Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

[whitecoast]

This has been the Eternal Problem since Day 1 of Cass, SOTT, etc.

If you go too deep, many people switch off. If you don't go deep enough, others switch off. There really is no simple solution to that particular problem.

Just look at Ponerology. For many years, we planned a Ponerology for Dummies. It never quite happened. Yet the original book has been read far and wide, and is still a top seller.

Despite the depth and complexity of the material, it still had an impact in the longer term.

Another example: RT. They won't touch certain things that SOTT will talk about. They also have lots of wonderful articles about how Conor McGregor's Daddy Threatened to Beat Up Your Daddy and stuff like that.

That kind of thing serves their larger purpose, but it doesn't serve ours.

I guess a good way of looking at it would be China vs the USA in the current political climate. Naturally, we'd love to be "popular" and powerful, but that's not the point. We're more of a "still waters run deep" kind of approach as opposed to the Lady Gaga Smartbomb / Invasion / Spreading Freedom and Democracy approach.

I also have to add that I find it thoroughly interesting that in terms of certain crazes, like gluten-free or keto, we are generally ahead of the curve. The same could be said about psychopathy and other political views and approaches to things. It just usually takes the rest of the world 5-10 years to catch up.

It seems that maybe our role is to just try to set an example, and then let the chips fall where they may. At least according to the C's, so far, so good! Although you wouldn't think so by taking a surface-level look at the state of the world today...

One idea I thought of strictly in terms of improving dissemination is the idea of having multiple outlets or websites, each with a different niche or focus that could cluster things that people tend to be interested in.

This is what happened to the SOTT Talk Radio. It used to be a generic chat about "All and Sundry", but it then diversified into multiple shows like Behind the Headlines/NewsReal (political current events), The Truth Perspective/Mind Matters (psychology/ponerology/spirituality), and then The SOTT Health and Wellness Show/Objective: Health (medicine, psychology, environmental issues). I think this was smart because some people may be really into the ketogenic diet, but not so big on, say, 9/11 and the like. Divided up there is a greater chance of a person sticking around in a particular video series and drilling down into the topics they love (instead of listening to a couple of episodes but then getting turned off or triggered by something random in a different show on an unrelated topic). This can happen with things within shows as well, but the odds are lower than if it was all amalgamated. EE, FOTCM, QFG etc are all their own websites because they serve different functions. Perhaps thinking of different news topics as serving different functions or interests is an angle that could prove beneficial? SOTT and this forum get millions of views - but how well do we really know our audience? (Excluding people who participate actively in comments and threads).

The one downside to this is that it makes it a bit harder for a person who's into all of the above to know that this other awesome content exists. It doesn't mean SOTT proper doesn't exist anymore, and it could maybe link to it or other websites surreptitiously. If that's an enormous amount to manage there could probably be ways of structuring spin-off websites to auto-load content from the feeds of SOTT topics (eg, a health-oriented website could automatically update with feeds from the Science of the Spirit and Health & Wellness topic).

Another thing that could help increase exposure is to conduct more interviews. Since all the shows are on Youtube now, interviewing an individual who has a youtube audience will likely draw some interest from their fans. I know everyone wants to see JBP on a show here for example, but there may need to be more of an online presence needed for that to happen - i.e. something to work up to. I think a good route would be to speak with more obscure but well-educated online individuals, which can organically grow the fanbase of this or that show.

It may also be possible to use SOTT.net for some market research. What types of topics do people tend to click the most on or enjoy in tandem? That could give clues on how to spin-off topics. Is that feasible to do with the cookies?

 

[goyacobol]

I am only 66% into DBB but I am drawn into the comments as I am reading. It is such a valuable find to me that I see this is information we might naturally want to "disseminate". I have been thinking about how we should do that as a group and others are thinking about some possibilities. I actually think SOTT, the radio SOTT broadcasts and this forum are pretty much on track but we can always improve I suppose.

Session 16 July 1994:

Q: (L) What can protect us?
A: Knowledge.
Q: (L) How do we get this knowledge?
A: You are being given it now.
Q: (L) What knowledge do you mean?
A: You have it.
Q: (L) How does the knowledge of what you have told us help us?
A: Gives great defense.
Q: (L) What knowledge gives defense?
A: Just gave it.
Q: (L) What specifically?
A: Don't ask that not important.
Q: We don't understand.
A: Knowing about it gives psychic defense.
Q: How do we tell other people? And who should we tell?
A: Inform indirectly only.
Q: (L) How?
A: Write.

I think we are already doing the above as a general guideline but wanted to give a baseline source (at least for me).

