Tulsa Zoo and Creationism

Well at least numerous creation myths will be presented alongside. Hopefully this will actually encourage people to think about the nature of evidence, and how scientists do their jobs.

Naah. :)

"It teaches evolution as fact," Hicks said. "That is one view. Why is my view excluded?"

Simply, because your view is wrong.

"Ganesha is the son of Shiva," Hicks said. "He is the first god a Hindu chants to. This violates the first and second commandments (of the 10 Commandments) and it is very offensive."

Mr. Hicks, I find it offensive that your book containing the Commandments claims humans (life) were created by God.

Out of curiosity, why is Ganesha there? Is it to preach about the origins of life according to Hindu beliefs, or is it because it looks like a multi armed elephant?

Having not been to the zoo I'm not totally sure. I did see a reference that there is a statue of Ganesha by the elephant exhibit with a sign describing how important elephants are to Indian culture.

I don't see any problem with this. Quite the opposite. Zoos serve more than just a scientific function - indeed, in terms of their relationship with the public the scientific aspect is pretty minimal. So tell people how animals and biodiversity in general are addressed in different cultures. You're not going to learn much useful about the evolution of a crocodile from a zoo exhibit, so you might as well find out how it is central to the Mayan creation myth, and learn a bit about the Mayan culture instead.

Having lived near Tulsa and been to the zoo many times, the statue of Ganesha is a big attraction for kids (and adults!) and it's been there for about a decade. I have pictures of my kids lined up, arms outstretched mimicking Ganesha's pose. The carving of Ganesha is very lighthearted, fun and well done. It's a tribute to the elephants.

I don't recall seeing parents shielding the eyes of their kids. It was more like "Hey, Bubba, hold yer arms out like this 'n' I'll git a picher."

And, finally, from a Hindu web site about Ganesha: He is the Lord of success and destroyer of evils and obstacles. He is also worshipped as the god of education, knowledge, wisdom and wealth.

Oh, the irony.

I don't see any problem with this. Quite the opposite. Zoos serve more than just a scientific function - indeed, in terms of their relationship with the public the scientific aspect is pretty minimal. So tell people how animals and biodiversity in general are addressed in different cultures. You're not going to learn much useful about the evolution of a crocodile from a zoo exhibit, so you might as well find out how it is central to the Mayan creation myth, and learn a bit about the Mayan culture instead.

— Ginger Yellow

This following is the text of a letter I sent to the Tulsa World this morning--thought I'd share it with PT...

Although I am skeptical that any valid, legal issues exist, let's assume that the statue of Ganesha and the "marble globe" at the Tulsa Zoo have an overt religious intent---i.e., the Tulsa Zoo is attempting to exert influence in matters of faith. Under this questionable assumption, it follows that publicly-funded entities should not be promoting religion. The correct response would be to either remove the offending items or, perhaps, add some sort of disclaimer (the Tulsa Zoo could become the disclaimer capital of the zoo world!*). But no, the response is to jump into faith issues with both feet by authorizing various displays on creation. Fairness is cited in support of this creationism ploy, but if one follows the logic of the "legal" argument one finds that it distills to "two wrongs make a right." It's also curious that the so-called fairness remedy is to be a display describing (among others) one Christian perspective on creation---apparently the version in Genesis 1, but not the one in Genesis 2. Why a creation display? Wouldn't it be more consistent with the context to propose displaying some sort of Christian icon---perhaps a cross or some reference to our biblical charge to be stewards of the earth? It would seem that some folks are trying to exploit a dubious First Amendment issue, in an attempt to push an anti-evolution agenda that has been repudiated by the courts (e.g., Aguillard vs. Edwards [1987]).

*Note to PT readers: Apparently, Dan Hicks has already forced the Tulsa Zoo to put disclaimers on signage that discuss evolution.

It's not the ten commandments, though, is it? Just the creation story. I'd agree the ten commandments has no place there, or inded anywhere else owned or funded by the state.
I'd be even more happy with it if right next to the creation story(ies) they had a big panel explaining the scientific evidence against it.

The question is whether or not Ganesha was placed there for the purpose of advancing religion, or manages to have that effect. The affimative would be a pretty hard argument to make. It's unlikely that the people who put it there were Hindu, and even less likely that anyone feels pressured to become a Hindu because of its presence.

What this Hicks character is pulling, by contrast, appears to be intended to advance his religion.

Having not been to the zoo I'm not totally sure. I did see a reference that there is a statue of Ganesha by the elephant exhibit with a sign describing how important elephants are to Indian culture.

— Reed A. Cartwright

A little off topic, but when I gave the pro-science followup to ID creationist Phil Johnson's Feb. 19, 2001 talk at UNM, I invoked Ganesha as an example of the kind of creatures we might see if, indeed, some powerful "designer" was banging out new life forms in some sort of supernatural SkunkWorks. Ganesha's mixture of human and elephant features would be a big problem for evolution -- it could falsify evolution -- but it would be no problem at all for a Designer who can create things like flagella and clotting cascades from scratch.

An article on my talk is here, and the image of ganesha I used is here.

Dave Thomas

"Ganesha is the son of Shiva," Hicks said. "He is the first god a Hindu chants to. This violates the first and second commandments (of the 10 Commandments) and it is very offensive."

Man, and I thought zookeepers were cool.
What a joyless, dour worldview.
I bet he's the kind of guy who won't let his kids dress up for Halloween, being as it's "pagan" and "very offensive."

I should point out that according to the Tulsa Beacon link, the zoo board has said that Hicks's display would require a message identifying it as literature. I don't know what the final ruling was.

Anyone have email addies we can flood? Zoo officials, newspapers?

TULSA, Okla. (AP) -- The Tulsa Zoo will add a display featuring the biblical account of creation following complaints to a city board about other displays with religious significance, including a Hindu elephant statue. The Tulsa Park and Recreation Board voted 3-1 on Tuesday in favor of a display depicting God's creation of the world in six days and his rest on the seventh, as told in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.

"depicting God's...rest on the seventh [day]..."
Man, that's hilarious.
I wonder if God has a little mat for naptime, like you used in kindergarten?

I wonder if God has a little mat for naptime, like you used in kindergarten?

I have always thought that the "seventh" day was a latter addition to the myth that occured when the Hebrews adapted a story from a base-6 society like Babylon. I have no idea if reputable biblical scholars think the same thing.

I do think that an appropriate response to Hicks' display would be one pointing out the two or three other, different, creation stories in the Bible, including Genesis 1. That would be of great benefit to the education of the people of Tulsa.

As some others have pointed out, I actually have no problem with a display on the various myths of creation. I'm fascinated with the subject myself, and I think such myths show how various cultures interpreted nature. But the intent of this display is obvious -- and on taxpayer money too. I can't see this standing up in court.

Hicks' intent is obvious. So far it is unclear what the intent of the Zoo Board is. I believe they may be looking to make it an actual "literature" display with actual biblical scholarship, instead of an evangelism display with aplogetics.

This makes no sense! I could understand a display in the reptile house discussing the snake in the Garden of Eden (images of & attitudes towards animals), or something about Adam as the first taxonomist - but the whole seven-day shebang? That's . . .

Oh. Wait. I was thinking about this as a zoo professional (or indeed, any rational and reasonable person) might, not some $%^&* babbling about Ganesha. He's just jealous because his God doesn't have a cool elephant head.

I'll bet you real money he thinks Harry Potter books are eeeeeevil!

It is interesting, though, as a case of projection. For some folks, everything *has* to be about religion, it seems, because that's how they would arrange things if they could. Science is religion. Cultural tie-ins in zoos are (wrong) religion. Harry Potter is (anti/Satanic) religion.

Hey... My local planetarium has exhibits about the planets that are obviously named after Roman Gods. I think an equal time exhibit for the christian god is warranted. Perhaps a Zooastrian display. Shinto?

I think it is funny that the responsible party's name is Dan Hicks. Have a listen to late comedian Bill Hicks' rant on creationists called "Dinosaurs and the Bible."

Don't worship in my Zoo and I won't think in your church.

Ken Ham has an article on this at AiG. It has pictures of Ganesha, etc. Clearly these are not making factual claims so the entire rational for including the YEC exhibit is false.

--
Anti-spam: Replace "user" with "harlequin2"

As some others have pointed out, I actually have no problem with a display on the various myths of creation. I'm fascinated with the subject myself, and I think such myths show how various cultures interpreted nature. But the intent of this display is obvious --- and on taxpayer money too. I can't see this standing up in court.

The Hindu view of the deity is very different from a Judeo/Christian?Islamic one. The story of how Ganesha got an elephant's head is a long one that has been analysed both by classical Hindu scholars as well as modern scholars (the latter having used a Freudian perspective for what it is worth). Ganesha is extremely popular in Southern India and Western India and is everywhere the first deity to be propitiated before any good thing is done. Ganesha is supposed to be easy to please and is offered the least ornate flowers and fruits.
Ganesha is not the lord of animals, his father is - Shiva - one of whose names is Pasupathi or beastmaster! Religious beliefs vary widely among Hindus. There may be a few who believe all the various Hindu myths literally, others believe it to be an allgory, and yet others are Hindu with almost no belief at all in any deity with form. In fact it is among the latter that Ganesha as a cultural icon may find acceptance while the literally minded Hindus may feel uncomfortable at an idol inside the zoo!
Ganesha is much beloved - probably even more than Krishna - in Southern India and this misunderstanding will likely be disturbing to many of his devotees.
Ganesha in Indonesia is a cultural icon http://www.itb.ac.id and is used like a seal/crest by the Institute of Technology, Bandung. Here is a case of culture and religion being seen as separate ideas.

Disclosure: I am Hindu and have an interest in this issue being settled with no one feeling offended. While I can see some valid cultural purpose in placing the Ganesha statue near the elephant pen at the zoo; I would rather have it taken away if its placement is seen as to provide a forum at public expense to spread the tenets of a certain faith. In fact Tulsa itself has a large Hindu Temple where the 'chief' deity is Ganesha. http://www.tulsatemple.org.

This story just made the front page of the Yahoo portal.

I wonder: at what point will this demand for "equal time" start to backfire? If the Judeo-Christian creation story is put on a display along with other creation stories, won't that make it just one of many, rather than The One?

If the display is to pass the establishment smell test, I would think that it would have to present the JC story as "one of many" or emphasize the literary aspects of it (i.e., it's just a story) and thus weaken claims that the Bible is literally true. Perhaps kids will start to interpret the JC story as just another myth, as those of other cultures are usually described.

Ultimately, maybe Hicks will get more than he bargained for.

Yep, equality in planetary names should be in the offing. And then, well, tomorrow IS Thor's day!

If the display is to pass the establishment smell test, I would think that it would have to present the JC story as "one of many" or emphasize the literary aspects of it (i.e., it's just a story) and thus weaken claims that the Bible is literally true. Perhaps kids will start to interpret the JC story as just another myth, as those of other cultures are usually described.

I think it would be interesting to see various creation myths in the zoo. Of course, they could go one step further and talk about problems inherent in the myths. For example, Native Americans believe that they were placed in North America by a god -- that they've always lived in North America. The genetic evidence (in the mitochonrial DNA) shows that they emigrated (mostly) from somewhere around the caucus region of Asia. Christian creationism has some problems to: many Christian creationists claim that animals were created as vegetarians. Obvious and inconvenient facts - such as snake venom, the scorpion's tail, the spider's web building and venom, and cats' (both housecats and large cats) inability to survive on a vegetarian diet (because of an inability to produce enough taurine, thus forcing them to be carnivores) - would be rather nice. Perhaps they could follow up with some easy-to-understand evidence for evolution with the title "the triumph of science".

I think it would be interesting to see various creation myths in the zoo. Of course, they could go one step further and talk about problems inherent in the myths. For example, Native Americans believe that they were placed in North America by a god --- that they've always lived in North America. The genetic evidence (in the mitochonrial DNA) shows that they emigrated (mostly) from somewhere around the caucus region of Asia. Christian creationism has some problems to: many Christian creationists claim that animals were created as vegetarians. Obvious and inconvenient facts - such as snake venom, the scorpion's tail, the spider's web building and venom, and cats' (both housecats and large cats) inability to survive on a vegetarian diet (because of an inability to produce enough taurine, thus forcing them to be carnivores) - would be rather nice. Perhaps they could follow up with some easy-to-understand evidence for evolution with the title "the triumph of science".

— BC

"cats' (both housecats and large cats) inability to survive on a vegetarian diet (because of an inability to produce enough taurine, thus forcing them to be carnivores) -"

Interesting. Those that adhere to the 'vegetarian creation' idea (and some hold that vegetarianism existed until The Flood) keep bringing up the lions at London Zoo. Apparently during WWII they were fed on a vegetarian diet, allegedly with no ill effects. Does anyone have any more details on this?

I've never seen any attempt to deal with carnivory outside of the mammals, though. The rest of nature seems to get ignored.

"Perhaps Great White Wonder’s “enterocraftic theory” should be submitted. If there isn’t already a display which depicts a “giant space bat” pooping out planet Earth, I’m sure Tulsa schoolkids would love to see one …"

Finally something to abdicate one's mind for. Thank you. Thank You. Although I tend to lean toward the alien spacecraft waste-tank flush theory of life's origin.

I can't help but hope this backfires.

Just put up a big sign reading "The elephant in mythologies".

Yep, then watch them splutter as they argue that True Christianity(r) is not a mythology!

Interesting. Those that adhere to the 'vegetarian creation' idea (and some hold that vegetarianism existed until The Flood) keep bringing up the lions at London Zoo. Apparently during WWII they were fed on a vegetarian diet, allegedly with no ill effects. Does anyone have any more details on this?

Apparently during WWII they were fed on a vegetarian diet, allegedly with no ill effects. Does anyone have any more details on this?

An aunt of mine tried to make her pet cat into a vegetarian. It got sick (despite making the occasional attempt to have my aunt's legs) and eventually she gave in and fed it meat again. She would pray/apologise to each dead animal she prepared for giving its life (not exactly willingly!) so that her cat could live. She never had anything larger than a domestic cat as far as I know though. She might not have been around long if she'd tried to make anything larger than a domestic cat into a vegetarian.

I guess I'll never understand the fundamentalist viewpoint. Who the *&$^%!! cares if the "first animals" ate plants, each other, or Big Macs? Don't these people have anything better to do? (I know, that's a silly question...of course they don't!)

I guess I'll never understand the fundamentalist viewpoint. Who the *&$^%!! cares if the "first animals" ate plants, each other, or Big Macs? Don't these people have anything better to do? (I know, that's a silly question . . . of course they don't!)

I guess I'll never understand the fundamentalist viewpoint. Who the *&$^%!! cares if the "first animals" ate plants, each other, or Big Macs? Don't these people have anything better to do? (I know, that's a silly question . . . of course they don't!)

Interesting. Those that adhere to the 'vegetarian creation' idea (and some hold that vegetarianism existed until The Flood) keep bringing up the lions at London Zoo. Apparently during WWII they were fed on a vegetarian diet, allegedly with no ill effects. Does anyone have any more details on this?

— Kaptain Kobold

AIG is still maintaining on their website that all animals were created as vegetarian. They have an article about a lion (I think) that was kept in a zoo and feed using plants and eggs.

they probably don't regard a carnivorous, kill-or-be-killed world to be entirely perfect.

— BC

Lenny Flank wrote:
"Eggs?

So much for that whole "life begins at conception" thingie, huh."

Hen produce eggs regardless. There need not be conception.

___________________________________________

A christian AR website on the vegetarian lion:
http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/hralion.htm

According to The Vegetarian Society UK
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/catfood.html
"Cats require certain nutrients from meat that cannot be obtained in sufficient amounts from plant foods. These include taurine, arachidonic acid, vitamin A, and vitamin B12."

International Vegetarian Union (IVU), however, disagrees.
http://www.ivu.org/faq/animals.html

Vegetarian Cats Study at the University of Pennsylvania
http://www.vegetariancats.com/index.php

A PubMed search provides some information.
It appears that the vegetarian diet, of cats, has been defended in the professional literature.

A christian AR website on the vegetarian lion: http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/hralion.htm . . .

It appears that the vegetarian diet, of cats, has been defended in the professional literature.

Something that has always made me curious about the vegetarian gets around the no death rule of the bible is the fact that plants are alive. Plants can die. When you eat plants they die.

The line between plants and animals is very fuzzy. Just like every other line we use to catagorize things. So in actuallity if there was no death then the eating of plants would have to be strictly controled. Ie you'd have to eat things like fruits because things like carrots would die if you at them. But that means eating meat isn't out of the question.... you just can't kill the animal you get the meat from. Imagine taking off 1 leg of a pig...it can still live with 3 others in that world. Other animals like star fish, some worms and other creatures like geckos would also be good sources of meat since they can loose the flesh and just regrow it just like a tomatoe plant can grow more tomatoes.

Never underestimate the ingenuity (and disingenuousness) of biblical literalists. They'll just argue that if man can make synthetic taurine, then God must have put it in the grass in Eden. Then it disappeared after the fall, because of sin. Or something equally silly. Not quite sure how they'd cope with the eggs/green herbs problem though. Probably through one of their many moments of non-literalism.

Sometimes I'm ashamed of my fellow Oklahomans as the provincialism displayed by Hicks seems to be the norm. Also, Steven Laskoske wrote,

"Consider it like the friezes in the Supreme Court building. There you have Moses shown with other figures from other cultures but the interpretation is not there to get people to convert to Christianity. Instead, Moses is shown as one (of several) great lawgivers and the frieze also contains figures like the Hammurabi and Confuscious. Moses is given no special prominence."

Ironically, the frieze to which Laskoske refers, and other displays in D.C., have been misrepresented by a Christian fundamentalist email to wrongly suggest government endorsement of their view of religion and to perpetuate the false notion that the U.S. was founded strictly on Judeo-Christian values. A version of the email and its thorough debunking can be found at http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp.

Just a thought
Instead of fighting the "christian fanatics" at the Zoo, promote the rich, historical aspects of many religions. Including the bible.
I learned from shiva #34368, today. I think that would be a good way to promote separation of church and state. If you get my drift.

