be combated by reason and morality, the other by natural philosophy."regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 01-05-2005 09:05 AMThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 01-05-2005 09:12 AM

There's difference and similarity between them. So...?I suggest you include the text of Paine in the debate you're having, it seems to have some relevant things in it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu