Between hot and cold
A few years ago University of Auckland sociologist Bruce Curtis gave an interesting paper on New Zealand's nineteenth century history. Curtis distinguished between 'hot' (unstable) versus 'cold' (stable) societies, and suggested that this country had gone from being a hot to a cold society between the 1860s, when war was raging in several parts of the North Island, and the 1890s, when Maori had been pushed off the best land in the island, and the invention of refrigerated shipping had made large-scale exports of sheep and dairy products possible. Curtis' formulation undoubtedly has merit, but it seems to me that there is a period between the radical instability of the war years and the beginning of Pakeha hegemony which deserves our scrutiny. Historians like James Belich have made us aware of the scope and implications of the dramatic events of the New Zealand Wars, but we are less informed about the enigmatic series of incidents that occurred in the aftermath of the wars, when Pakeha were still to consolidate the gains they had won and Maori were still resisting being pushed into the margins of the North Island.
I'm thinking of incidents like the numerous clashes on the border of the Rohe Potae or King Country - the independent Maori state that Waikato retreated into after being invaded by the Crown in 1863. Both the Waikato people and their Ngati Maniapoto hosts defended the boundaries of the King Country determinedly through the late 1860s and 1870s, and only gradually opened the area up to Pakeha in the 1880s.
I have been slogging through a rather badly written and constructed book called Raglan County Hills and Sea: A Centennial History 1876-1976, by CW Vennell and Susan Williams. Despite its authors' best intentions, the book manages to convey a number of fascinating stories about interactions between Maori and Pakeha in the late nineteenth century.
Vennell and Williams discuss not only relatively well-known incidents on the King Country's borders, like the killing of a surveyor at Pirongia and a farmhand near Maungatautari, but also the tension in the Aotea Harbour region, where the friendly chief Hone te One was encouraged by the government to construct a pa and make himself into a buffer between the embattled settlement of Raglan and the Ngati Maniapoto stronghold of Kawhia. Occasionally the tension on this obscure section of the border of the Rohe Potae boiled over - in 1867, for instance, there was a Maori attack on a European home in Kawhia, and in 1869 a Maori party pulled up survey pegs at Aotea.
I was also struck by Vennell and Williams' casual mention of a series of events that occurred a long way north of the King Country, in a year when we might expect Pakeha hegemony over most of the North Island to be well and truly established. In
1894 Maori of the Pukekawa area, which lies just south of Pukekohe, launched a campaign to prevent the building of the road from Tuakau to Raglan that we nowadays know as Highway 22. Survey pegs were pulled up, and roadworks were sabotaged.
According to Vennell and Williams, the Crown reacted by sending three policemen to Mangatawhiri marae near Mercer, where a large group of women armed with paddles fell upon them and fought 'like wild cats'. The forces of the law beat a hasty retreat. Two days later, though, forty armed policemen turned up at the marae, and succeeded in arresting about fifteen men and women after lengthy scuffles. The prisoners were taken by boat across the river to Mercer, and then put on the train to Mt Eden prison. Predictably, Vennell and Williams trivialise this incident as a 'colourful day for the Maoris', and neglect to explain exactly what happened to the prisoners.
Dick Scott made the resistance movement focused on Parihaka famous, and in his biography of Princess Te Puea Michael King revealed to non-Tainui audiences the massive campaign of civil disobedience centred on Mangatawhiri marae during World War One - a campaign which was only ended by mass arrests. But what of the campaign at Pukekawa in 1894, which seems to have echoed the struggle at Parihaka, and which provoked a raid which presaged the mass arrests at Mangatawhiri during World War One?
It seems that there are many incidents in our late nineteenth century history which still await careful study. Does anybody want to volunteer?
posted by maps at 3/07/2009 12:33:00 am
20 Comments:
maps, another great post. so much history to be written eh?
Good Blog.
Portugal
Now I realize why I’ve been depressed for so long’, a man with dishevelled hair, baggy clothes and unkempt beard told me after a meeting one evening. He said he had always accepted evolution was a fact. That night he realized that this evolutionary belief was the reason for his dark despair and feeling of emptiness.
