What is more faith than religion?

What is the general responsibility or response to the ICR position that taught evolution is a "religion"? The only thing I can think of is that it is then some kind of horizontal ritualized pedagogy (assuming this is not a bluff for either side). I know that one can not equate teachers of evolution and a fraternity and when the next thing I hear is that it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than creation this appears fundamentally evangelistic to me.It can not be the case if evolution is true that it must be learned the same way as 7+5=12 because I can count to these numbers and and verify an instance. I have never been able to verify in resemblence/similarly this evolution that taugt me not this but the existence of taxogeny to which I have alluded.I assume taxa aside that the debaters simply are trying to position concepts of the environment post-Scopes. That being the extent to which GATES considers any meaning to word "ecosystem" than the transition to an object economy it seems that NOMA is really about GOUld denying that a ding an sich exists and has nothing to do with any creative difference of Catholicism and Panbiogeography (which addresses the common line in humans) and any reformed creationism the mass of catholics may be witholding.Please correct me if I am wrong.

OK, I guess I started, hear ear and percieve..."super-bias"- well, if you mean how JD Morris establishes a bias you would have to ask him. If you mean that I had typed "super" before that is true if you want -- the I guess that was eco-justice.We need distributed justice and peace but we get networks the tip of the ice-Berg trouble shooting German taps instead again.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[B] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Brad McFall:
[b]What is the general responsibility or response to the ICR position that taught evolution is a "religion"? The only thing I can think of is that it is then some kind of horizontal ritualized pedagogy (assuming this is not a bluff for either side). I know that one can not equate teachers of evolution and a fraternity and when the next thing I hear is that it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than creation this appears fundamentally evangelistic to me.Assuming I’ve recovered from my didactic slough, allow me to elaborate (as you’ve also been requested by another to critique my new thread, Does only Christian ID make sense for the creationist?). [QUOTE][B]
So you say, "despite",yet I think that there was no other concept available to "THE CREATIONISTS" but to say they(evolutionists) had missassociated religousness, (how else could I have been committed to a mental hospital for not being ill?? (A:I had bad genes, only I was told their was something wrong with my chemicals, I was niave and young enough to try to take that opportunity to say then what I thought of "my evolution chemcials" bad idea-- dont try it. Takes years to loose the crying wolf syndrome)) on a lighter note hearing that WilL Provine tried subsequently to his approach when I was there of just letting the students say what they thought evolution was, was was his use of supernatural in the mock trial of darwin(he went from the cult of Jehova's witness to the fantasy of angelic insight but all the while did not chage his ethical ought one uGHt (is my guess).[QUOTE][B]
Faith seems essentially a ‘super’-bias and affects mutationalists and creationists alike, despite the 'religiousness' often associated. Some would also maintain perhaps that faith also includes: ‘clinging to’, ‘cleaving to’, ‘believing in’, etc., with or without religious creeds.[/QUOTE][/B] i Never found what I doubted in faith in these adjectival meanings etc while I can not deny that i did associate with IN a church where people Told me that had faith. This is not any kind of "telling" in any discussion of evolution I am aware of and is only an occult quality attached to some less well digested pieces of creation/evolution illusion IN MY OPINION. Obviouly an opinion can be in more than one place.cHRISTIANID? makes sense for elections and politicized talk in the c/e domain but for me I have likely read the plauge of frogs there. I do not know why you said that only it makes creationist sense. I made sense of Friar even before I was aware of the existence of the revial etc. This kind of talk when it reaches a more serious notes remands accusations on my name of banter and babble so unless you specifically indicated I have will move on from this.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
[B]Interesting topic here,
Hmmm, I though a religion was a set of ethical prinicples to live by and to base your life off. Evolution does not set forth ethics nor does it say how we are to live our lived by. Why? Again, we are crossing Magesterium most horribly. [/QUOTE][/B]But are we REALLY? I have been able to take what taxogeny (Croiat's X in any particular) to postulating DNA as a VESSEL wich could be Newton's *bucket* THAT IS (or in fact is not) an absolute charge bearer and that much of cytoplasm-nucleus discousings could be more profitable and less likely to lead to collapse of food webs as in the current funding of nanotechonolgy and its any inherent compoenetability. I do not think this is horrible but if true to this post and not to simple discussion of taxogeny in context of group vs individual vs geneic selectionisms then this is simply a READING that others can without andy horror of the vacuum similary read. My guess then would be that the "negative" that Shrodinger thought was a square root of One negative not the other side of O etc. [QUOTE][B]The questions of religion and ethics lie in the Magesterium of Religion or the Magesterium of Law, not in the Magesterium of Science. [/QUOTE][/B]Can my posts be taught to students or am I still a bit not, I mean to bite into a Socratic dialogue? [QUOTE][B]The Magesterium of Science does not answer how we should live our lives. It merely tries to answer how life came about [scientific] and places characteristics of life to things.
It is not intersted in matters of "religion" [/QUOTE][/B]
But if you attened Chruch/Temple/tent etc regularly then maybe you could divide a componetable infinity beyond the simple morphology Gould soft parts into a more hardend theory of biochange in morphogeny that can do away with "morphogenetic fields" in preference to emprics that give data on INERTIAL sorts that did invovle maxwells electric displacement but not necessarily only thinking of the periodic table as the only actual infinity list. Form takes on cardinality at least to the extent the undulation can be unstood beyond from it steady presentaion etc. [QUOTE][B]More faith to believe in evolution. Actually, I believe that it would take more faith to believe in creation. [/QUOTE][/B]So if you said "no" does it take "faith" to understand what I said. I think not!! [QUOTE][B]I am answering this outside of the Magesterium of Science. To me, things are easier to believe if you can see evidence for what you believe in. I do not walk to class and see a man being "created" from the dust. But everyday, I see the way how things change over time.
7 + 5 does not always = 12. I am a math major, it only takes redefining the number system.[/QUOTE][/B]Lebseque "lamented" the non-use of decimal system but he did not take more time to oridinate collections. The museum labeler needs the work basically to be done. It is not yet even been gotten into the programmers' minds who would be the ones to do this work.
[B][QUOTE] Interesting you mention NOMA, what do you think of it? Can you please clarify the last paragraph, I got lost. Somewhere, you jumped a lot of conclusions.
[/B][/QUOTE]l[B]ater- still more people to respond to/first in line [B]etc.

I dont know if i had this conversation with my brother and his wife's sister's husband who was becoming a YOUTH Minister in NJ from Virginia about the teaching of creation IN CHURCH but Greg was trying to say that Creation Science is not SCience and that Evolution hasnt been given a chance to "evolve" with these two other guys I was talking to KNOWING that i knew more about evolution theory than either of them and yet I still think that IT CAN NEVER be said "ICR does not interest science" etc to parapharase you. Let us even say that Scientific Creationism is primarily evangelistic (it is not the same thing as Biblical Creationism which more properly IS)this does not mean that the DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS of the same evidence IN THE MIX do not lead to a yielded anthropology (especially post 911)that on a properly existing sociology of science which you seem to be denying (if you want my more "fair" view send me that e-mail; I may have inadvertently deleted when trying not to read the porno spam-- use the word "herp" I wont miss that one, I doubt) could provide not only raw materials (which is all that S-Wolfram claims for HIS verison of his "own" science)but actual discoveries and like herpetology (Wayne Friar for instance has done some good work in this field ) ICR has made some (and by the way, it is the small things like finding a water snake that puts coils around fish etc that acutally make up the science we have to criticize) but that the psychology has not made a change in the change in biology since DNA with behvior is true but not all time can be critizied the way your opnion deviates from mine etc while in acutal conversation this claim AGIANST creation biology etc SUNK between both sides in this particular conversation that I had about 2 yrs ago. I do not see any difference today so far in converseing with you. ALl it seems to be is producing the fairness to both or either perspective and I BRAD MC have always been saying that THIS is an illusion. If we start to talk on a more transcendental level... then ... all bets are off.

Last time I looked at this I wasnt sure that it wasnt symmetry breaking of thymus hormones that need calcium no matter which way the bone constructs strength ( something more on the lymph system here). If that is true the lineage realtion acutually could still go either way (on the "tree"). It is funny to imagine amphibians pushing eggs up onto rocks with their "ear places" that hear but cannot.

