[asa] Analogy to GUT (formerly Noah's Ark)

I said:

[quote]
My opinion is the "grand unifying principle of evolution" is a
fabrication. If that is true then we may possibly be seeing a
consitutionally problematic situation arise in the state science standards
committees.
[unquote]

Lets assume I am wrong, and the "grand unifying principle of evolution" is
not a fabrication.
But is it based primarily on a certain metaphysical interpretation? Is it a
primary effect of that metaphysical interpretation? If so, why should
state governments adopt this principle (or any metaphysical principle) in
their curriculum standards?

Thanks,
Dave C

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro99@q.com> wrote:

> And, the supertanker *Knock Nevis* is some 1500 feet in length!
> JimA [Friend of ASA]
>
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
> According to this creationist website, Noah’s ark was 450 ft x 75 ft, and
> 45 ft. tall.
>
> http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html
>
>
>
> Here’s an article about the biggest ship to date:
>
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_world_s_largest_cruise_ship;_ylt=ArJToIWoKW8T2ijWgHhc_oes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNnczkyYTI2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDMwL2V1X3dvcmxkX3NfbGFyZ2VzdF9jcnVpc2Vfc2hpcARjcG9zAzcEcG9zAzQEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawN3b3JsZHNsYXJnZXM-
>
>
>
> 1,200 feet long. Taller than 45 feet. This thing would make Noah’s ark
> look tiny if side-by-side (this one is almost three times longer).
> Interesting comparisons. Interesting datapoint, to be analyzed totally
> differently by YEC’s, OEC’s, and TE’s.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *John Walley
> *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2009 11:11 AM
> *To:* George Murphy; David Clounch; Murray Hogg
> *Cc:* ASA
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy
>
>
>
> I thought electroweak and strong were already unified? We are only on
> gravity right?
>
>
>
> JOhn
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> *To:* David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> <david.clounch@gmail.com>;
> Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
> *Cc:* ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Fri, October 30, 2009 12:45:48 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy
>
> GUTs in the original sense would unify the electroweak & strong
> interactions but not gravity. A TOE would include gravitation.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm<http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
>
> *To:* Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
>
> *Cc:* ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2009 11:51 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy
>
>
>
> My layman's view on physics:
>
> It is the theory there is an energy level (temperature) where the strong
> force, weak force, gravity, and electromagnetic force are all one force.
> After cooling the force breaks down into individual forces. So immediately
> after the big bang there was one force and with expansion (inflation?) came
> cooling, the four forces, and then eventually particles.
>
> My guess is this is an over-simplification because it is an english
> description of an idea that can only be expressed mathematically.
>
> It is loosely related to TOE (Theory of Everything).
>
> This all came up because I mentioned Grand Unifying Principle (GUP) which
> is the idea that state science standards committees in the USA put in
> curriculum standards. This idea says that evolution is a unifying concept
> that explains everything from the formation of particles at the big bang to
> cosmic evolution to chemical evolution (abiogenesis) to biological
> evolution to social evolution - therefore they want to teach our children
> that evolution explains everything. That "evolution" unifies all of
> science.
>
> This is EXACTLY what Gregory is complaining about. So, Ted, if you don't
> believe in the grand unifying principle of evolution, well....... be aware
> that your government is being subverted to teach something different
> than what you believe. Once these standards are in place all teachers must
> teach that concept or lose their jobs.
>
> My opinion is the "grand unifying principle of evolution" is a
> fabrication. If that is true then we may possibly be seeing a
> consitutionally problematic situation arise in the state science standards
> committees. My question then becomes "whose side are the ASA members on,
> anyway?" If one doesn't believe the fabrication is true, then why support
> it rather than correct it? Do we want accurate science or not? Do we want
> materialism taught as science? Is the fabrication scientism? Do we
> politically support that? Every person must ask themselves that question.
>
> Yes, materialists believe the fabrication is true. But do we? Gregory is
> right on target with this.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave C
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> GUT = "Grand Unified Theory" - properly refers to theories in physics which
> unify the various forces into a single unified field. Used by analogy to
> refer to "meta-narrative"
>
>
>
> Cameron Wybrow wrote:
>
> This is the second time in the last couple of days that I've seen the
> abbreviation "GUT", without explanation. I've never seen this abbreviation
> before. Could people please refrain from using it, unless they are going to
> say what it means after the first usage?
>
> Cameron.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 2 12:31:17 2009