Anti-Mormonism and the Magic World View

[Joseph Antley]

Back to the OP, I agree with some others that Gee--in the out-of-context quotes posted--is off the mark in his opposition to the label "magic". I think that "magical thinking" is a perfectly apt way to describe part of the youthful outlook of Joseph Jr., his father, and their neighbors.

[DrW]

And you couldn't pull it off anyway. Evolution is a scam that suits your worldview and thus you will continue to toss around terms you neither understand nor can defend intelligently.

littlechild,

You are probably correct. And I doubt if anyone could "pull it off" for you.

In response to your assertion that I could not defend evolution intelligently, I would have to disagree with you. I hold a Ph.D. in neuroendocrinology, served a postdoc at MIT in chemistry and biochemistry, and have published extensively in these areas. Evolutionary theory is an important underpinning to neuroendocrinology and other areas in medicine and physiology, as well as biochemistry.

One of my fond fantasies is that individuals who refuse to accept the theory evolution could somehow be banned from use or benefit of any of the technologies or products based upon it. You might be surprised at how many products and services would suddenly be unavailable to you if my fantasy were fulfilled.

littlechild, you are in the position of a person who is happy to use a product while denying the existence of the tools by which it was made.

[DrW]

It seems to me that DrW's arguments in this thread have sufficiently been shown to demonstrate magical thinking by his own definitions(s). Calmoriah has given you some info, as have wade and juliann. I hope you consider it.

LAOP,

I have considered it.

Thank you.

[Calm]

and the concerned scientific community believes that it did

The above is your personal comment and therefore my CFR for this is still in effect.

[LifeOnaPlate]

And you couldn't pull it off anyway. Evolution is a scam that suits your worldview and thus you will continue to toss around terms you neither understand nor can defend intelligently.

Saying "evolution is a scam" is something I disagree with. I presume you and I are both LDS. I just wanted to point out that not all Mormons would be so easy to dismiss a multi-faceted and useful theory, which is understood differently by different people, rather than being a monolithic school of thought.

LAOP,I have considered it. Thank you.

You're welcome. Now I am interested to see if you are willing to change or retract your former claims on this particular aspect of the discussion so we can move to the next point and do so likewise.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Contrary to your assertion here, magical thinking is not pejorative term.

Yes it is.

While it can have other uses, your use thereof has been exclusively pejorative.

Magical thinking is defined as nonscientific causal reasoning and is a term of art used in anthropology, psychology and cognitive science.

An alternative definition is "thinking I despise" and is a term of art used in anti-Mormon polemics.

It would be hard to find a better three word definition for the faithful Mormon worldview.

No. It would not be.

According to the Joseph Smith biographer Richard Bushman, a magic-based worldview was commonplace in the early 19th century, and in the Smith family, and was probably necessary to prepare the way for the restoration of the gospel. (Please see the Mike Reed post above.)

I have not read Bushman in the original. I have read Mike Reed, and that experience makes it all the more imperative that I do not accept his quote mining at face value.

Perhaps you should have done a little more reading in your subject matter before presuming to lecture others, especially scientists, on the meaning of terms used regularly in science.

Perhaps you ought to read my actual argument.

Regards,

Pahoran

[littlechild]

littlechild,

You are probably correct. And I doubt if anyone could "pull it off" for you.

In response to your assertion that I could not defend evolution intelligently, I would have to disagree with you. I hold a Ph.D. in neuroendocrinology, served a postdoc at MIT in chemistry and biochemistry, and have published extensively in these areas. Evolutionary theory is an important underpinning to neuroendocrinology and other areas in medicine and physiology, as well as biochemistry.

One of my fond fantasies is that individuals who refuse to accept the theory evolution could somehow be banned from use or benefit of any of the technologies or products based upon it. You might be surprised at how many products and services would suddenly be unavailable to you if my fantasy were fulfilled.

littlechild, you are in the position of a person who is happy to use a product while denying the existence of the tools by which it was made.