Richard Lewontin claimed that organism CANNOT (and he meant no matter the evidence I take it) be extricated from its melilu and G. Gladyshev says something someWHAT similiar in that the organism at best is but cells quasi-closed ( I will be having an extensive post later to detail all of this with two examples (one in frogs and the other lichens) but if in this case where NO evidence can prove it, I will be working where once some evidence is in IF, then this will open metaphysicsal areas FROM EXISTING phenomenology (that exists today for instance)where not only IS NO LEAP OF FAITH needed. ( I will be dissucing the word "adaptation" and showing(hopefully) how adaptation to Gladyhev's law can come from TWO genetic sources thus Lewontin will be wrong both about the moral relations of the Darwinian indivually (possibly) and where your question will reappear in our convestaion (if the genes involved get empirically determined and not merely have the ideas presented as I will...)and as to the inability to seperate organism and ENVIRORNMENT (milelu) for the Gladsyhev princle can operate population gentically in any independet manner EVEN WHILE THIS KIND OF COADAPTION (I will describe) IS DIFFERNT THAN CO-EVOLUTION. Some issues of co-evolution however could be part and parsled FROM the adaption in macrothermodynanics but after the data is in there is still space IN THIS TIME to find that faith can be useful further when the synthesis is integrated with even larger levels of selection (as IF GOULD WERE CORRECT) (I doubt that that will survive but it might)(there is not apatation/exaptation suffiently on this explanation I am creating.).

I have no time to day to try to make sure that you are NOT correct. you may be. It WAS indeed something for me to find in Pickering article on Hamilton reference to PURE KINDS relative to issues of Kantianism and non-materialist message symbolism, while Hamilton admitted he had not given the symbols of science the same sense he gave words in language but had been looking MORE himself for the scientific value OF the symbolizations.It may be that there IS something new in the cat's linyx. I have no more time today.

For me it all depends on the biophysical parameterization of the cell. If the cell can not simply be explained as a sum of chemicals no matter how stabelized (like organicist biologists like to say that a kind of organism is not just the physcis and chemistry of its proximately functioning organs)(this depends on if life might have orginated in more than one place or not) the vicosity of the cell would not be determinative of any cell and there would be a category to think of form-making in that is not simply a parameter in an equation while it would be that . I would not say this is faith but in the vernacular it "does take more faith to believe as an unbeliever believes" than it did to see where the sun does shine.
That IS another reason I need.

OK Z, this buds for you--Mark and I are on a joint sabbatical so I have not tied or tried to integrate my response with his pond so it's the North vs the South instead nowawaydays... I think I might even be able to suggest why some frogs DESPITE sexual selection(_on whatever expert you, I or Mark might sally by...)still call themselves to a bat's lunch plate but first the bird and frog for the reptiles breakfast IN its JAWS (which was not a long movie etc). I will guess that frog's call others to a destination but birds call others to a launching pad. In a well known book a Christian at the turn of the last century (not the immediately last, ha ha) wrote on Birds in Siberia and he spoke or rather I SHOULD say wrote, about the place a bunch of birds migrated FROM so if I am correct about the bat dividing all of this then the information carrier is a LONGITUDINAL wave that is MADE transverse in birds but only serially so in frogs such that there is a homolgy between the dewlap of the Anole and the haning turbucle of teh apodian below what in horned toads the spike on the back of the head functions to arouse during windy days above. OK "sounds" mad! but the point is I used REASON to THINK it. I did not use faith!!!!!!There would be something faith like in thinking that this could be thought without the existence of something like a biogeographic homology and so either I MUST be discounted as a mad disgrunted non Mark communicator or else the place IN THE MIND OF A REASONABLE PERSON must be found to reflect on the same content. I leave the rest to the wandering cyborgs of the net web in the frog's or ducks' feet. It cant be in hand but you know I dont type a TOE of it.

I had said,

quote:

---

What is the general responsibility or response to the ICR position that taught evolution is a "religion"? The only thing I can think of is that it is then some kind of horizontal ritualized pedagogy (assuming this is not a bluff for either side). I know that one can not equate teachers of evolution and a fraternity and when the next thing I hear is that it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than creation this appears fundamentally evangelistic to me.
It can not be the case if evolution is true that it must be learned the same way as 7+5=12 because I can count to these numbers and and verify an instance. I have never been able to verify in resemblence/similarly this evolution that taugt me not this but the existence of taxogeny to which I have alluded.

​

I assume taxa aside that the debaters simply are trying to position concepts of the environment post-Scopes. That being the extent to which GATES considers any meaning to word "ecosystem" than the transition to an object economy it seems that NOMA is really about GOUld denying that a ding an sich exists and has nothing to do with any creative difference of Catholicism and Panbiogeography (which addresses the common line in humans) and any reformed creationism the mass of catholics may be witholding.

​

Please correct me if I am wrong.

---

and you managed to reflect on the word "type"
then I said
......
OK Z, this buds for you--
Mark and I are on a joint sabbatical so I have not tied or tried to integrate my response with his pond so it's the North vs the South instead nowawaydays... I think I might even be able to suggest why some frogs DESPITE sexual selection(_on whatever expert you, I or Mark might sally by...)still call themselves to a bat's lunch plate but first the bird and frog for the reptiles breakfast IN its JAWS (which was not a long movie etc). I will guess that frog's call others to a destination but birds call others to a launching pad. In a well known book a Christian at the turn of the last century (not the immediately last, ha ha) wrote on Birds in Siberia and he spoke or rather I SHOULD say wrote, about the place a bunch of birds migrated FROM so if I am correct about the bat dividing all of this then the information carrier is a LONGITUDINAL wave that is MADE transverse in birds but only serially so in frogs such that there is a homolgy between the dewlap of the Anole and the haning turbucle of teh apodian below what in horned toads the spike on the back of the head functions to arouse during windy days above. OK "sounds" mad! but the point is I used REASON to THINK it. I did not use faith!!!!!!There would be something faith like in thinking that this could be thought without the existence of something like a biogeographic homology and so either I MUST be discounted as a mad disgrunted non Mark communicator or else the place IN THE MIND OF A REASONABLE PERSON must be found to reflect on the same content. I leave the rest to the wandering cyborgs of the net web in the frog's or ducks' feet. It cant be in hand but you know I dont type a TOE of it.So let me now SAY the TOE or toe of it all. Since then then you must have thought it necessary to "correct" me??? or was that only the word for the "?" character????? It is sad that spider-man thinks none of this makes sense for it is true I dont much appreciate that kind but sense tingly spidy it does and does have...In the Eassay on Classification, Lou-A(gassiz) said(disrespecting the vernacular use of the same word to the Mollusk ("tongue") or see also Croizat "hold fast"),"Fully to appreciate the meaning of this diagram...Again these legs may have only one toe, or two, three, four, or five toes, and the number of toes may vary between the fore and the hind legs. The classification adopted here is based upon these characters...Who can look at this diagram, and not recognize in its arragnement the combinations of thought?"NOW, If you UNDERSTAND (you may not and there is nothing wrong with it) Croizat's Corpyus & Panbiogeography to have answered
(or created a methodology to approach any such answers...)
the last A question in section 4, "If all these relations are almost beyond the reach of the mental powers of man, and if man himself is part and parcel of the whole system, how could this system have been called into existence if there does not exist One Supreme Intelligence, as the Author of all things?"you can be ready to COMPREHEND me in short or long versions.So if the FISH has 5 or 11 toes/phalanges it DOES NOT matter. I will suggest that the ordinal number of birthPLACES (in question by A himself but written without info of Mendel on species change IN GARDEN or COUNTRY)(some ONE at least such place on Earth) OCCURED by THERMAL CURRENTS chaning the spatial difference of igneous, metamorhic and sedimentary rocks into the generational difference (by cause and effect) of dominance and recessiveness and that this is due to the INTERACTIVITY of organic and inorganic temporal hierarchies (Gladsyhev, "It is easy to verify that the principle of substance stability can be applied to monotypic atoms"). In other words becuse of the layered nature of sedimentary rocks relative to the ChANGEd atoms in metamorphic rock compared to igneous rock in a "SPOT" (not Noah's Ark) on Earth the thermal currents which change the relation of rotation and revolution to CHEMCIAL EQUILIBRIA by electromotive force is the social cause of the disagreement about "centers of origin" in biogeography and ARE the same particles Mendel found in the garden area.We still need to know if the chemical equilibriums of the rocks FACTUALLY results in contiguites of sexual selective length such that resultant electricity can circuit on thermal contact (rotation of the Earth) but the idea that the number of toes is a direct result of the equilibirum of organic and inorganic temporal hierachies seems possible when not rather more fundamentally detailing the difference of dominance and recessive for any cell in the sequence that the categories of rocks is generationally spaced for the geography it rotated and revolved in.This does NOT remove every reference to GOD in the next exposition of Croizat on the basis of Agassiz's reflective sholium but until macrothermodynamics has its inorganic and organic heirarchies better integrated it seems the BEST explanation for the faliure of biology students short of alien abduction which the possibilty of is most likely by microbes unable to eat me if I stay here. I do not expect while I might prospect for life on Mars life from radio signals.The "horizonalism" is finally well specified by me this time. For this place is only Mendel's symbol "/".