Photo stock.xchng
He went on, ‘After tonight I feel like there is hope, that there is light at the end of the tunnel.’
Peter Atkins, professor of chemistry at Oxford and an atheist, said that man is ‘just a bit of slime on the planet’. He believes it’s scientific fact that we evolved from pond scum. That’s hardly the stuff to inspire us with purpose and sacrifice.
Antitheist Richard Dawkins is even more dramatic. In his book River out of Eden (ch. 4) he said that we live in a universe that has ‘no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.’ He thinks like that because he believes evolution is scientific. I sometimes wonder why he bothers getting out of bed in the morning. Why is he so passionate about spreading his evolutionary views? Misery loves company.
All this illustrates why creation is not an academic issue. Your understanding of where you have come from impacts the way you live now, and that affects your destiny.
"All this illustrates why creation is not an academic issue. Your understanding of where you have come from impacts the way you live now, and that affects your destiny."
Why? Destiny - who wants destiny?! Bejasus! It all illustrates fuck all!
Are you living in a box? A coffin?
How you feel is to a large extent how you want to feel.
Often it is affected simply by such things as whether you have hangover, had a good wank while watching a blue movie, have just got a pay rise, won the lotto, woke to sunny day with a powerful hard on; met a beautiful sexy woman (or man or whatever) who shouts you to three course gourmet dinner and then turns on a good fuck; (and - I nearly forgot - the birds, and the sea; is not life so full of joy and portent!) - who wants to be Eugenie Grandet or Monsieur Grandet??; and you listen to a great piece of music, or a jolly English tune,or your favourite popular song that is so exuberant or pleasant, or your consume a croissant and a great cup of coffee; or you find a brilliant combination in a chess game to beat a chess master,and so on ... or (during the day) on sugar levels or what part of the Cycladian Cycle one is at - you are best to take this question of evolution up with a scientific group - for me it is virtually set in stone.
That I am or am not descended from God's bollocks or a piece of slime or sperm or green snot; doesn't affect my feelings one iota.
What has this comment got to do with the NZ-Maori wars of Maps's post above?
You might start - "By the way (this is not quite on topic)..." - and then give us a connection - Maps (albeit humoresquely) accused me of "invalidity" but my madness at least has or hides some degree method or import - yours seems totally obsessed and one track... in fact the more sad bastards like you go on about God or religion or evolution etc the more I am persuaded I hate God and the Church etc The more I find them a bore.
All religion is born of a fear of death - it has no realistic basis. This is not to say there are no "mysteries" - but there are certainly no certainties.
The most important person or being to "worship" on this earth is oneself YOURSELF cookie boy! - that means taking charge of your own life - not putting it in the hands of some other - God, or man or woman or other being or idea ...
But I recommend you get down to a classy massage parlour for a blow job, sky dive, dynamite a public building, start butterfly collecting, play knuckle bones, eat a pretzel, icecream, a cake; or start your own Blog; but whatever, for crap's sake shovel your guts back inside yourself and get some kind of life!
To the Satanist by his own admission named 'Richard Taylor:
So we get rid of religion and end up with what? Cuba? China? USSR? Cambodia? NK?
All those wonderful atheistic, God free political regimes?
Man, you are fuckin stupid.
These libelous accusations are just more evo-atheist lying. This kind of Orwellian revisionism needs to be stamped out before it infects more unsuspecting minds.
Think about this, dirthead: It's pretty naive to think Darwinism could build a functioning ecosystem. There is no informational feedback loop to guide the formation of cyclical resource usage or to dynamically balance resource usage throughout the ecosystem. Just the fact that various products are being produced by one organism is no reason to assume they will get used by another organism.
Or to put it another way, if life had spontaneously evolved on some ancient beach, and conveniently had reproductive capabilities, it would simply have drowned in its own waste after covering the planet.
Got that yet? Uh-huh.
Listen. You have now confessed to me to being a Sstanist.
What state are you in?
You are probably breaking the law, you know.
Think about it.
Think.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Evos whine and whine, and drone on and on. Your all a fuckin disgrace. I'm leaving this blog. I hope the LORD FINDS YOU.
RC
P.S. 2 things I believe.
1. God created the world
2. This should not be in breaking news
P.P.S.
I hope you don’t mind — I’ll look tomorrow for your responses. I have given you a lot of homework. I am sure your Google Fu can get provide you the words to answer the questions I have put to you (I am still available to help you with REAL logical fallacies, but if you stumble, I will lift you on a case by case basis).
Please remember I do this not to hurt or insult you, but to help you. You have made several assertions on this thread — it is never a good idea to do so without support.
I am on Eastern Time, thus my desire for rest and sleep. Please enjoy any time zone advantage to increase your research time and translate the words you may find to meaning.
I bid you good night and God Bless you and yours.
Anonymous,
I usually make a point not to bother replying to those who are unwilling to educate themselves but in this case I would just like to say a few things. Firstly, you seem to be well schooled in the anti-scientific paradigm of creationism, with the usual and inevitable lack of understanding of how Darwinian Evolution actually works. I am guessing you have never actually taken the time to read a book on biology, evolutionary psychology, archaeology or any other of the many fields of scientific reseach which use the evolutionary framework, and have instead swollowed and reproduced the sermonising propaganda produced by your 'school' of uncritical thinking.
Secondly, in regards to your "There is no informational feedback loop to guide the formation of cyclical resource usage or to dynamically balance resource usage throughout the ecosystem. Just the fact that various products are being produced by one organism is no reason to assume they will get used by another organism.
Or to put it another way, if life had spontaneously evolved on some ancient beach, and conveniently had reproductive capabilities, it would simply have drowned in its own waste after covering the planet."
Firstly, I suppose for a start I should point out that evolution works on the geological timescale, not the Biblical one I pressume you subscribe to. As such, Natural selection has selected those traits favourable to replication of genes over vast amounts of time which is always relative to the geographic locale or environment, i.e. evolution does not really work in a vacuum but is subject to, amoung other things, mutation, replication, and adaptation (yes, that's where organisms adapt to their environemt). Natural selection is the mechanism which acts upon, and affects the outcome of these. It is therefore not only not suprising, but entirely within the realm of the evolutionary framework to answer your (albeit muddled) question about ecosystems. Have you not heard of something called co-evolution?! It is where two or more organisms evolve and adapt in relation to the other.
A second point I would like to highlight is that you, like every single other creationist I have ever debated with, seems to like to assert that it is either 'God' or 'chance'. Take for example your use of the words "spontaneously" and "conveniently". You obviously have no knowledge of what evolution is. Is is the third option, the reality of CUMULATIVE processes which take place gradually. Of course things don't just happen "spontaneously", and I don't think "convenient" is the word i'd use to describe a proccess tens of thousands if not millions of years long based upon incremental adaptations stacked upon one another culminating in a new species. Perhaps 'advantageous' is a better word?
Lastly, you criticise the fact of evolution (supported by mountains of evidence and used in applied sciences which you and your family enjoy every day) and those who support it as being 'unrealistic' and a falsehood based upon nothing but your own ignorance. Well, what do you suppose the chances are, seen as you seem to like to throw around psuedo-probabilities, of a creator being who is the most complex thing of all time due to being able to create a universe and everything in it actually being the cause? Who/what created God? You merely create one giant regress in trying to answer the question while simultaneously taking the view that creation always goes from complex to simple (God - a mouse for example, rather than evolution with atoms - a mouse through a long and cumulative proccess). Oh, but I suppose the theology supplies all the answers you need? If you cut through theological language you realise its all just rhetoric based upon flaws in logic or major assumptions. But them, a creationist such as yourself is probably unlikely to have ever studdied the bible in an academic context right? No, I think it is only those sophisticated theists such as the Catholics or Anglicans which actually bother to read the Bible in context, as they seem to be the only ones to use "what God gave them" - thier ability to reason.
I would like to add one last thing, a disclaimer of sorts. I, nor anyone I know are anti-religion per-say, and in fact think that in a secular society it is the right of anyone to believe what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. I can however be called anti-creationist insofar as I can see the damaging effects it has upon societies views on science, and the consequent encroaching of such views into the political atmosphere to the point where usefull, life-saving scientific research is handicapped to the detrement of all humanity. I would also point out that the vast majority of cristiandom has no issue with the fact of evolution. The Catholics and Anglicans again for example see no disjoint with thier theistic belief system. And on a whole I would think this is because the leaders are required to get actual university training in theology and other disciplines. Something which the creationist church is lacking. Lastly, you point to various communist countries as evidence of what happens when everyone is an atheist. What you fail to realise is that large majorities of non-theists live in western democratic societies. In NZ our last priminister was an agnostic and we are widely known as one of the most open ecconomies in the world. I might also point out seen as you like the tick for tak approach that Afghanistan, Iraq, certain states in America and many other countries are ruled by fundamental religious apologists and they haven't exactly turned out great. In sum, believe what you will, but not to the detrement of scientific research, freedom, and reason.
is it not fair to say though that evolution (or co-evolution) does not address the tricky matter of feedback? if a tree in a thick nest of forest develops a seed wrapped in a huge coconut husk (in order that when it is dropped it breaks through the undergrowth and rolls a distance away into its own space to grow) how really did this come about? where did the 'idea' of a thick husk come from? at some stage there must have been the 'first tree' to try that idea, and really how did the tree that grew from that seed know to improve on the idea and make the husk thicker and thicker and thicker, till we have what we have today? there is certainly a 'type' of intelligence in evolution that I have never heard adequately explained..
Again, you've missed the point i'm afraid. There is nothing 'intelligent' or 'designed' about a coconut. It has come about via long term proccesses of natural selection. Mutations along with genetic drift might cause an adventageous feature (gene) which is selected upon over time again and again in terms of individual fitness (aka a genes ability to successfully replicate / organism's ability to successfully pass on its genes). Thus a seeding proccess which, through incremental cumulative steps eventuates in a coconut has a higher success rate or fitness in terms of replicating than a seeding proccess in the same environment which isn't as adventageous and thus doesn't replicate and is subsequently marginalised in the gene pool. Again, no 'idea' behind it, but a long prossess of replication, variation, and selection. Evolution is a fact, because it is observable phenomena which can be emperically tested and measured. Evolution as a theory is the tried and tested working hypothesis of how evolution works. I have supplied a brief explanation which, while not perfect, will have to do. What I suggest is to abandon Intelligent Design as an explainatory framework in the domain of science, as it simply doesn't work and is not scientific. It is merely creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo so to speak. This is not to say abandon your faith, as while I might think it is illogical, faith alone doesn't try to use pseudo-science to proove its point. Indeed, It seems to me Intelligent Design actually undermines religious belief as it belies a disatisfation with faith alone and a subsequent desperate attempt to 'proove' it to the skeptics. At any rate, I have entertained this 'debate' far too much already. As previously stated, this is a blog about New Zealand History, not about the evolution-creation 'debate'. For this I must apologise to the other viewers. I wish you well on your self-education anonymous.
Darwin resented the biblical doctrine of future judgment
That is the only argument that I needed to hear to understand why Darwin created his THEORY. A lot of people don't want to believe in the possibility of hell. If you believe in heaven and hell and in God, then you have to believe that one day you will have to answer for your actions. That means that you might have to... hold on now... take RESPONSIBILITY for your actions. So instead, people create different religions and theories. Charles Taze Russel, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, did the same thing. He didn't believe that a loving God could send someone to hell, so he created his own religion where hell does not exist.
Life is easier when you don't have to answer to anyone, unfortunately, that misleading thought will not save you from the certainty of hell. I'd rather believe and be wrong, then be wrong and go to hell.
perhaps you should read your Bible again new anonymous. How many times does it explicity state much of anything about hell? I can tell you (seen as apparently I know more about your holy scripture than you do) that it is pretty few and far between. The idea seems to be more of a medieval fascination with sadomachoism and scare mongering. Also, your use of the word theory in capitals belies the fact that you probably need to read the dictionary along with the Bible. Theory in a scientific sense is a hypothesis which has been teseted. Theory which you refer to is obviously the layman meaning of any 'idea'.
Edward, you may not realise this (you obviously don't) but to say:
There is nothing 'intelligent' or 'designed' about a coconut.
is patently untrue. the same for the wing of a bird or a claw of a cat.
of course it's designed, a claw is designed to do a certain job, which is does extremely well, much like a thumb. it is not designed by some overlord god sitting at an architects desk, but it IS designed by some form of 'intelligence' in nature that allows it to come up with 'creative solutions' to problems. to say something is 'natural selection' is to say nothing, what INFORMS nature that it can grow such radical responses to its environment? and in fact, why would you deny 'intelligence' to nature but not to say yourself, or a magpie, surely they are part of nature? where exactly does intelligence begin? evolution is not wrong, it is simply not giving a very good account of the basic nature of its building blocks. (i'm sure no-one will mind us highjacking the bottom of this blogpost).
Anonymous, I believe we have already covered this. It isn't a matter of wilful design, it is a matter of long term adaptive responses. Again you fail to get out of the idea that a cat claw or whatever just 'sprang' out of nowhere. At the end of the day the fact is that evolution has been supported not only by its observable facts, but by 150+ years of scientific reseach from many different disciplines which mutually support the theory. Possibly no other theory has as much supporting evidence aside from perhaps plate tectonics or gravity. It is pretty much just a given now of how the natural world came to be, just ask any scientist or academic. Intelligent Design simply offers nothing but a muddled and wrong understanding of the prosseses at work. I sincerely suggest you do some academic reading, from acclaimed scientists, not church preachers. Otherwise you have about as much chance of arguing against gravity. I will point out to you that while I vehemently oppose creationist ideals trying to creep into science via ID, I have never stated that a god does not exist. No one knows that. I personally think it is very unlikely, but unlikely isn't proof. I simply think that science has supplied a sound explaination for how nature has come about and any creationist explanations are a bit outdated to say the least. What I would suggest might be a better tact for you to take (one that many sophisticated theists have suggested) would be the so called 'diest' approach, that is a 'creator' of some description getting the ball rolling so to speak via the Big Bang (which is another theory backed up by a lot of evidence). This line of thought comes down to probabilities rather than evidence as the Big Bang is the furthest back science can reach at the present time. Examples ala start of the universe; God/diesm, multiverse etc. etc. This line of thought I actually find interesting and worthy of debate as the verdict is out. Natural selection on the other hand is something which science has shown to be untouchable by creationism. In short, I think it is important to have the wisdom to know where to choose a point of debate, such as the one I suggest. 'debating' ID is simply unwise due to the fact you obviously have not yet acquired the knowledge to even understand what Natural Selection is. Again, I think you might learn from the sophisticated theist approach of tackling questions to do with pre-Big Bang rather than trying to argue that the sun is really a giant marshmallow.
If there's an intelligence directing evolution, why does natural history (and humnan history for that matter) show so many dead-ends and failures?
There is a strong desire amongst some people who are pro-science but also religiously inclined to try to turn evolution into a teleology - to insist that it is some obscure way directed, and also progressive. I've blogged a few times about a related tendency in the Marxist tradition:
http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2006/09/karl-kautsky-vs-neanderthal-man-or.html
I protest. In fact it is Mr Edward who is failing to perceive the issue, his head is clouded with 'creationist' ideas to the degree he cannot see past them to discussing the issue. this is like passing someone a marshmellow and having him insist it is a lemon, and talking about it like it is a lemon, and then saying 'what a fool to think lemons arn't yellow!' fine, but I'm not discussing a lemon. The point again, and I will make it as clearly and as slowly as possible and see if you can look past all your preconceptions and ideologies to picture the question:
What is the nature of nature that such a thing as evolution can exist? you insist on things 'evolving/adapting to their environment' fine, I'm arguing that there is something 'about' nature that allows it do this, to adapt marvelous (to us) strategies of chameleons changing skin colour, snakes having venim, spiders spinning webs, all this 'evolved' fine, but it shows a certain ability in nature TO BE ABLE TO EVOLVE, what I want you to admit, is that in the very building block of the cell (or atom?) there is a 'type' of intelligence that allows flora and fauna to 'evolve', I don't care how you define that intelligence, or perhaps we are just arguing over the definition of intelligence? I'm certainly not claiming it's self-conscious, nevertheless, the nature of nature that it can evolve is not adequately expressed unless you include some description of the nature that is 'able to evolve/adapt' i'm not making my point entirely clear, yet with a little goodwill I bet you can picture what I'm saying..
to get this straight, i am not claiming wilful design, so you need to put that pigeon back in your pocket.