Then with your erudite education, perhaps you can explain in what way evolutionary theory has influence the treatment of the endocrine system in modern medicine. I'm still waiting ...

And you make sweeping assertions about me being "happy to use a product" - which product are you referring to in particular, or is this just another grandiose opinion issuing from Your Learnedness with no footing upon which to base it?

[littlechild]

Saying "evolution is a scam" is something I disagree with. I presume you and I are both LDS. I just wanted to point out that not all Mormons would be so easy to dismiss a multi-faceted and useful theory, which is understood differently by different people, rather than being a monolithic school of thought.You're welcome. Now I am interested to see if you are willing to change or retract your former claims on this particular aspect of the discussion so we can move to the next point and do so likewise.

Go ahead and disagree. I've read the pamphlet BYU puts out containing all the official Church statements on the subject. And I know for a fact that most Mormons disagree with my position. I've experienced that firsthand here on this very board. I consider that they are influenced by an education system with a vested interest in the evolutionary paradigm. And I am still monolothically and categorically claiming that evolution is historically inaccurate. And never has there been any proof that it is. As a pseudoscience it excels. As fact, it is but a wishful thought. It is highly imaginative and untrue that species 'evolved' from one another.

You needn't be offended at me, I am not offended by your disagreement. I expect and anticipate it even. But I believe I have a better explanation and ultimately it will not be an issue anyway. Now we see in part, but eventually we will know in full.

Dissenting opinions from responsible persons are welcome. Feel free to air your views at length.

[Calm]

Go ahead and disagree. I've read the pamphlet BYU puts out containing all the official Church statements on the subject. And I know for a fact that most Mormons disagree with my position. I've experienced that firsthand here on this very board. I consider that they are influenced by an education system with a vested interest in the evolutionary paradigm. And I am still monolothically and categorically claiming that evolution is historically inaccurate. And never has there been any proof that it is. As a pseudoscience it excels. As fact, it is but a wishful thought. It is highly imaginative and untrue that species 'evolved' from one another.

You needn't be offended at me, I am not offended by your disagreement. I expect and anticipate it even. But I believe I have a better explanation and ultimately it will not be an issue anyway. Now we see in part, but eventually we will know in full.

Dissenting opinions from responsible persons are welcome. Feel free to air your views at length.

Probably better to do it on another thread and leave this one to Pahoran's topic.

[Pahoran]

However, in my view, magical thinking does not track one-on-one with religious belief. Religions vary widely in the amount of magical thinking required. In general, the more conservative and fundamentalist the religion, the more magical thinking it entails. Religions that do not insist on governing every aspect of life and labeling those who leave as apostates, for example, might entail less than those that do (such as Islam).

So now it comes out: "Magical thinking," whenever and wherever it appears in your posts, is merely a substitute for "religions I despise." Especially the one which you have left.

The attempt to taint us by association with Islam is, of course, pure demagoguery. Is this a "scientific" tactic?

The fact is that there is nothing supernatural about conservatism or fundamentalism. "Apostasy" is not a "magical" category (whatever that may mean.)

If a religion you despise does something -- however mundane -- that attracts your wrath, you will damn it by calling it "magical thinking."

Thank you for proving my point.

I am not the only one who attributes this kind of underperformance at the top levels of science to the prevalence of magical thinking (or whatever you wish to call it) in Mormon Church education and culture.

You're right. There are indeed others who share your bigotry.

Those who may feel that I am unfair in characterizing Mormonism as not conducive to scientific enterprise should consider the following:

BYU set up a genetics testing facility with the intent of demonstrating the presence Semitic ("Hebrew") DNA in Native American populations. When it was found that there was none, the lab was shut down, and the extensive data obtained (from more than 3000 samples) was never published.

Call for references, please.

Probably better to do it on another thread and leave this one to Pahoran's topic.

Thank you, Cal. Littlechild, this is not an evolution thread. You will find that I am on the side of science (and therefore mostly but not exactly on the side of scientists) with this one.

But I will agree with you to the extent that the appeal to evolution as the "explanation for everything" could be considered "magical."

On which subject, incidentally, DrW: Sir James George Frazer's theory that religion "evolved" out of "primitive magic and superstion" is definitely pass

[littlechild]

Probably better to do it on another thread and leave this one to Pahoran's topic.

The reason evolution is 'magical thinking' is because nearly all of its foundational truths are illusory, 'just so' stories. The confidence Dr. W has in his pseudoscience is propped up by positive affirmation and thus we have many Mormons and others who are hesitant to challenge this apparently impenetrable wall of 'fact'. As I said, when you probe it, you discover that most of it is just the imagination of men who like to think of themselves and their peers as intelligent, learned, rational people, and that everyone else is ignorant.

But in my view and in the view of a growing number of scientific thinkers the cracks in evolution are just beginning to widen to the point that we could seriously discard it in coming years. Awareness of these points of view will be small at first but I have every confidence to believe that they will grow and we will eventually see the overturning of the Darwinian fantasy.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You spelled Talmage wrong.

[Joseph Antley]

The reason evolution is 'magical thinking' is because nearly all of its foundational truths are illusory, 'just so' stories. The confidence Dr. W has in his pseudoscience is propped up by positive affirmation and thus we have many Mormons and others who are hesitant to challenge this apparently impenetrable wall of 'fact'.

You're way off the mark here. To refer to belief in evolution, a valid scientific theory (and, in some respects, scientific fact), as "magical thinking" is absurd.

As I said, when you probe it, you discover that most of it is just the imagination of men who like to think of themselves and their peers as intelligent, learned, rational people, and that everyone else is ignorant.

As ridiculous as this post is, I hope that it doesn't turn this into an evolution thread.

But in my view and in the view of a growing number of scientific thinkers the cracks in evolution are just beginning to widen to the point that we could seriously discard it in coming years. Awareness of these points of view will be small at first but I have every confidence to believe that they will grow and we will eventually see the overturning of the Darwinian fantasy.

Discard it and substitute it for what? God "magically" putting everything as it is here now is not a scientific theory. Your confidence is misplaced.

[Pahoran]

Bump for DrW. You previously wrote:

Those who may feel that I am unfair in characterizing Mormonism as not conducive to scientific enterprise should consider the following:

BYU set up a genetics testing facility with the intent of demonstrating the presence Semitic ("Hebrew") DNA in Native American populations. When it was found that there was none, the lab was shut down, and the extensive data obtained (from more than 3000 samples) was never published.

Call for references, please.

Specifically, when and where did "BYU set up a genetics testing facility with the intent of demonstrating the presence Semitic ('Hebrew') DNA in Native American populations?" What was the name of this lab? Who funded it? Where can we read about its stated aim being to "demonstrate the presence [of] Semitic ('Hebrew') DNA in Native American populations?"

Apart from Southerton's hostile hearsay, that is?

I have provided you with the reference to Southerton's statement about the analysis of 3000 samples at BYU. What he has written is not hearsay, because he is reporting a conversation he had directly with the BYU professor.

Your highly scientific education seems to be letting you down. Southerton reporting that he heard someone else say something is exactly "hearsay." That's what the word means.

There's no possibility that you are reporting a garbled story about the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation is there? Because it still seems to be working.

Of course, its purpose was never to "demonstrate the presence [of] Semitic ('Hebrew') DNA in Native American populations." That is an anti-Mormon canard. But it is still beavering away at collecting its genetic database.

But it was once working at BYU, until the owner decided to move it to Salt Lake City. There was a minor kerfuffle about it at the time, as paranoid anti-Mormon conspiracy theorists started screaming "cover-up!"

As, of course, they always do. If the SMGF were to move its lab back to BYU, that would probably be a cover-up too.

For some real scholarship on the DNA question, see here.