Session 23 July 1995:

Q: (L) Then, just let me ask it straight. Why have I been under such severe physical, material, and emotional attack in the past 6 months. Frank thinks that I am under such attack because I work and move too fast in the gathering and attempts at dissemination of information; that I charge ahead and do things, thereby exposing myself to retaliatory attacks.

A: That has the potential for being partially correct in the sense that you disseminate information, perhaps less carefully than you should. The gathering of information holds no potential for attack from any particular realm. However, dissemination DOES, because those whom become aware, become empowered. And, in any struggle between opposing forces, there is always danger in allowing anyone to become empowered without realization of the ramifications.

Q: (L) So, I can continue to seek information, as long as I keep it to myself?

A: You have free will to do that which you please. But, when you are framing it in terms of the question: where is the danger, this presupposes that you are concerned about dangers to yourself. And, if this be the case, we will be happy to give advice where and when needed.

Q: (L) Well, right now it is needed. I am almost completely debilitated physically and materially, which creates a severe barrier to focus and concentration, and also my ability to assist other people.

A: Well then, perhaps it is true that you should be careful as to how you disseminate the information and how you disseminate knowledge gained, and where, and when. This is not to say that you must stop, but rather to think carefully before you do it, as to what the ramifications will be. And then your instincts will lead you in the proper direction. The dangers are always that when one proceeds too quickly, the instincts may be overrun and become confused with other thought pattern energies, and thereby opening one up to attack and other unpleasant possibilities.

Q: (L) Well, if I promise not to tell, make a vow, can't we just stop all this other?

A: It is not necessary to stop, it is just to be careful as to how one does it. The flow of information is never a harmful thing. As we have previously described, the Service to Self involves the constriction and restriction of energies, and the focusing within. The Service to Others orientation involves an outward flow of energies, the focus being from within to without. Therefore, the passage of information, or dissemination is very helpful and is of Service to Others orientation. But, one must also be aware of the dangers involved. One must not lose control of the flow and the possibilities that can result. This is where you need to be more careful. You need to regulate. And, attack can come from any number of sources for any number of reasons. It is not always for the same reason. And, of course, there is the short wave and long wave cycle. The short wave cycle is one which closes rather quickly. The long wave cycle is one that closes more slowly, therefore take a longer amount of time, as you perceive it, to close. Therefore it also involves a more complicated issue. This is just one example as to how attack can be the result of what we were just describing.

Q: (L) Can attack be a left over from another cycle?

A: That is one possibility, certainly.

Heck, you guys might be getting some "instincts" about how to proceed. I don't know. It's almost creative.

I am off on a quest so please bear with me here...

Session 22 April 1995:

Q: (L) Well, we are getting ready to learn because you are going to teach us, is that correct?

A: You already have tools.

Q: (L) What do you mean we already have tools?

A: We are trying to teach you to use your most precious commodity.

Q: (L) And that is, of course, our minds?

A: You betcha!

Keep in mind the above advice would not be available without Laura doing the Work of talking to the Cs ( I prefer this to channeling the Cs but that's just me).

All this learning and disseminating of information should be fun. I know it seems like a lot of work but..the Cs say:

Session 27 January 1996:

Q: (L) How do you spend your 'time?'

A: Teaching, sharing, assisting.

Q: (L) What do you do for fun?

A: That is fun!

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

In relation to what whitecoast said above, I was also thinking of upvotes/downvotes for comments on Sott.

That article by luc had a few people attacking it, so a random "neutral" visitor may have the impression that a lot of people disagree with this "controversial" article, so they may feel there's no need to take the article too seriously. With upvotes/downvotes, given that most registered readers are regular Sotters and people from this forum, the dumbest comments would get downvoted by a lot of people and the good ones upvoted. This would then create a pretty different impression.

I've seen this on other websites. The number of commenters in agreement and disagreement of the article could be about the same, but one half got massively downvoted and the other upvoted. Which, for the people looking at the comments, changes the impression from 50/50 opinion to say 90/10.

Of course the majority opinion has nothing to do with truth, but it's a strong psychological factor nonetheless. For people who don't have a particularly strong opinion either way, the notion that most people seem to agree or disagree will have a psychological effect whether they realise it consciously or not. They will be more likely to consider the issue seriously, imo.

Of course it has to be limited for people with accounts, otherwise trolls might swarm in, and they would if it's about issues like Darwinism.

 

[Jones]

I dunno - why not just get creative with what we've got? It's one thing to suggest changes, but another to know how much work is involved with those changes. I'm not an IT person so wouldn't know.