BC writes:
"But, is it defended once you add caveats of "no lab created nutrients" and "eating only plants"?"

Tell you what, I'm not sure. I do not have the access to those publications.

I'm not defending creationism.

Did not Jon Sarfati or a related creationist state something to the effect that, in the diluvial world, immortality applied to vertebrate animals only?
I may be wrong.

There are 2 theories about creation.

1. without God or let say consciousness
2. with consciousness.

The second has more common sense because we never ever sow anything happening without consciousness. Whatever you find in this world, you can see, it was made according to some scheme. Because there was a scheme there must be an intelligence; since there is intelligence there must be a person. Intelligence is only present in a person.

God is therefore, the non-regressable, primeval plan maker of everything. He is the primeval cause of everything and the material nature is the secondary cause of the material universe.

Conclusively, the irreducible underlying element of consciousness is not understood by scientists and so they try to explain everything to be caused by accident and chemicals. This is called the half hen logic, or desiring to have eggs after cutting down the head of the hen. However, no matter how much they speculate God will be always there just as He was there before them and will be there after all the scientist die. He is the creator, maintainer and destroyer of everything. Everything happens according to His plan.

Those aren't theories in the scientific sense though. They are ideas. You've decided to divide things into those which have consciousness and those which don't.

As it happens, I already know you'll have a lot of trouble defining consciousness in a satisfactory way, ie such that you and other people will be able to agree consistently on which things fall on one side of your arbitrary division and which on the other. However, let's temporarily ignore your lack of scientific rigour and pretend you have a simple test and that it matches either the usual prejudice of humans (and gods!) only being conscious or that you're being generous and will admit some animals.

Meanwhile, we know plenty of things which are "created" or come into being without consciousness: atoms (nuclear fusion/fission), photons (emission), molecules (chemical reactions) up to snowflakes and rocks at the very least. This means that, even if we allow your simplistic consciousness divide, the non-conscious creations outnumber the conscious creations by a long way. So it is still more probable that an event, such as the creation of the universe, was a non-conscious event rather than a conscious one. There's no evidence for a god and no good reason to invent a god - just bad reasons through human psychological need to invent gods.

Do nothing in the laboratory and everything will happen? Your direction according to your plan is needed for everything you make in laboratory. you can do small things but God big things.

Plesa demonstrate yout probabilistic theory. If you cannot then it is still the half hen logic.

MAKE AN ANOTHER BIG BAMG OR WATHEVER. YOU ALREADY HAVE SUCH A BRILLIANT THEORY.

SCIENCE (assumption) + DEMOSTRATION = ULTIIMATE PROOF

So?

Whatever makes you think that atomic reactions, chemical reactions, snowflakes and rocks are only or even mostly laboratory phenomena? What direction and what plan do you imagine was given to them and can you prove it? If you don't mean that then what do you mean, eg by my plan? You don't seem to be making any sense or even replying coherently - just posting unrelated comments.

When saying I (or anyone else) only do small things (NB without specifying how small or big that is), you have yet to show that god has done anything at all - let alone a big thing. Be specific. Give an example and your evidence for that example.

Re: Comment #34588

Ah, so now we have the inappropriate capitalisation symptom of a defective mentality showing up, along with the over-excitable poor spelling, to go with the previous poor logic. It's an often repeated pattern.

Pleas demonstrate your probabilistic theory. If you cannot then it is still the half hen logic.

MAKE AN ANOTHER BIG BAMG OR WATHEVER. YOU ALREADY HAVE SUCH A BRILLIANT THEORY.

SCIENCE (assumption) + DEMOSTRATION = ULTIIMATE PROOF

So?

1) God can direct the atomic reactions and chemical reactions in the whole universe and then you come up imitating Him in the laboratory. You can do only small things.

2) You are like a kid who sees the car running but doesn't think there is a driver. So. your analysis involve only the material nature, unfortunately you can not go beyond.

You can stick to your half hen logic. I don't mind.

How magnanimous, of you, Mr I can't even spell 'bang'.

"The second has more common sense because we never ever sow anything happening without consciousness. Whatever you find in this world, you can see, it was made according to some scheme. Because there was a scheme there must be an intelligence; since there is intelligence there must be a person. Intelligence is only present in a person.

God is therefore, the non-regressable, primeval plan maker of everything. He is the primeval cause of everything and the material nature is the secondary cause of the material universe."

I don't know if I've ever seen a longer chain of non sequiturs in my life. I'm not even sure what the first sentence means, so I'll skip that one pending further elucidation. Whatever you can see in this world was made according to some scheme? Rather begs the question doesn't it? How do you know it was made according to some scheme. Then, how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence? Then, how do you know intelligence implies a person, unless you're counting intelligent non-humans as persons. Which you must be, since you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God. Whoosh! That's a hell of a leap. But from there it's a quick hop skip and jump to God being the original maker of everything. How does this follow? Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before?

You're more than welcome to your faith, but don't pretend it's a rational argument.

Sorry I don't speak "Creationist Pig-Latin" can someone translate for me.

a. How do you know it was made according to some scheme.
*Probably you would say complexity evolved, however even for that a scheem is needed.

b. how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence?
*Ok, you will proof the oposit when one idiot will solve mathematical complex formulas like Einstein.

c. how do you know intelligence implies a person
*This sounds very irrational question. But anyway. Just like heath and light are inseparabla so is with a person having intellifgence.

d. you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God
*Yes. God has everything including intelligence. So what's the problem to inderstand this? Further, all living entities, as much as they deserve, they get intelligence from God to do various things. Birds, beasts, etc. all of them. Just how many times scientist, while walking relaxed in the nature, at once got an idea for a new discovery. Without an endeavoring the idea just came. There are many examples like this in the animal kingdom as well.

c. Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before?
*You can speak about many Gods I don't mind, but among all of them there is a primeval Supreme Lord the origin of everything and the cause of all causes. Thats why He is God. Like the vagons are moving because of the driver of the locomotive similarly God is the first pusher, the cause of working of the dull material nature. Even the atoms are moving because of His presence in them. When He is not activating matter that mater is called pradhan.

CONCLUSION: Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. Consciousness implies person whether God or any other living entity.

EDITED VERSION. SORRY FOR MISTAKES IN HURRY.

a. How do you know it was made according to some scheme.
*Probably you would say complexity evolved, however even for that a scheme is needed.

b. how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence?
*OK, you will proof the opposite when one idiot will solve mathematical complex formulas like Einstein.

c. how do you know intelligence implies a person
*This sounds very irrational question. But anyway. Just like heath and light are inseparable so is with a person having intelligence.

d. you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God
*Yes. God has everything including intelligence. So what's the problem to understand this? Further, all living entities, as much as they deserve, they get intelligence from God to do various things. Birds, beasts, etc. all of them. Just how many times scientist, while walking relaxed in the nature, at once got an idea for a new discovery. Without an endeavoring the idea just came. There are many examples like this in the animal kingdom as well.

c. Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before?
*You can speak about many Gods I don't mind, but among all of them there is a primeval Supreme Lord the origin of everything and the cause of all causes. That's why He is God. Like the wagons are moving because of the driver of the locomotive similarly God is the first pusher, the cause of working of the dull material nature. Even the atoms are moving because of His presence in them. When He is not activating matter that mater is called pradhan.

CONCLUSION: Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. Consciousness implies person whether God or any other living entity.

EDITED VERSION. SORRY FOR MISTAKES IN HURRY.

a. How do you know it was made according to some scheme.
*Probably you would say complexity evolved, however even for that a scheme is needed.

b. how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence?
*OK, you will proof the opposite when one idiot will solve mathematical complex formulas like Einstein.

c. how do you know intelligence implies a person
*This sounds very irrational question. But anyway. Just like heath and light are inseparable so is with a person having intelligence.

d. you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God
*Yes. God has everything including intelligence. So what's the problem to understand this? Further, all living entities, as much as they deserve, they get intelligence from God to do various things. Birds, beasts, etc. all of them. Just how many times scientist, while walking relaxed in the nature, at once got an idea for a new discovery. Without an endeavoring the idea just came. There are many examples like this in the animal kingdom as well.

c. Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before?
*You can speak about many Gods I don't mind, but among all of them there is a primeval Supreme Lord the origin of everything and the cause of all causes. That's why He is God. Like the wagons are moving because of the driver of the locomotive similarly God is the first pusher, the cause of working of the dull material nature. Even the atoms are moving because of His presence in them. When He is not activating matter that mater is called pradhan.

CONCLUSION: Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. Consciousness implies person whether God or any other living entity.

EDITED VERSION. SORRY FOR MISTAKES IN HURRY.

a. How do you know it was made according to some scheme.
*Probably you would say complexity evolved, however even for that a scheme is needed.

b. how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence?
*OK, you will proof the opposite when one idiot will solve mathematical complex formulas like Einstein.

c. how do you know intelligence implies a person
*This sounds very irrational question. But anyway. Just like heath and light are inseparable so is with a person having intelligence.

d. you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God
*Yes. God has everything including intelligence. So what's the problem to understand this? Further, all living entities, as much as they deserve, they get intelligence from God to do various things. Birds, beasts, etc. all of them. Just how many times scientist, while walking relaxed in the nature, at once got an idea for a new discovery. Without an endeavoring the idea just came. There are many examples like this in the animal kingdom as well.

c. Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before?
*You can speak about many Gods I don't mind, but among all of them there is a primeval Supreme Lord the origin of everything and the cause of all causes. That's why He is God. Like the wagons are moving because of the driver of the locomotive similarly God is the first pusher, the cause of working of the dull material nature. Even the atoms are moving because of His presence in them. When He is not activating matter that mater is called pradhan.

CONCLUSION: Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. Consciousness implies person whether God or any other living entity.

a. How do you know it was made according to some scheme. *Probably you would say complexity evolved, however even for that a scheme is needed. b. how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence? *OK, you will proof the opposite when one idiot will solve mathematical complex formulas like Einstein. c. how do you know intelligence implies a person *This sounds very irrational question. But anyway. Just like heath and light are inseparable so is with a person having intelligence. d. you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God *Yes. God has everything including intelligence. So what's the problem to understand this? Further, all living entities, as much as they deserve, they get intelligence from God to do various things. Birds, beasts, etc. all of them. Just how many times scientist, while walking relaxed in the nature, at once got an idea for a new discovery. Without an endeavoring the idea just came. There are many examples like this in the animal kingdom as well. c. Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before? *You can speak about many Gods I don't mind, but among all of them there is a primeval Supreme Lord the origin of everything and the cause of all causes. That's why He is God. Like the wagons are moving because of the driver of the locomotive similarly God is the first pusher, the cause of working of the dull material nature. Even the atoms are moving because of His presence in them. When He is not activating matter that mater is called pradhan. CONCLUSION: Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. Consciousness implies person whether God or any other living entity.

— Nimai

a) No scheme is necessary. Indeed if you try to scheme with evolution, it plays against that too! It doesn't have to be smart. It just does what it does - stupidly and persistently. Complexity arises from very simple starting points, eg the computer model "Life" and fractals.

b) Bad choice of example. Einstein had someone else help him with the maths. You still haven't shown that a scheme (eg in the sense of a pattern) requires intelligence. Crystals demonstrate that a pattern doesn't require intelligence. So you've already lost that one just by the one counter-example.

c) You've switched round from intelligence implying a person to a person implying intelligence. A chimpanzee or gorilla is a counter-example of the first, if by person you mean human. Terri Schiavo was an example of the second.

d) You are still just jumping for that one. You have shown no evidence.

c = e) Ooh, the my god is bigger than yours game. How terribly bronze-age of you.