So, is that what you were talking about (and got hopelessly wrong, because you were relying upon a notorious anti-Mormon spin doctor) or do you have some actual references in support of your claims?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mike Reed]

Does Bushman ever accuse anyone of magical thinking?

Not that I am aware of. I don't know that he would make such a fuss over the phrase, however. As I understand it, in academia, the phrase tends to pertain simply to the frame of mind that one has while believing in magic. Believing in divining rods (thinking that they work), for example, fits the definition of "magical thinking"... in my opinion. The same could be said for astrology, protective undergarments, seer stones, lucky-charms, or even the belief in karma (which I am prone to). People who are highly competitive in sports also tend to fall into this category. I don't think that such "thinking" can be absolutely avoided today, let alone absolutely avoided Joseph Smith's day.

Here are two articles that may be of interest:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/20...agical-thinking

http://www.healthleader.uthouston.edu/arch...nking-0413.html

These quotes say nothing about magical thinking because magical thinking is a pejorative not a description of an act.

The quotes I provided were in response to Pahoran's/Gee's/Hamblin's objection to the word "magic" (by itself).

[DrW]

Bump for DrW. You previously wrote:

Call for references, please.

Specifically, when and where did "BYU set up a genetics testing facility with the intent of demonstrating the presence Semitic ('Hebrew') DNA in Native American populations?" What was the name of this lab? Who funded it? Where can we read about its stated aim being to "demonstrate the presence [of] Semitic ('Hebrew') DNA in Native American populations?"

Apart from Southerton's hostile hearsay, that is?

Your highly scientific education seems to be letting you down. Southerton reporting that he heard someone else say something is exactly "hearsay." That's what the word means.

There's no possibility that you are reporting a garbled story about the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation is there? Because it still seems to be working.

Of course, its purpose was never to "demonstrate the presence [of] Semitic ('Hebrew') DNA in Native American populations." That is an anti-Mormon canard. But it is still beavering away at collecting its genetic database.

But it was once working at BYU, until the owner decided to move it to Salt Lake City. There was a minor kerfuffle about it at the time, as paranoid anti-Mormon conspiracy theorists started screaming "cover-up!"

As, of course, they always do. If the SMGF were to move its lab back to BYU, that would probably be a cover-up too.

For some real scholarship on the DNA question, see here.

So, is that what you were talking about (and got hopelessly wrong, because you were relying upon a notorious anti-Mormon spin doctor) or do you have some actual references in support of your claims?

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

The term hearsay has a specific legal meaning of which you are apparently unaware (as in the hearsay rule). (You should really look some of this stuff up before you presume to lecture others on the meaning of words and phrases. Doesn't this get a little bit embarrassing?

If Southerton spoke directly with a BYU professor and then reported that conversation, the conversation as reported is NOT hearsay. If a third party had reported that Southerton had told him or her about the conversation with the BYU professor; that would be hearsay. The report of a conversation by a direct participant in the conversation is not hearsay. Look it up.

Again and for the last time, there is a published report which, if accurate, would mean that BYU had acted unethically (not illegally) in the handling of scientific data. Until there is a published denial or explanation by BYU (or the BYU researcher who spoke to Southerton), or the publication of the paper with the data in question, I stand by my comments. Again, the report was published, I provided the reference. No amount of indignation on your part will change the documented facts of this issue.

I am headed out to the Oregon coast on a two week vacation and will not be visiting this thread again.

[Calm]

Pahoran,Until there is a published denial or explanation by BYU (or the BYU researcher who spoke to Southerton), or the publication of the paper with the data in question

How is the Wall Street Journal article I gave you not sufficient for this?

add-on: I do not understand why DW would assume that BYU would have to officially address a bogus claim. Accurate info is for the reason for the lab being not shut down, but moved is present in the WSJ article:

In 2003, the project severed its ties with Mormon-affiliated BYU and relocated to Mr. Sorenson's corporate headquarters in Salt Lake City. The university was running out of lab space, and the switch helped allay any concerns among non-Mormons that the project might have a religious agenda.

.

Also evidence that the BYU professor involved in SS's claim was indeed publishing data on the DNA issue during the time period that SS would, at the very least, seem to indicate there was no actual concern about posting such information.

The article I posted also lists the actual work being done by the lab when it was first located at BYU and later. If there is any evidence there of the suppression of data as claimed by SS, I'd like to see it.

[Mike Reed]

Interesting quote:

[W]e propose that magical thinking is wholly or partly at the root of any explanation of behavioral and experiential phenomena that violates some law of nature or suggests, without supporting evidence, the existence of principles, forces, or entities unknown to science. Magical thinking is the belief that (a) transfer of energy or information between physical systems may take place solely because of their similarity or contiguity in time and space, or (b) that one's thoughts, words, or actions can achieve specific physical effects in a manner not governed by the principles of ordinary transmission of energy or information.

Magical thinking is universal. Magic, and therefore magical thinking, have been part of all human groups since prehistoric times. Although it is true that magic has been associated more with preindustrial societies, magical thinking is by no means absent in the modern industrial world where science is the dominant ethos. Magic not only preceded science, but science arose from magical pursuits and, for a time, coexisted with science as a legitimate confrere. (Lynn Thorndike [1923-1958] documented the evolution of experimental science from magic in his monumental work, History of Magic and Experimental Science.)

Leonard Zusne and Warren H. Jones, Anomalistic Psycology: A Study of Magical Thinking (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989), 13.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am headed out to the Oregon coast on a two week vacation and will not be visiting this thread again.

That's too bad. We already demonstrated pretty sufficiently that your claim about the DNA thing was bogus. I was ready to move on to some of your other misplaced criticisms.

[Brant Gardner]

Interesting quote:

[W]e propose that magical thinking is wholly or partly at the root of any explanation of behavioral and experiential phenomena that violates some law of nature or suggests, without supporting evidence, the existence of principles, forces, or entities unknown to science. Magical thinking is the belief that (a) transfer of energy or information between physical systems may take place solely because of their similarity or contiguity in time and space, or (

that one's thoughts, words, or actions can achieve specific physical effects in a manner not governed by the principles of ordinary transmission of energy or information.

Magical thinking is universal. Magic, and therefore magical thinking, have been part of all human groups since prehistoric times. Although it is true that magic has been associated more with preindustrial societies, magical thinking is by no means absent in the modern industrial world where science is the dominant ethos. Magic not only preceded science, but science arose from magical pursuits and, for a time, coexisted with science as a legitimate confrere. (Lynn Thorndike [1923-1958] documented the evolution of experimental science from magic in his monumental work, History of Magic and Experimental Science.)

Leonard Zusne and Warren H. Jones, Anomalistic Psycology: A Study of Magical Thinking (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989), 13.

I hadn't read this one, but it fits in well with the rest of the reading I have done. In this case, it uses magic as a necessary category of distinction. There is a technical use for the term. The problem is that it has also become semantically loaded (and even more so when it becomes "the occult").

This is the correct historical perspective, in my opinion. What we also have to understand is the reasons that the animus toward anything that might be classified as magic has achieved. But, as for continuing, there are pretty substantial sections in any Barnes and Noble bookstore.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

The term hearsay has a specific legal meaning of which you are apparently unaware (as in the hearsay rule).

Thank you, DrW. I am and always was well aware of this.

The "hearsay rule" is a rule prohibiting hearsay as evidence. The rule is not hearsay, it is about hearsay. It does not exhaust the semantic range of the term.

Nevertheless, your source does give a good example of what it means, thus:

For example, if an eyewitness to an accident later tells another person what she saw, the second person's testimony is hearsay.

Likewise, if someone with first-hand knowledge of the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation's activities at BYU says something about it to another person, the second person's testimony is hearsay.

Thank you for supporting my point.

(You should really look some of this stuff up before you presume to lecture others on the meaning of words and phrases. Doesn't this get a little bit embarrassing?

Not to me.

But as others have found out, it may become embarrassing to those who try to school me on such matters.

If Southerton spoke directly with a BYU professor and then reported that conversation, the conversation as reported is NOT hearsay. If a third party had reported that Southerton had told him or her about the conversation with the BYU professor; that would be hearsay. The report of a conversation by a direct participant in the conversation is not hearsay. Look it up.

It is when the participant purports to offer information based upon what s/he claims to have "heard" the other person "say."

Look it up. In your own source.

Again and for the last time, there is a published report which, if accurate, would mean that BYU had acted unethically (not illegally) in the handling of scientific data. Until there is a published denial or explanation by BYU (or the BYU researcher who spoke to Southerton), or the publication of the paper with the data in question, I stand by my comments. Again, the report was published, I provided the reference. No amount of indignation on your part will change the documented facts of this issue.

The "documented facts" are:

1. The claim that the SMGF was closed down is clearly and demonstrably false. It is still going.
   
2. The claim that the SMGF was founded to "demonstrate the presence [of] Semitic ('Hebrew') DNA in Native American populations" is entirely unattested in any reputable source.
   

Indeed, the whole story looks a lot like an urban legend. It's altogether "too good to be true," but people of demonstrated gullibility are all too eager to believe it.

On that note, here is another quote from your hero:

"I accepted without question the widespread urban legends in the church." -- Simon Southerton.

And you accepted without question his own, original urban legend about the Church.

But hey -- why not? After all, it suits your prejudices.

I am headed out to the Oregon coast on a two week vacation and will not be visiting this thread again.

Don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out.

Now it seems appropriate to sum up the current state of this thread. I began by quoting Gee to the effect that "magic" is not a useful term in scholarly discourse. In opposition to that, some people quoted some scholars using the term. What they did not do was cite anyone giving the matter serious thought, engaging Gee's arguments and/or those to whom he defers, and making a case for continued use of the term.

This approach is logically equivalent to a doctor who says people shouldn't smoke, and someone who disagrees showing examples of smoking doctors.

On that basis, Gee wins.

But beyond that: DrW has demonstrated how he uses the term. Believers who support the teaching authority of the leaders of their faith community are engaging in "magical thinking." Believers who think they should actually put their beliefs into practice are engaging in "magical thinking." This is especially noticeable when the teachings and/or practices run counter to DrW's preferences.

Thus, as he uses the term, it carries no meaning except "something I don't like." I could not have garnered better support for my OP if I had bribed him to do it.

The verdict is in: terms such as "magic" in general, and "magical thinking" in particular, do nothing to inform anyone about anything except the prejudices of the one using them. "The term magic is generally about as informative as a swear word, displaying only the ignorance and displeasure of the person who uses it."

Especially in this forum.

DrW, you once wrote, "scientists tend to be a bit more detached and objective than most." Is this an example of "magical thinking?" I would say no, it is "religious thinking" -- and the religion in question is idolatry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Joseph Antley]

The verdict is in: terms such as "magic" in general, and "magical thinking" in particular, do nothing to inform anyone about anything except the prejudices of the one using them. "The term magic is generally about as informative as a swear word, displaying only the ignorance and displeasure of the person who uses it."

As I've said earlier, I think "magic" and even "magical thinking" are perfectly fine ways of describing aspects of certain cultures and worldviews. If I'm not mistaken, the argument you've presented (or that Gee has presented) is that "magic" is a useless term because there is no universal agreement on what "magic" means--although I don't think that there is that much of a disagreement. I believe it was Mike Reed who pointed out earlier in the thread that the same can be said of the word "religion" and thus to "religious thinking", and unless a substantial difference can be shown between the two, I don't find Gee's argument very persuasive.