Anonymous, it appears to me you are now questioning why the laws of nature/physics are the way they are. But you have to admit your initial impetus was soley based upon the ID doctine. Ok. As it stands and as we have discussed, ID isn't even worthy of the title psuedo-science. Now I understand you are no longer arguing for a wilful 'intelligent' creator within the proccess of Natural Selection, but a sentient 'force' (God) which first put down the physical laws of the universe, thus allowing life to develop? Is this correct? If this is what you are arguing, a careful re-read of my previous posts will show you that this is what I have called a sophisticated theist approach, based upon philosophical enquiry, and one that I have accredited to Catholics and Anglicans etc. A re-read of my posts will also point out that this (or at least similar) line of thought can be called 'deism' (a sentient God laying out the laws of the universe and 'getting the ball rolling'). Both sophisticated theists and deists I don't think are neccessarily at odds with science. They pursue logic and probability to argue for the existence of a creator God as the impetus for existence at a point where science too can only make suggestions. I have pointed out that this line of thought is both interesting and more useful than trying to apply simple and basic misunderstandings of science to Natural Selection. I have further suggested that this would be a worthy point of enquiry or argument for you (something which I did not need to point you to, and which is not in my interests, but which I felt might make your arguments more reasoned and valid).
I therefore fail to see how you can accuse me of "failing to perceive the issue, his head is clouded with 'creationist' ideas to the degree he cannot see past them to discussing the issue. this is like passing someone a marshmellow and having him insist it is a lemon, and talking about it like it is a lemon, and then saying 'what a fool to think lemons arn't yellow!".
I have made explicit a useful line of thought to argue FOR you, addressing quite simply that the 'why are the laws the way they are' question is useful, rather than the pitiful attempts to muddy up Evolutionary Theory with ideas of 'direction', 'linearity' or 'progression'.
With a careful re-read of my previous posts and a reading of the above, I find you are on very shaky ground to accuse me of failing to understand by comparing "mashmallows with lemons". It seems more like your own arguments are not cohesive or that you change tact when challenged on earlier fallacies. At any rate this is not important. what is is that you take the time to consider what I have said with the same patience I have taken many times in considering what many other religious apologists have put forward. I have read tomes on the philospohy of Religion, sophisticated theistic arguments, and am myself a human scientist. You are actually being quite rude to indicate my lack of balanced knowledge while probably yourself not making any solid attempt to read or study biology or other related science texts. Some might call this hypocrisy.
Lastly, no. I will not admit that there is a "type of intelligence in a cell or atom". The reasons? Evidence, or lack of. In fact if anything the evidence points to the opposite. If however you want to rephrase your point to 'a type of intelligence which set the laws' than as I have said numerous times, I will aknowledge your argument (not agree but that is another story i'm not going to have).
Please. Re-read and absorb.
Cheers,
Edward
'I have made explicit a useful line of thought to argue FOR you'- Edward.
what a wise and gentle man you are Edward, to condescend to GIVE ME the argument that I CAN ARGUE, that would indeed suit you, therefore once again on familiar terrain YOU CAN ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION, however, that would resolve nothing. From the great heights of the platform of your academic emptyness, you once again in your glances full of pity at the poor dim creatures at your feet HAVE FAILED TO PERCEIVE THE QUESTION.
let us start anew, in fact, forget anonymous.1, this is anonymous.2 the dialogue begins from the beginning.
you say- 'but a sentient 'force' (God) which first put down the physical laws of the universe, thus allowing life to develop? Is this correct?
THIS is incorrect. what sort of foolishness would demand LAWS for the creative universe? there are certain consistancies, that is the most we can know, you should be aware of this, now, to return to the issue, refusing to assume the position of YOUR argument, you feel I SHOULD BE ARGUING (some crap about the type of intelligence that set the laws) I will continue with my own. You state:
no. I will not admit that there is a "type of intelligence in a cell or atom". The reasons? Evidence, or lack of. In fact if anything the evidence points to the opposite.
imaginary evidence is not evidence, lack of perception merely expresses the limitations of the blinkers your education has placed on you, it is up to you to try to remove them, now, in fact common sense would tell us that ALL THE EVIDENCE points to the opposite. when a single cell creature evolves a tail to move in water this shows both an awareness of its environment AND a solution to a NEW problem, how it might move around in that environment WHY IT WOULD CONSIDER IT EVEN DESIRABLE TO MOVE is another issue again, subtleties mount on subtleties, and God himself has trouble counting them, now, a creative solution to an imagined problem does not denote IT GOT THE ANSWER RIGHT THE FIRST TIME - the whole concept of natural selection (which i should add i have no problem with) BUT, (big but), this still does not account for the nature of nature, or the nature of matter, however you want to call it, THAT HAS THE ABILITLY TO ADAPT TO ITS ENVIRONMENT in an unselfconscious manner, there is a TYPE OF INTELLIGENCE inherent in matter itself that it can move, function, develop and change. Your statement that 'the evidence does not support this' is mindboggling, to what evidence to you refer? look out your window and you will see plants that have developed miraculous lures to attract insects, birds that CAN FLY! INCREDIBLE! WINGS! HOW COULD SUCH A THING BE? that there were no laws in place subscribing that it SHOULD BE, makes it all the more incredible, yet you give yourself intelligence I presume? you give a dog a 'type of intelligence' I presume? do you give a plant that informs other plants (of the same species) of the coming of a foliage eating enemy (via scent) a 'type of intelligence'? what about a cell? where does consciousness and intelligence begin and end exactly? therein is your real problem, not the pseudo-theological argument you would have us discuss. ALL MATTER IS CONSCIOUS, ALL MATTER IS IMBUED WITH A TYPE OF INTELLIGENCE, this, is proposition A.
Ok Anonymous mark 2. I can only say that I wasn't trying to be condescending, so I apologise if I came across like that. If you don't like the train of thought I offered that is fine, you can argue in whatever manner you like. But I am not interested in battling your theological considerations with actual scientific evidence. It is a bit of a moot point to try. Theologists will babble away anything with rhetoric rather than logic so what's the point? By entering into discussion with you I was trying to be constructive, but it seems that while denying some sort of ID and accepting Evolution on principal, you still subscribe to some sort of intelligence behind everything and anything and trying to point out 'evidence' which is actually not evidence at all but rhetoric. What it comes down to is that you are asking 'Why' questions rather than 'how' questions and are not differentiating the two. Worse, you are trying to back up your 'why' answers with supposed 'evidence'! Can you not see the logical flaw here? Did you not stop to consider that perhaps there is no 'why'. It seems like a desperate search for meaning driven by an egotistical sense of self (insofar as humanity is concerned) to assume there is a 'why'. Life is what you make of it. At any rate, I am going to have to end this discussion here as anything constructive I have tried to offer you you have ignored or rejected. I am not willing to continue dicussion with those who are not willing to actually read both perspectives on an issue, or at least garner an understanding of scientific principals before they embark on their own self-righteous rejection of scientific research and knowledge. Good luck with that.
P.S. I'm not sure which 'Anonymous' is arguing anymore but i'm getting pretty fucking sick and tired of running into you people everytime I am just trying to read about Map's topics about NZ. I shouldn't have bothered indulging you with a reply. If you want to believe all matter is intelligent then fine, go preach it to those who can't or don't want to think critically. I'm interested in learning, but not in innane 'debate'. That is the problem with you fundamentaly religious types, you just want to 'recruit' everyone you can and refuse to think outside your own square while not being able to take the hint that no one cares about rhetorical arguments about the existence of flying teapots. I suggest you go spam some other site as i'm finished with replying to you.
Post a Comment
<< Home