New Age Creationism (Ken Wilber)
Giant Sloth
I hope I'mnot being redundent...
It has been my impression that nearly all creationism is a result of
religious fundamentalism. However, it was recently pointed out to me
that the highly influential thinker within "New Age" circles, Ken
Wilber, is a creationist. Indeed, a creationist using the stock
arguments:
http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter38.html
His response to criticism only makes him look worse:
http://vomitingconfetti.blogspot.com/2005/05/awaken-white-morpheus.html
Clearly, Mr. Wilber had ideological problems with evolution while in
the scientific community, which caused him to secretly dismiss the
idea that the known (or even unknown) mechanisms are viable. He
appears to project this disposition onto his colleagues. Ultimately,
he claims that the biological scientific community is composed of
liars!
Although Wilber's response was written before Dover, he also appears
to be living in fantasy land with regard to court cases involving
creationism.
I wonder if there are other New Age creationists?
Bill Baker
Well, I firmly believe that the entire universe was unknowingly created three
years ago by a Japanese schoolgirl who wanted to create a world full of aliens,
time travelers and espers, and that our memories of the past were planted
in our minds when the universe was created. Does that count?
--
Funny Lurlean quote #34:
"I hope a piece of the sun falls directly on Baghdad and burns it all up."
--Lurlean provides her own commentary to the lyrics "Re, a drop of golden sun"
rev.goetz
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:10:58 -0700, Giant Sloth <nospamm...@dslextreme.com>
You are wrong. The Japanese schoolgirl will create the universe next
month, and our memories of the past will be planted in our minds when
the universe will be created.
Bill Baker
in message news:<1187213243.2...@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
Heretic!
--
<kyourek> There was a 23% drop in temperature.
<nappyjallapy> That's almost 25%!
<kyourek> ... That was one of the most worthless comments I've ever heard.
Craig Franck
> Clearly, Mr. Wilber had ideological problems with evolution while in
> the scientific community, which caused him to secretly dismiss the
> idea that the known (or even unknown) mechanisms are viable. He
> appears to project this disposition onto his colleagues. Ultimately,
> he claims that the biological scientific community is composed of
> liars!
>
> Although Wilber's response was written before Dover, he also appears
> to be living in fantasy land with regard to court cases involving
> creationism.
>
> I wonder if there are other New Age creationists?
I read much of Wilber's stuff in the 90s, and am surprised he is
taking this position. I got the impression that he (Morris Berman
is another example) felt that mind somehow permeated nature at
some fundamental level.
A better way of putting this is the deck is stacked in favor of
biological complexity; the belief is that random variations come
is large improbable groupings. So nature has the "idea" for a wing,
and you get a set of 100 finely tuned variations because matter
resonates in functional groupings. (It seems a test could be
devised to determine if protein folding, for example, was strongly
biased to the formation of cells in the same way water has certain
extraordinary life-friendly qualities.)
The explanation is along the line of biomorphs:
http://jprost.club.fr/bio/biomorph/accueil_coul_e.html
Certain complex repetitive patterns simply fall out of fairly simple
mathematical equations. Looking through one of Clifford Pickover's
books, you get the impression that it would take a relatively
complex computer program to generate these images, but in fact
a dozen or so lines of Gee Wiz Basic can out perform most artists.
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/home.htm
(A common mistaken belief is because computers are so complex,
simple programs like this do a great deal -- which is generally
true -- but when it comes to biomorphs, the complexity is the
simple mathematical patterns themselves. Computers are just
the rendering system.)
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
Qazfez
>I posted a similar note yesterday, but it seems to have disappeared.
> I hope I'mnot being redundent...
>
> It has been my impression that nearly all creationism is a result of
> religious fundamentalism. However, it was recently pointed out to me
> that the highly influential thinker within "New Age" circles, Ken
> Wilber, is a creationist. Indeed, a creationist using the stock
> arguments:
With respect, do you think it makes the slightest difference what Ken Wilber
thinks about evolution? Why bother to attack him?
[snip]
jcon
> I posted a similar note yesterday, but it seems to have disappeared.
> I hope I'mnot being redundent...
>
> It has been my impression that nearly all creationism is a result of
> religious fundamentalism. However, it was recently pointed out to me
> that the highly influential thinker within "New Age" circles,
oxymoron.
"New Age" is for those who want all the silliness of a real
religion, without the awkwardness of actually having
to articulate their beliefs.
> Ken
> Wilber, is a creationist. Indeed, a creationist using the stock
> arguments:
>
> http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter38.html
>
> His response to criticism only makes him look worse:
>
> http://vomitingconfetti.blogspot.com/2005/05/awaken-white-morpheus.html
>
I did like the euphemism "I have a PhD minus thesis". That's
one I haven't heard. I don't know about biochemistry, but
in physics that would be a transparent euphemism for
"failed qualifying exams".
-jc
Ernest Major
<cire...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>I did like the euphemism "I have a PhD minus thesis". That's one I
>haven't heard. I don't know about biochemistry, but in physics that
>would be a transparent euphemism for "failed qualifying exams".
>
>-jc
>
I would read that as an ABD.
--
alias Ernest Major
jcon
> In message <1187268288.660804.188...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, jcon
> <cirej...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
> >I did like the euphemism "I have a PhD minus thesis". That's one I
> >haven't heard. I don't know about biochemistry, but in physics that
> >would be a transparent euphemism for "failed qualifying exams".
>
> >-jc
>
> I would read that as an ABD.
ABD??
-jc
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<cire...@yahoo.com> writes
requirements of a Ph.D, except for writing a thesis, and having it
accepted. Some people are so busy with their lives that they stay in
this state for years.
http://www.cmu.edu/policies/documents/ABD.html
http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/policies/hiring/abd.html
http://www.ctl.csus.edu/services/abd.htm
--
alias Ernest Major
jcon
> In message <1187275747.999444.73...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, jcon
> <cirej...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >On Aug 16, 8:39 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <1187268288.660804.188...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, jcon
> >> <cirej...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >> >I did like the euphemism "I have a PhD minus thesis". That's one I
> >> >haven't heard. I don't know about biochemistry, but in physics that
> >> >would be a transparent euphemism for "failed qualifying exams".
>
> >> >-jc
>
> >> I would read that as an ABD.
>
> >ABD??
>
> All But Dissertation - a lot of people have completed all the
> requirements of a Ph.D, except for writing a thesis, and having it
> accepted. Some people are so busy with their lives that they stay in
> this state for years.
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major
That's possible, but I tend to be very skeptical of people who toss
about credentials with no details. Publishers will usually encourage
anyone who writes books to inflate their credentials to the limit of
honesty, and Wilbers certainly has no problem blowing his own
horn. Strange then that every bio I could find of him ends with
a bachelor's degree from U of Nebraska, with one reference
to a *brief* graduate career before dropping out. Add to the
suspicion that he runs an "Institute", and so might very
well grant himself advanced degrees if it strikes his fancy.
I tried to get more information at his website, but all
I learned was that he has the *single most annoying
website I've ever seen*:
http://www.kenwilber.com/
I made me nostalgic for the old "Netscape
Hall of Shame" :)
-jc
Giant Sloth
> "Giant Sloth" <nospamm...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
Are you new to this board? If so, it's all about criticizing people
with irrational views with respect to origins.
Giant Sloth
> Cortland, NY
I'm not clear about what you are saying. If Ken Wilber believes that
mind permeates everything, then why are you surprised that he takes
the view that he does? It would seem likely that he would be
dissatisfied with a purely materialistic explanation. Your biomorph
example sounds like a purely materialistic explanation and I don't
understand the connection to Wilber.
GS
Giant Sloth
> On Aug 16, 10:20 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <1187275747.999444.73...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, jcon
> > <cirej...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> > >On Aug 16, 8:39 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> In message <1187268288.660804.188...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, jcon
> > >> <cirej...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> > >> >I did like the euphemism "I have a PhD minus thesis". That's one I
> > >> >haven't heard. I don't know about biochemistry, but in physics that
> > >> >would be a transparent euphemism for "failed qualifying exams".
>
> > >> >-jc
>
> > >> I would read that as an ABD.
>
> > >ABD??
>
> > All But Dissertation - a lot of people have completed all the
> > requirements of a Ph.D, except for writing a thesis, and having it
> > accepted. Some people are so busy with their lives that they stay in
> > this state for years.
>
> > --
> > alias Ernest Major
>
> That's possible, but I tend to be very skeptical of people who toss
> about credentials with no details. Publishers will usually encourage
> anyone who writes books to inflate their credentials to the limit of
> honesty, and Wilbers certainly has no problem blowing his own
> horn. Strange then that every bio I could find of him ends with
> a bachelor's degree from U of Nebraska, with one reference
> to a *brief* graduate career before dropping out. Add to the
> suspicion that he runs an "Institute", and so might very
> well grant himself advanced degrees if it strikes his fancy.
>
> I tried to get more information at his website, but all
> I learned was that he has the *single most annoying
> website I've ever seen*:http://www.kenwilber.com/
> I made me nostalgic for the old "Netscape
> Hall of Shame" :)
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is interesting that he claims he has a PhD minus thesis but then
says what his thesis was on! I don't know why the biographies make no
mention of his Master's degree or almost PhD. As for his institute
granting degrees, his Integral Institute has an Integral University
which grants a Master's degree in Integral Theory. It's all very
integrated and all about Ken Wilber's work. To be fair, this degree
and other higher degress are offered in conjunction with accredited
universities.
GS
loua...@yahoo.com
> In message <1187275747.999444.73...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, jcon
> <cirej...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >On Aug 16, 8:39 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <1187268288.660804.188...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, jcon
> >> <cirej...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >> >I did like the euphemism "I have a PhD minus thesis". That's one I
> >> >haven't heard. I don't know about biochemistry, but in physics that
> >> >would be a transparent euphemism for "failed qualifying exams".
>
> >> >-jc
>
> >> I would read that as an ABD.
>
> >ABD??
>
> All But Dissertation - a lot of people have completed all the
> requirements of a Ph.D, except for writing a thesis, and having it
> accepted. Some people are so busy with their lives that they stay in
> this state for years.
When I was working at a university they had an ABD in the department
who'd been working on his thesis for _twenty years_ and was just
getting ready to defend. I saw a copy of the thing once -- about two,
two and a half feet thick. I left before I heard if he'd finished or
not.
Largely because of him, they set a policy that dissertations had to be
finished in ten years. But of course he had to be grandfathered in
under the old rules.
loua...@yahoo.com
> In message <1187275747.999444.73...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, jcon
> <cirej...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >On Aug 16, 8:39 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <1187268288.660804.188...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, jcon
> >> <cirej...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >> >I did like the euphemism "I have a PhD minus thesis". That's one I
> >> >haven't heard. I don't know about biochemistry, but in physics that
> >> >would be a transparent euphemism for "failed qualifying exams".
>
> >> >-jc
>
> >> I would read that as an ABD.
>
> >ABD??
>
> All But Dissertation - a lot of people have completed all the
> requirements of a Ph.D, except for writing a thesis, and having it
> accepted. Some people are so busy with their lives that they stay in
> this state for years.
When I was working at a university they had an ABD in the department
Craig Franck
> I'm not clear about what you are saying. If Ken Wilber believes that
> mind permeates everything, then why are you surprised that he takes
> the view that he does? It would seem likely that he would be
> dissatisfied with a purely materialistic explanation.
I thought he would have a much more sophisticated view of evolution
than he is exhibiting. For example, he writes
"Folks, give me a break on this one. I have a Master's degree in
biochemistry, and a Ph.D. minus thesis in biochemistry and
biophysics, with specialization in the mechanism of the visual
process."
All of which sounds encouraging, but he then blabbers on like a
typical creationist.
> Your biomorph
> example sounds like a purely materialistic explanation and I don't
> understand the connection to Wilber.
The biomorph example shows that meaningful shapes and
patterns arise spontaneously with a minimum input of complexity.
Qazfez
That really doesn't answer my question.
*Hemidactylus*
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:27:23 -0700, rev.goetz <jimgoetz...@yahoo.com> wrote
all heretics that stand against the commonly accepted Japanese
schoolgirl theory of creation. If that doesn't work then the girl in
the well from Koji Suzuki's original _Ring_ book (excellent!) should
finish the job.
Why does Hollywood, when not remaking old cartoons like Underdog,
bastardize Japanese book and film culture? Is it payback for letting
KISS survive for so long and make a comeback on our shores? Or is it a
total lack of new ideas? Ring 2 really pissed me off.
Bill Baker
Sounds good to me. :)
> Why does Hollywood, when not remaking old cartoons like Underdog,
If that isn't the sign of the Apocalypse, I don't know what is.
> bastardize Japanese book and film culture? Is it payback for letting
> KISS survive for so long and make a comeback on our shores? Or is it a
> total lack of new ideas? Ring 2 really pissed me off.
I'd say it's the total lack of new ideas. Everything nowadays is a remake of
something.
--
Funny Lurlean quote #55:
"Some sinners get so much radiation on them that they just blow up and leave
a little pile of ashes behind. If you're a standing too close, you might get
burnt up too!"
*Hemidactylus*
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:02:36 -0700, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com>
made for TV movie that was released in the late 80's starring Jaclyn
Smith and Richard Chamberlain. I haven't read the Ludlum books, but I
gather that this made for TV version was truer to Ludlum's orginal set-
up. The new Bourne movies, as cool and action packed as they are, only
have a vague semblance to Ludlum's stories.
I do wonder who would win an ultimate fighting showdown...Jason Bourne
or Jack Bauer. When 24 and the Bourne films start getting too campy to
continue they should combine the two, kinda like Jason versus Freddy
(rogue gov't operative steel cage match).
Giant Sloth
> "Giant Sloth" <nospamm...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1187281676.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 12:14 am, "Qazfez" <qaz...@qazfez.com> wrote:
> >> "Giant Sloth" <nospamm...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1187201458....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >I posted a similar note yesterday, but it seems to have disappeared.
> >> > I hope I'mnot being redundent...
>
> >> > It has been my impression that nearly all creationism is a result of
> >> > religious fundamentalism. However, it was recently pointed out to me
> >> > that the highly influential thinker within "New Age" circles, Ken
> >> > Wilber, is a creationist. Indeed, a creationist using the stock
> >> > arguments:
>
> >> With respect, do you think it makes the slightest difference what Ken
> >> Wilber
> >> thinks about evolution? Why bother to attack him?
>
> >> [snip]
>
> > Are you new to this board? If so, it's all about criticizing people
> > with irrational views with respect to origins.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I'm interested in the creation/evolution debate in general, and,
as I said in my first note, was under the impression that nearly all
creationists were fundamentalists, mostly Christian with a few Muslims
and Jews. There are some Hindu creationists. (By "creationist" I
mean someone who believes the current scientific consensus on
evolution (sometimes including the age of the earth) is deeply flawed,
and seem to be ideologically motivated to reach that conclusion. One
frequent characteristic is to say that all biological scientists are
really much more in doubt about evolution than they admit. ) I had no
idea, up to this point, that there were any creationists among "New
Agers". So finding out that Wilber is one is a surprise and quite
interesting to me and I wanted to share that information. It's the
kind of information often shared on this board. Also I was hoping
that if Wilber made subsequent statements on it that someone would
point that out. Also I was wondering if other prominent New Age
thinkers are creationists.
GS
Earle Jones
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> I do wonder who would win an ultimate fighting showdown...Jason Bourne
> or Jack Bauer....
