Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: dr_lew
Of course, Evolution was a Forbidden Science at its introduction.

It is sort of an alchemy, isn't it? A bacteria is transmuted into a fish or maybe a plant first, and then that is transmuted into a amphibian which is transmuted into a lizard which is transmuted into a bird which is transmuted into an ape which is transmuted into a man.

But much like the age of prophecy in the Bible, at some stage this just comes to an end and things start just being what they are and men are never transmuted into angels. Well, not that we know of.

I tend to think of the emergence of life on earth the way I am told to imaging the Big Bang, happening everywhere all at once. Time, being only an illusion, this is quite probably but when time becomes the persistent illusion we know it as today, mankind, while waiting for Darwinism to transmute him into an Angel starts trying to impose a chronological order on his origin but there is no epoxy strong enough to stick to an illusion. The Universe sticks its head out of the hole and and says "Here I am!" and the scientist tries to bat it down once again and makes the grand scientific discovery of government grants.

And the only facts and data that matter are those promoted by the state.

But you know, I think a lot of people became very interested in Reich and his work when the U.S. government banned his work and burned his books.

Maybe instead of doing all that work of getting Origin up on top of a greased stripper pole, you just need to organize a good old fashioned book burning. Much, much simpler but think of all the CO2 released into the air to add to the fake science of Global Warming(TM)? I guess it is six of one.

Of course, the greatest new scientific discovery is we can enslave people's DNA and patent that so long as they are unborn. That will bring greater big bucks then government grants ever did.

36 posted on 07/17/2007 11:37:20 AM PDT by Duke Nukum (...till pity is become a trade, and generosity a science that makes men rich...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: Duke Nukum

Paul said, “All flesh is not the same flesh” There is flesh of fowl, flesh of fish, and flesh of beasts, etc. He was arguing for the plausibility of our resurrection in the flesh by characterizing our presumed “resurrection bodies” as just one more addition to the variety of created flesh.

Nowadays, evolution or no, we understand that all flesh is the same flesh, being produced in the same way by the same genetic code carrying different instructions. This is an entirely materialistic understanding, and you and others who object to evolution as degrading to the spirit seem to have no such objection to this comprehensively materialistic ontology which embraces you and me as well as the fish, fowl, and beasts.

Compare and contrast Lucretius with Paul. Lucretius embraced radical materialism, and on that basis expressed a notion of the genome. “... we see that all things bred from fixed seeds by a fixed mother are able to conserve their kind as they grow. Assuredly this must come about in a fixed way.”

He’s expressing the notion that embryonic development follows natural laws. There are also some very interesting adumbrations of genetics in Aristotle.


38 posted on 07/17/2007 7:36:36 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson