Intimations of Cosmotheism: Aviation, the Cosmos, and the Future of Man
by Charles A. Lindbergh
July 1969
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1991Decades spent in contact with science and its vehicles have directed my mind and senses to areas beyond their reach. I now see scientific accomplishment as a path, not an end; a path leading to and disappearing in mystery. Science, in fact, forms many paths branching from the trunk of human progress; and on every periphery they end in the miraculous. Following these paths far enough, and long enough, one must eventually conclude that science itself is a miracle -- like the awareness of man arising from and then disappearing in the apparent nothingness of space. Rather than nullifying religion and proving that “God is dead,” science enhances spiritual values by revealing the magnitudes and minitudes -- from cosmos to atom -- through which man extends and of which he is composed.I believe early entrance to this era can be attained by the application of our scientific knowledge not to life’s mechanical vehicles but to the essence of life itself: to the infinite and infinitely evolving qualities that have resulted in the awareness, shape and character of man. I believe this application is necessary to the very survival of mankind. Science and technology inform us that, after millions of years of successful evolution, human life is now deteriorating genetically and environmentally at an alarming and exponential rate. Basically, we seem to be retrograding rather than evolving. We have only to look about us to verify this fact: to see megalopolizing cities, the breakdown of nature, the pollution of air, water and earth; to see crime, vice and dissatisfaction webbing like a cancer across the surface of our world. Does this mark an end or a beginning? The answer, of course, depends on our perception and the action we take. We know that tens of thousands of years ago, man departed from both the hazards and the security of instinct’s natural selection, and that his intellectual reactions have become too powerful to permit him ever to return. It seems obvious that to achieve the maximum scope of awareness, even to survive as a species, we must contrive a new process of evolutionary selection. That is why I have turned my attention from technological progress to life, from the civilized to the wild. In wildness there is a lens to the past, to the present and to the future, offered to us for the looking -- a direction, a successful selection, an awareness of values that confronts us with the need for and the means of our salvation. If we can combine our knowledge of science with the wisdom of wildness, if we can nurture civilization through roots in the primitive, man’s potentialities appear to be unbounded. Through his evolving awareness, and his awareness of that awareness, he can merge with the miraculous -- to which we can attach what better name than “God”? Will we then find life to be only a stage, though an essential one, in a cosmic evolution of which our evolving awareness is beginning to become aware?

Cosmotheism... the tao of nigger hating...

Rather typical pagan self-deifying rhetoric. Personifying the evolution process and giving it some kind of purpose is downright pantheism.


Petr

...Personifying the evolution...
Where does he "personify evolution" or "deify" himself?
You only see what you want to see.

So you believe that evolution has no purpose?
All the Christians and others who believe it does are now pantheists?

I'm sure the'll be surprised to hear this.

- "So you believe that evolution has no purpose?"


I do not believe that macro-evolution ever even occurred.


Petr

- "So you believe that evolution has no purpose?"


I do not believe that macro-evolution ever even occurred.


Petr
How old do you think the universe is Petr?

Perhaps 10,000 years or so, if the Young-Earth hypothesis holds true.

Have you ever thought how practically the only thing that gives evos those billions of years they need to make their evolution work is the radioactive dating?

When Mark Twain wrote his anti-religious work "Letters from the Earth" around 1900, he confidently declared, as a rational evolutionist, that we now know that earth is about 100 million years old.

The finding of genes and DNA actually presented a terrible dilemma for evos, for it proved that if evolution worked at all, it was a MUCH slower process than they had previously thought - and so, a whole new school of NEO-Darwinism had to be invented.

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200501.htm


Simple Darwinian Theories Have to Be Abandoned

01/17/2005

Mutate one gene and a cascade of changes can result. This effect is called pleiotropy (see 10/01/2003 entry). According to an article by Stephen Strauss reporting for the Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail, “The emerging richness of pleiotropy means that any simple Darwinian notion of what is going on during natural selection has to be abandoned.”

Unless Darwinians can show that the positive changes outnumber the negative effects, pleiotropy seems to spell difficulty, if not doom, for neo-Darwinian theory, which relies on beneficial mutations. But if beneficial mutations are rare to begin with, how can evolutionary theory face the new problem of pleiotropy? “The simplest answer,” Strauss writes, “is that nearly 150 years after Darwin first explained the theory of evolution, the richness of multiple effects from the same gene is such that existence itself seems problematic” (emphasis added in all quotes).