*
McGuyver.
earle
*
*Hemidactylus*
> In article <1187348181.333581.309...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > I do wonder who would win an ultimate fighting showdown...Jason Bourne
> > or Jack Bauer....
>
> *
> McGuyver.
>
talcum powder or because he would trick both JB's into exiting the
ring through the Stargate?
Earle Jones
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
Hey! Right! McGuyver's the man!
He could make a small A-bomb out of a little horsheshit and graham
crackers and blow those guys away!
McGuyver's the MAN!!
earle
*
Bill Baker
That's kind of surprising to me, too, since the people I know that could be
described as "New Agers" believe that both creationists and scientists are
right. Not to say that they aren't a bit ignorant about some aspects of
evolution and sometimes repeat creationist claims as true, but they generally
don't have a problem with it. Myself, I tend to believe mostly the same thing.
That evolution happened more or less the way scientists say it did and that
it was all put into motion by an energy force that some people refer to as God.
--
Bushism 1-25:
"I'm confident we can work with Congress to come up with an economic stimulus
package that will send a clear signal to the risk-takers and capital formators
of our country."
--Washington, D.C.; September 17, 2001
Walter Bushell
It's quite accepted in teaching. Although a dissertation is the whole
point of a PhD.
Frank J
>
> > I posted a similar note yesterday, but it seems to have disappeared.
> > I hope I'mnot being redundent...
>
> > It has been my impression that nearly all creationism is a result of
> > religious fundamentalism. However, it was recently pointed out to me
> > that the highly influential thinker within "New Age" circles,
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> oxymoron.
>
> "New Age" is for those who want all the silliness of a real
> religion, without the awkwardness of actually having
> to articulate their beliefs.
In the same sense ID is "new age" creationism. It has all the
silliness of classic creationism without the awkwardness of actually
having to name the designer, or more importantly, say what the
designer did, when or how.
>
> > Ken
> > Wilber, is a creationist. Indeed, a creationist using the stock
> > arguments:
>
> >http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter38.html
>
> > His response to criticism only makes him look worse:
>
> >http://vomitingconfetti.blogspot.com/2005/05/awaken-white-morpheus.html
>
> I did like the euphemism "I have a PhD minus thesis". That's
> one I haven't heard. I don't know about biochemistry, but
> in physics that would be a transparent euphemism for
> "failed qualifying exams".
>
> -jc
>
>
>
> > Clearly, Mr. Wilber had ideological problems with evolution while in
> > the scientific community, which caused him to secretly dismiss the
> > idea that the known (or even unknown) mechanisms are viable. He
> > appears to project this disposition onto his colleagues. Ultimately,
> > he claims that the biological scientific community is composed of
> > liars!
>
> > Although Wilber's response was written before Dover, he also appears
> > to be living in fantasy land with regard to court cases involving
> > creationism.
>
> > I wonder if there are other New Age creationists?- Hide quoted text -
Walter Bushell
jcon <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I did like the euphemism "I have a PhD minus thesis". That's
> one I haven't heard. I don't know about biochemistry, but
> in physics that would be a transparent euphemism for
> "failed qualifying exams".
Don't you have to pass qualifying exams to be ABT?
Walter Bushell
> "New Age" is for those who want all the silliness of a real
> religion, without the awkwardness of actually having
> to articulate their beliefs.
The doctrine of the Trinity was designed to be inacticulatable.
Walter Bushell
"rev.goetz" <jimgo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2:52 pm, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:10:58 -0700, Giant Sloth <nospamm...@dslextreme.com>
> > wrote in message
> > <news:1187201458....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I posted a similar note yesterday, but it seems to have disappeared.
> > > I hope I'mnot being redundent...
> >
> > > It has been my impression that nearly all creationism is a result of
> > > religious fundamentalism. However, it was recently pointed out to me
> > > that the highly influential thinker within "New Age" circles, Ken
> > > Wilber, is a creationist. Indeed, a creationist using the stock
> > > arguments:
> >
> > >http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter38.html
> >
> > > His response to criticism only makes him look worse:
> >
> > >http://vomitingconfetti.blogspot.com/2005/05/awaken-white-morpheus.html
> >
> > > Clearly, Mr. Wilber had ideological problems with evolution while in
> > > the scientific community, which caused him to secretly dismiss the
> > > idea that the known (or even unknown) mechanisms are viable. He
> > > appears to project this disposition onto his colleagues. Ultimately,
> > > he claims that the biological scientific community is composed of
> > > liars!
> >
> > > Although Wilber's response was written before Dover, he also appears
> > > to be living in fantasy land with regard to court cases involving
> > > creationism.
> >
> > > I wonder if there are other New Age creationists?
> >
> > Well, I firmly believe that the entire universe was unknowingly created
> > three
> > years ago by a Japanese schoolgirl who wanted to create a world full of
> > aliens,
> > time travelers and espers, and that our memories of the past were planted
> > in our minds when the universe was created. Does that count?
>
> You are wrong. The Japanese schoolgirl will create the universe next
> month, and our memories of the past will be planted in our minds when
> the universe will be created.
But it was the FSM that created the Japanese schoolgirl.
*Hemidactylus*
> In article <1187213243.250781.217...@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
viewed by people who will then suffer fates worse than death. The
problem of evil is thus solved. FSM is responsible fo all the good in
the world and the JSG in the well for all the evil. JSG was once part
of FSM's entourage, but rebelled and was cast down the well.
An alternative view is that of the demiurgists that JSG did create
this hapless evil world (actually nothing more than an existential
videotape) and FSM stands aloof, supreme and good, but not really
involved in the affairs of this world. We should all be chaste,
fasting ascetics to reduce the hold the evil materialist JSG has upon
this evil vale of tears and to help the out of touch FSM triumph in
the end. Traditional FSG adherents have burned the JSG demiurgists at
the stake whenever they've been found, tried and forced to confess
thir heresies. This is not a popular view.
AC
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
> Take the Bourne series starring Matt Damon. I recently watched the
> made for TV movie that was released in the late 80's starring Jaclyn
> Smith and Richard Chamberlain. I haven't read the Ludlum books, but I
> gather that this made for TV version was truer to Ludlum's orginal set-
> up. The new Bourne movies, as cool and action packed as they are, only
> have a vague semblance to Ludlum's stories.
>
The Bourne Identity is, hands down, the best book Ludlum ever wrote, and
probably one of the best books in the genre. The Chamberlain movie was
close plot-wise, and Chamberlain at least resembled Ludlum's description of
Bourne. Matt Damon just doesn't cut the mustard for me. He's a round-faced
pretty boy, and just doesn't come off convincingly as the confused but
effective killer.
I'd recommend the book, but stay away from the sequels, which tend to get
silly like a lot of Ludlum's books. I first read it when I was about
fourteen at the recommendation of my father, and I stayed up all night and
finished it off. It was probably the most action-packed book I've ever
read.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Numerous
<nospa...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>I posted a similar note yesterday, but it seems to have disappeared.
>I hope I'mnot being redundent...
>
>It has been my impression that nearly all creationism is a result of
>religious fundamentalism. However, it was recently pointed out to me
>that the highly influential thinker within "New Age" circles, Ken
>Wilber, is a creationist. Indeed, a creationist using the stock
>arguments:
>
>http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter38.html
>
quote:
"Like other Hegelians, Wilber enjoys this vision of Spirit unfolding
itself moment by moment. At least it gives the history of the universe
a direction, a point. This is comforting to many people. To claim that
we're evolving toward some grand spiritual goal is positively
thrilling to many of these folks. Apparently, such a vision gives hope
and meaning to people's lives. To me, it makes us pawns of some grand
Spirit. We only have meaning as a means to an end that we have no part
in creating. I find such a vision demeaning."
Well what's the alternative - being pawns of blind, unconscious
physical laws?
Who would you prefer be the driver of the bus you're on - someone who
is conscious and able to see where he's heading, or....?