I think the motivation for some Latter-day Saints' (and in this case, Dr. Gee's) objection to the term boils down to them not liking their prophet being described as believing in "magic". Which, I think, is silly. I do not believe that Quinn intended for the term to be insulting or demeaning of Joseph Smith's (and other early Saints') worldview (as Gee seems to imply, based on the quote in the OP), and I don't know that there's a more appropriate term to describe some of the Smith family's (and many [most?] contemporary rural Americans') early beliefs. How does Gee demonstrate that "magic is generally about as informative as a swear word, displaying only the ignorance and displeasure of the person who uses it"? I don't think that Quinn is ignorant of early Mormonism or early folk magic (something that, if I'm not mistaken, he has more experience in than Gee) or that he is interested in showing displeasure. I use the term and consider myself reasonably well-read on early Mormonism and early folk magic, and I certainly have no interest in showing displeasure towards Joseph Smith or Mormonism.

Scrying-stones, divining rods, talismans, magic parchments, treasure-hunting rituals, treasure-spirits, enchantments -- yes, "magic" seems like an appropriate label, and I see nothing demeaning about it.

[Kemara]

There is a fatal problem with your use of the term magical thinker and with your view on evolution. The verifiable, reproducible physical evidence from observation and experimentation supports evolution. (Therefore, someone who accepts evolution is not a magical thinker.)

Evolutionary theory has has extraordinary predictive power in many fields of science, including biology, pharmacology, molecular biology, genetics, paleontology, and physiology, to name a few. The supernatural creation theory is not supprted by objective evidence, cannot be the basis of a scientifc hypothesis, has no predictive power whatsoever, and is of absolutely no value to science. In fact, it represents anti-science in one of its most virulent forms.

So, if you ever depend on a prescription medicine to save or improve your life, have an advanced surgical procedure, or obtained therapies for cancer or a myriad of other diseases, please remember that these advances are based on the theory of evolution. Without the theory of evolution, we would not have many or most of them.

A supernatural being that is believed by some to have created the earth did not bring these to you, evolutionary science did.

Since last October I have been involved in a research project with two scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences and have also communicated on the phone with one other. All have Ph.Dâ??s as a minimum two have received Fulbright Professor fellowships and the other has just recently left Australia to take up a Fulbright Professor fellowship at the University of California.

I have been working personally on a daily basis with Dr.M who is Ph.D, D.Sc. (One of the youngest to ever be granted a D.Sc from the Russian Academy of Science) Out of his very mouth he explained that while working at the Moscow State University he would walk up the stairs to the centre of evolutionary studies and on the door was a poster which said, â??The more we learn of evolution the more we believe in Godâ? â?? this was in Soviet Russia no less!

Dr.M made some very interesting observations. He explained that in his view there are in general there are three levels of science and scientists.

1. Persons with qualifications in science but do not engage in any meaningful scientific work, this is by far the most populated level.

2. Persons with qualifications in science who engage in meaningful scientific work but are limited to building upon or expanding previous scientific work, the second most populated level.

3. Persons with qualifications in science and are True Scientists i.e. engaged in work that involves the discovery of completely new science/information (such as his own D.Sc dissertation), very very few persons in this level.

Dr.M then made an even more interesting observation - all the True Scientists that he knows from Russia, USA (worked there for 6 years), South America (2 years) and Europe (10 years) believe there is a God and although he couldnâ??t speak for every single True Scientist he did not believe that a True Scientist could not believe in a God. Further still Dr.M explained that all True Scientists are absolutely reliant on what one could call â??Magical Thinkingâ?, that no new science or knowledge can be received without it, that the gap between the known and unknowable can only be bridged by God.

Dr.M then explained how one could distinguish a Level 1 and Level 2 scientist from a True Scientist. All True Scientists experiences what Dr.M called â??The Secretâ?, in other words when the gap between the known and the unknowable is bridged and a totally new discovery is made something â??Secretâ? happens to the scientist.

I wonder if DrW knows what â??The Secretâ? is, from Dr.M's description its simply magical.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's like DrW (not M) is stuck in some French Enlightenment stuff.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's like DrW (not M) is stuck in some French Enlightenment stuff.

Amen brotha. What a great observation.