In conclusion, your conclusion isn't one. It's just your starting assumption all over again. You have no logical train of thought there, let alone any evidence.

a. How do you know it was made according to some scheme. *Probably you would say complexity evolved, however even for that a scheme is needed.

b. how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence? *OK, you will proof the opposite when one idiot will solve mathematical complex formulas like Einstein.

c. how do you know intelligence implies a person *This sounds very irrational question. But anyway. Just like heath and light are inseparable so is with a person having intelligence.

d. you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God *Yes. God has everything including intelligence. So what's the problem to understand this? Further, all living entities, as much as they deserve, they get intelligence from God to do various things. Birds, beasts, etc. all of them. Just how many times scientist, while walking relaxed in the nature, at once got an idea for a new discovery. Without an endeavoring the idea just came. There are many examples like this in the animal kingdom as well.

c. Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before? *You can speak about many Gods I don't mind, but among all of them there is a primeval Supreme Lord the origin of everything and the cause of all causes. That's why He is God. Like the wagons are moving because of the driver of the locomotive similarly God is the first pusher, the cause of working of the dull material nature. Even the atoms are moving because of His presence in them. When He is not activating matter that mater is called pradhan.

Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. Consciousness implies person whether God or any other living entity.

a) No scheme is necessary. Indeed if you try to scheme with evolution, it plays against that too! It doesn't have to be smart. It just does what it does - stupidly and persistently. Complexity arises from very simple starting points, eg the computer model "Life" and fractals.

**So. when you say stupidly & persistently that includes conscious decision and endeavour what is the characteristic only of a person. Therefore, consciousness exist.

b) Bad choice of example. Einstein had someone else help him with the maths.
** Yes, God gave Him intelligence maybe through his wife.

bb) You still haven't shown that a scheme (eg in the sense of a pattern) requires intelligence.
**You are so intelligent, could you do that for me?

bbb) Crystals demonstrate that a pattern doesn't require intelligence. So you've already lost that one just by the one counter-example.
**No. As I mentioned already God's intelligence is behind everything and His control as well.

c) You've switched round from intelligence implying a person to a person implying intelligence. **When you will get the point? Heat and light are both simultaneous characteristics of fire. Some things are just existing together and never separately.

A chimpanzee or gorilla is a counter-example of the first, if by person you mean human. Terri Schiavo was an example of the second.
**Not only human. Any living entity to different degrees has intelligence.

d) You are still just jumping for that one. You have shown no evidence.
**Do you mean here, no evidence that God has all intelligence? If yes, did you ever heard that God is the Greatest (not you or Darwin, but God).
**The evidence for God's giving intelligence to humans is called inspiration and for animal the instinct. When a pure soul who is on the spiritual level gets knowledge from God that's called revelation. I am sure you are enough intelligent to find examples for all these.

c = e) Ooh, the my god is bigger than yours game. How terribly bronze-age of you.
**There is only one God with many names and one religion with many names. Therefore there is no difference of the Main God of any religion. If you don't accept this maybe you have the intelligence of those fellows from iron age? (Actually I rather avoid this kind of personal attacks. This one is just response to your, I hope, only a joke?)

f) In conclusion, your conclusion isn't one.
**There is a say how many people so many conclusions. But if you ever thought about the difference between the living and death body there it is. Consciousness is the symptom of life. Absence of consciousness of called death.
If you want scientific details about consciousness you should better read the book from Richard Thompson - Mechanistic and Non-Mechanistic Science.

ff) It's just your starting assumption all over again. You have no logical train of thought there, let alone any evidence.
**It is also your assumption that there is no consciousness needed for doing any activity. Consciousness is the symptom of life and when there is life there can be activity. Do you agree with this? If you give me an example disproving my statement I will try to explain.

Ah well, that wasn't fun for very long, was it? Now it just gets tedious.

When did crazy people on street corners start buying computers and hopping online?

Consciousness is the symptom of life

When did crazy people on street corners start buying computers and hopping online?

— IgnoranceIsBliss

1) What do you mean by "scheme" .
**Scheme - a plan or outline how things should happen.
2) Why is a "scheme" necessary for complexity and why does a "scheme" require intelligence?
**Any practical man e.g. architect can answer this question...only the evolutionists not.
3) You're inferring intelligence from the (supposed) existence of a scheme. You, therefore, are the one who needs to demonstrate that the inference is valid.
**My proof is your ability to disproof.
4) What do you mean by person?
**Any living being with a symptom of life.
**The role of the intelligence is to discriminate what to do and what not to do, whether one makes a good or bad choices. Intelligence is found in all living entities in different degrees.
**personalistic philosophy say all living entities are individual persons. Person means - state of having unique characteristics, animalistic, human or whatever.
4a) Would an intelligent chimp be a person?
**Deriving the conclusion from previous explanations, YES.
5) why, even if complexity implies intelligence implies a God.
**God is the source of everything. Material ingredients for creation (including the mind, intelligence and false ego); the laws of material nature; all the individual souls possessing consciousness.
**He gives the intelligence how to do things. I gave examples in previous post - inspiration, instinct, revelation.
6) Who says "God has everything"? You do. The Bible does. But not logic or any empirical evidence.
**I know the blind faith of many religious people but beyond that is the process of realizing Him by mantra meditation. If you reject to make an experiment and thus gain a direct experience of His existence you will miss the most direct proof about His existence and you can just go on and on arguing that God doesn't exist. But this is like the frog in the well which cannot understand how big is the ocean. 2 or 3 x bigger than his well? He just speculates. But that's your life, if you like so.
**With your material senses and materially contaminated intelligence you will never understand God, i.e. how He has everything.
7) Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. About this please read the article on the following site.
http://www.vedic-academy.com/articles/science/consciousness.htm

Ganesha, is that you in there?

Sorry I don't speak "Creationist Pig-Latin" can someone translate for me.

—

Any serious comments?
Answers are in codes, formulas. For some need explanation.

Any serious comments?

Wayne Francis: Something that has always made me curious about the vegetarian gets around the no death rule of the bible is the fact that plants are alive.  Plants can die.  When you eat plants they die.

This attribute of consciousness needs to be emphasized. It is apparently centered physically in the brain which, with its fantastically complex electric circuitry and associated nervous system, is undoubtedly the most highly organized and intricately structured type of system in the universe. Its functioning, of course, depends on the blood, with its "soul," and the "breath" with its oxygen. ... The above considerations indicate that plants do not possess life in this Biblical sense. They are merely extremely complex replicating systems of organic chemicals. It is significant that they were "brought forth" (Genesis 1:12) on the third day, prior to the first creation of "living creatures" on the fifth day. The same is perhaps true of the simpler forms of what men have described as the animal kingdom, though the exact dividing-line between conscious living creatures and non-conscious replicating systems is not yet clear, either from Biblical definitions or scientific study. Since plants do not have life in the Biblical sense, they cannot die in the Biblical sense. When men and animals were given instructions to eat the fruits and herbs God had created, this was therefore quite consistent with the fact that there was originally no death in the world.