Strauss gives examples of a few more nuanced proposals for salvaging Darwinian evolution: “Faced with what amounts to a growing daily confusion of genetic effects, biologists are proposing new and more highly refined theories of evolution.” Some biologists hope that some mutations have only minor effects. Others are looking for examples of single mutations that might have a cascade of good effects. He ends on a hopeful note: “With modern genetics increasing the supply of data about the multiple functions of genes, evolutionary biologists are increasingly confident that they are going to be able to do what Darwin promised but couldn’t quite delivery [sic] -- truly explain the origin of species.”

Perhaps 10,000 years or so, if the Young-Earth hypothesis holds true.

Have you ever thought how practically the only thing that gives evos those billions of years they need to make their evolution work is the radioactive dating?


Do you doubt the efficacy of radiocarbon dating Petr.

Anyway I asked about the universe itself not the earth, and the analysis of the cosmic spectrum( red shift etc) seems to indicate a much older universe.

Im skeptical of the theory of evolution as it currently stands myself( the idea of molecules coming together in higher and higher orders of complexity by chance and doing it consistently is just at too low an order of probability to happen) but I don't accept creationism either.

- "Im skeptical of the theory of evolution as it currently stands myself( the idea of molecules coming together in higher and higher orders of complexity by chance and doing it consistently is just at too low an order of probability to happen) but I don't accept creationism either."


We'll make the evolution thesis crumble bit by bit - salami tactics, you see.

:D


Petr

- "Anyway I asked about the universe itself not the earth, and the analysis of the cosmic spectrum( red shift etc) seems to indicate a much older universe."


I think those vague astronomical theories can be easily interpreted in one way or another.

Doubting the Big Bang paradigm is really becoming quite mainstream, actually.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/bigbang.asp


Red shifts

However, there is another set of awkward, uncomfortable observations which have loomed in the background for around 20 years now, which, if correct, have been said to have awesome implications, even to the extent of being the deathknell for any big bang concept. The observation is the ‘quantization of red shifts’, and has even been said to undermine the very idea that the universe is expanding.

What is it about? Astronomer William Tifft of the University of Arizona was the first to claim that the red shifts (the degree to which the light from stars is shifted to the red end of the spectrum, which is supposed to measure the speed at which the star is moving away, and hence how far away it is) of galaxies fall into distinct packets or quanta, like the rungs of a ladder. This would be like saying that if you measured the speed of particles coming out of an explosion, instead of being evenly distributed across a range of velocities, they fell into groups, for example, 100 kilometers an hour, 200 km/in, 300 km/in and so on.

Tifft was ignored at first, but continued to amass data for many years, most showing the same effect. Now, in a major study of more than 200 galaxies, using very sensitive equipment, two UK astronomers, Oxford’s Bill Napier and Bruce Guthrie from Edinburgh, claim to have ‘the best evidence yet’ that the phenomenon is real.5

This time, even some former skeptics of the claim are taking it seriously enough to warrant getting involved in the debate, suggesting proposals to test it further, and so on.

Mike Disney of Cardiff’s University of Wales says that if it keeps on holding up, it might turn standard cosmology ‘on its ear’. He says, ‘it would mean abandoning a great deal of present research’. All attempts to try to explain it within conventional models are, to put it mildly, ‘highly unorthodox’, and it is stated that if it does survive the next round of tests, ‘theorists will have a sticky problem trying to explain it’.

James Peebles of Princeton, whose pet big bang cosmology is the big loser if this is right, says he treats the claims with ‘extreme caution’ for this very reason, saying that he is ‘not being dogmatic and saying it can’t happen, but if it does, it‘s a real shocker’.

However, the data are already very impressive. According to Bill Napier they tried hard to avoid concluding that the red shifts were quantized, but failed.

There seems little doubt that if these observations did not conflict with the big bang, they would have been taken much more seriously a long time ago. The problem seems to be, as prominent astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge put it (Burbidge is Professor of Physics at the University of California, San Diego):

‘Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and [in] many cases, untestable assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.’6

...

Doubting the Big Bang paradigm is really becoming quite mainstream, actually.


Yes it has but I was still under the impression that the vast majority of scientific opinion thought the red shift meant the galaxies were moving away at near light speed( their quantization may simply be, even if it holds up a property of light itself)... other stars aren't stationary relative to our sun why would other galaxies be stationary relative to our own.