No way, these other crackpots say that plants are sentient

Plants use oxygen. So do insects. They don't exactly breathe though and if those humans are being prejudiced about possessing lungs, then snails and many other animals are out of the category too. The implication that some time they are going to find an exact dividing line between conscious living creatures and non-conscious replicating systems is both hilarious and indicative of the inherent problem with their limited mentality and poor comprehension of these matters.

Lenny Flank wrote: "Eggs? So much for that whole "life begins at conception" thingie, huh."

Hen produce eggs regardless. There need not be conception.

Pierce R. Butler - msg # 34669

Wonderful quote from ICR about plants not being alive "in the Biblical sense".

This passage illustrates how different the thought process of Christian religious believers is from the scientific method.

The Christian believer starts with some proposition derived from something in the Bible or elsewhere, then looks for some evidence that will support it. Whatever the twisted logic, whatever the circular reasoning, whatever the laughable conclusion, however divorced from observable reality, if it supports the original proposition, then it *could* be true. Faith is preserved.

In this case, such thinking leads to the laughable conclusion that "plants do not possess life in this Biblical sense. They are merely extremely complex replicating systems of organic chemicals." I wonder how many Christian gardeners believe that their beloved flowers and trees are not really alive.

And for people who think in this way, no amount of worldly logic or empirical evidence or instances of contradictions will cause them to rethink their positions. As a billboard I once saw said: "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it."

When confronted with the absurdity of the "plants are not alive" position, I'm sure that Mr. Morris would steadfastly repeat the statement above, and show no signs of doubt.

The next step in the IDers' program may be banning the study of botany in biology classes!

But seriously, though, I don't see the Biblical justification for the idea that there was no death before the Fall. Even if Adam and Eve were not subject to death (and does the New Testament really say this?), there is no reason to believe that animals were similarly immortal and entirely vegatarian. Maybe a believing lurker could enlighten me.

There's also the problem of the Tree of Life. If Adam and Ever were already immortal, what was the purpose of the Tree of Life?

1 Corinthians 15:21 - For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

Whatever the twisted logic, whatever the circular reasoning, whatever the laughable conclusion, however divorced from observable reality, if it supports the original proposition, then it *could* be true. Faith is preserved.

When something new comes along, for which there is no doctrinal position of Truth, what sort of process goes through the mind of the Believer? Clearly, one can find Biblical verses suggesting an imposing vista of possible positions. The actual evidence on the ground usually suggests some narrow range of interpretations; do these influence Believers' evaluations?

"For if death is not the result of sin, then Christ's sacrificial death was unnecessary and did not pay the price for our sin...."

"How do we know that there was no death before sin? The first reason we can know this is because death is not 'very good.' After God finished creating the earth and all its contents, the Bible records: 'God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.' (Genesis 1:31) [snip] God would not have been able to say this if there was death either of humans or animals in the newly created world (Shackleford 11)...."

But what can you make of people who say things like these (from #34455): "For if death is not the result of sin, then Christ's sacrificial death was unnecessary and did not pay the price for our sin . . . ."

Air Bear,

On further reflection, I realize that there's more consistency in such arguments than I originally acknowledged:

Biblical creationist: "I cannot personally credit the possibility that God might intentionally include death in His creation. Therefore, he didn't."

ID proponent: "I cannot personally credit the possibility that complex biological structures evolved. Therefore, they didn't."

;^)

Because consciousness was in previous posts equalized with mechanical processes of the brain or bodily functions here I am sending an interesting essay about consciousness that considers it to be something completely different from matter (as it always was and will be).

It is taken from

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:e5uUII4pD-QJ:www.metanexus.net/conference2004/pdf/singh2.pdf+%22consciousness+the+missing+link%22+download&hl=en&start=1

and if you like more details go ahead, read it.

5. Life and Consciousness

We can all agree that
consciousness is one of the most important characteristics of life.Nobody can
deny its existence. It is the birthplace of noble human qualities such as
forgiveness, humility, love, etc., and it is also the birthplace of sacrifice,
tolerance and truthfulness. In fact, it is the birthplace of even the creative
scientific theories being guided by the Supreme Spirit, God. According to
Vedanta, consciousness is a fundamental quality of the 'spiriton'. Thus it is
purely spiritual and transcendental to matter. As explained earlier, matter is
the inferior energy of the Supreme Lord. It is inferior because matter, however
complex it may be, will never have conscious symptoms. On the other hand, the living entities are the superior
energy of the Supreme Being. They are superior because they have consciousness.
The renowned physicist, Eugene Wigner also expressed, "There are two kinds of
reality or existence; the existence of my consciousness and the

Page 11
reality or existence of everything else."25 All living beings, microorganisms,
birds, animals, etc., possess different degrees of consciousness. In other
words, all these living beings are covered by different degrees of the three
modes of material nature (see section 8). Microorganisms exhibit very little
symptom of consciousness because of the very thick layers of covering of the
material modes. However, they possess consciousness. The well-known biologist,
George Wald and others such as, Lynn Marguilis indicated that Protozoa,
single-celled animals and bacteria also possess consciousness. Since the last
few decades there is a growing interest to investigate consciousness among
quantum physicists, neuro-physiologists, cognitive philosophers and
spiritualists. William James, von Neumann, Eugene Wigner, Erwin SchrÎdinger, and
David Bohm are some of the pioneers in the study of consciousness. One common
feature among the leading quantumphysicists is that they all try to explain the
collapse of the wave function through some interaction of the mind or
consciousness. However, there is very little evidence that such acollapse of the
wave function really occurs. In the author's opinion, quantum mechanics, with
its limitations in mathematical language, can, at best, indicate the presence of
consciousness but can neither prove it nor describe it. Max Planck remarked, "It
is a fact that there is a point, one single point in the immeasurable expanse of
mind and matter, where science and therefore every causal method of research is
inapplicable, not only on practical grounds, but also on logical grounds, and
will always remain inapplicable. This is the point of [our] individual
awareness." There are many different views among scholars regarding
consciousness and a deeper study is necessary. According to Vedanta,
consciousness is not a function of the brain. As said earlier, the brain in
developed living beings is an important organ of the body machinery in which the
symptom of consciousness is transmitted. The conscious energy is transmitted
from the spiritual soul, 'spiriton'. Thus consciousness is purely spiritual. It
is the living energy and the fundamental quality of life particle, 'spiriton'.
Just like a computer, however sophisticated it may be, will never be conscious.
The program has to be supplied by an intelligent programmer. The computer is
simply relaying the circumstantial choice fed into the program by the
programmer, the human soul. It will be a good research field to study how the
conscious energy is transmitted from the spiritual soul, 'spiriton' to the
brain. Niels Bohr, who made profound contributions to our understanding of
atomic structure and quantum mechanics expressed, "We can admittedly find
nothing in physics or chemistry that has even a remote bearing on consciousness.
Yet all of us know that there is such a thing as consciousness, simply because
we have it ourselves. Hence consciousness must be part of nature, or more
generally, of reality, which means that, quite apart from the laws of physics
and chemistry, as 25Eugene P. Wigner, "Two Kinds of Reality,"The Monist, Vol.
48, 1964, p.250. 8 T. D. Singh -- Life and Spiritual Evolution
laid down in quantum theory, we must also consider laws of quite a different
nature."26 Furthermore, Vedanta describes matter as the field of activity and by
its nature, matter is inert and has no consciousness. But there is interaction
between the individual particle of consciousness and matter through universal
consciousness. Moreover, the natural events that are taking place in the
material world are maps of the events occurring in the spiritual plane
(consciousness). About four centuries ago, the famous French philosopher Rene
Descartes concluded that he knew one thing for certain: "I think, therefore I
am."27From the Vedantic point of view, the expression, 'I am' is the conscious
experience and inherent transcendental property of the self. Thousands of years
before Descartes, the sages of the Vedic tradition realized the principle even a
step further, aham brahmäsmi, meaning, I am Brahman, I am spirit, conscious
self. This is consciousness for which the Sanskrit word is cetanä. The act of
thinking by a human being is the symptom of consciousness and it belongs to
life. False consciousness is exhibited under the impression that 'I am a product
of material nature'. Thus modern biologists and biochemists should include the
study of consciousness in their research works. The field should not be left
mainly to the neuroscientists, quantum physicists, psychologists and
philosophers only.

It woudd be a hoot, though probably unethical, to introduce a FICTITIOUS new phenomenon to a group of Christian believers, and see how they reconcile it with the Bible.

— Air Bear

... and Nitai has just reminded me of another nutty wriggle - that of trying to pretend quantum phenomena explain consciousness as a separate entity. There's also the whole range of fictitious psychic phenomena from telepathy to dowsing. There isn't a shortage of those but a difficulty in finding people who've felt the need to scour and reinterpret the bible (or Koran, because this mentality is not localised to a specific set of cults) for each of them.

The exhibit is proposed to be in a section of the Zoo called the Time Gallery. There are no living animals in the exhibit. The Gallery composes these current exhibits:
--The Cosmic Calender, based on Carl Sagen's analogy of the the universe scrunched into one year (The Big Bang began on Jan 1, etc...);
--a crosscut section of the earth showing crust, mantle, and core;
--a push-button visual to show the effects of erosion and crust movement;
--A dislay of various crystals and a brief description of how they are formed;
--an exhibit explaining plate tectonics;
--the earthquake machine, with a hydrolic floor that simulates a mid-strength eartquake;
--a display on vertebrate fossils and another of invertebrate fossils;
--a life-sized fiberglass dinosaur,
--fossilized dinosaur eggs;
--a machine that replicates life forming from primordal soup;
--the evolution of a sample species, a horse;
--an exhibit showing how humans affect evolution, with the example of spotted English moths and the onset of the English Industrial Revolution;
--a map of the Bering Land Bridge from the last Ice Age,
--primitive arrow and spear tips along the bones of an extinct animal, and
--the Trash Man, covered with the history of garbage from primitive pottery shards to disposable razors.
The Time Gallery's purpose is to show how nature has affected humans and how humans affected nature, perhaps to suggest what human's role in the natural world is. In this context, descriptions of cultural beliefs of origins would be appropriate. However, Mr. Hicks' proposal merely has quotes from Genesis without any context or explanation. It would be similar to mounting an actual Bible to the wall and dressing it with some pretty pictures.

The exhibit is proposed to be in a section of the Zoo called the Time Gallery. There are no living animals in the exhibit. The Gallery composes these current exhibits:
--The Cosmic Calender, based on Carl Sagen's analogy of the the universe scrunched into one year (The Big Bang began on Jan 1, etc...);
--a crosscut section of the earth showing crust, mantle, and core;
--a push-button visual to show the effects of erosion and crust movement;
--A dislay of various crystals and a brief description of how they are formed;
--an exhibit explaining plate tectonics;
--the earthquake machine, with a hydrolic floor that simulates a mid-strength eartquake;
--a display on vertebrate fossils and another of invertebrate fossils;
--a life-sized fiberglass dinosaur,
--fossilized dinosaur eggs;
--a machine that replicates life forming from primordal soup;
--the evolution of a sample species, a horse;
--an exhibit showing how humans affect evolution, with the example of spotted English moths and the onset of the English Industrial Revolution;
--a map of the Bering Land Bridge from the last Ice Age,
--primitive arrow and spear tips along the bones of an extinct animal, and
--the Trash Man, covered with the history of garbage from primitive pottery shards to disposable razors.
The Time Gallery's purpose is to show how nature has affected humans and how humans affected nature, perhaps to suggest what human's role in the natural world is. In this context, descriptions of cultural beliefs of origins would be appropriate. However, Mr. Hicks' proposal merely has quotes from Genesis without any context or explanation. It would be similar to mounting an actual Bible to the wall and dressing it with some pretty pictures.

Oops I posted it twice. sory.

It would be similar to mounting an actual Bible to the wall and dressing it with some pretty pictures.

— pegorsus