I'm a member of a lot of groups for different interests and that comes in handy - if someone asks a question or wants info about something and I remember a good SOTT piece on the subject, I link it there. Sometimes I search SOTT for a good article on a question asked. In one group someone asked 'whats your favourite book?' I linked Earth Changes and the Human Cosmic Connection. I'm always on the look out for an opportunity to share info from here, but I just keep it in contexts of the discussions already happening or questions being asked in the main. I think that's probably a way to do it that would reduce the attraction of attacks - but I don't know that for sure.

From there I reckon that if people are searching they'll find their way here if that's what they are looking for. Non linear dynamics and all that

 

[manitoban]

I think that sharing the information in different forms might attract a certain percentage of the population who are open to receiving it, but the big problem is that probably the majority of people simply do not want to know. As we have seen with so many areas, like vaccines and climate change just to name a few examples, many people are unable and/or unwilling to even examine the evidence, it conflicts too much with their world view.

To realize that their trust in authorities, government and scientists is completely wrong opens up questions and ramifications about so many other areas that they just can't go there. The programming of the populace to never question authorities, that the material world is ALL that there is, goes so deeply among many, that they cannot or will not hear, see or receive anything that contradicts these programs. And for some, perhaps it is simply not part of their path to learn this at this particular time.

Despite all this, making the effort to spread this knowledge could surely help those who are open to it, and there may be more of these than we can imagine, and who knows what the non linear results could be?

 

[aragorn]

Personally, I don't see any real point in trying to 'convince' anyone. I take the approach that either people have the drive to know in them, or they don't. So by all means we can put information 'out there', but the idea of trying to convince any one person or a number of people, i.e. being invested in 'convincing this one' or 'this group', is pointless. I'm reminded of Gurdjieff's comments on the 3 'circles' of humanity, and in relation to your comments, especially the "outer circle".



As for polar bears, applying occam's razor, I'm pretty sure they were designed specifically for snowy landscapes.

Although Gurdjieff, as we’ve discussed in the recent years, had his weaknesses and blind spots, he had many amazingly clearheaded and accurate descriptions of what’s going on with people. And that quote is a prime example.

It’s interesting, that even if I’ve read that passage many times before, it’s only now, many years later from the first time I read it, that I really ‘viscerally’ understand what he is saying. And understanding the division he’s talking about gives you more peace of mind and calmness; we shouldn’t stress about converting or convincing people - if they have the ‘inclination’, or whatever you might call it, inside of them, they will find the ‘bread crumbs’ that we’ve left behind.

To paraphrase G, we need to put out enough B-influences/signals so that other seekers can get started and strengthen their magnetic center. Or, anyway, that’s how I see it right now.

 

[goyacobol]

I agree with you aragon. The Cs have told us almost the same thing about trying to convince or prove that information is true.
I think we can do as the Cs do by putting out the facts as we see them and even maybe use our creativity doing that but in the end the receivers much make their own decisions whether to believe that information or not.

Session 24 February 1996:

Q: (L) Well, I didn't think it was personal data. I have a number of questions from people all over the world that I need to get answered, and it seems that people are interested, and I would like to get the material out there.

A: We have advised on this subject already, and patience is a virtue which builds strength!

Q: (L) Mike Lindeman has proposed that we submit the channeling to 'rigorous testing.'

A: Mike Lindemann does not channel, now does he? What sort of rigorous testing does he propose?

Q: (L) He didn't say. I guess they want short-term predictions and all sorts of little tests...

A: Precisely, now what does this tell you?

Q: It tells us that he wants proof.

A: Third density "proof" does not apply, as we have explained again and again. Now, listen very carefully: if proof of that type were possible, what do you suppose would happen to free will, and thusly to learning, Karmic Directive Level One?

Q: (L) Well, I guess that if there is proof, you are believing in the proof and not the spirit of the thing. You are placing your reliance upon a material thing. You have lost your free will. Someone has violated your free will by the act of PROVING something to you.

A: If anyone CHOOSES to believe, that is their prerogative!

Q: (PZ) {unintelligible but sarcastic sounding remark}

A: You did not completely understand the previous response, Pat. And what would constitute proof?

Q: (L) Predictions that came true, answers that were verifiable about a number of things.

A: Those would still be dismissed by a great many as mere coincidences. We have already given predictions, will continue to do so, but, remember, "time" does not exist. This is a 3rd density illusion. We don not play in that sandbox and cannot and never will. The primary reason for our communication is to help you to learn by teaching yourselves to learn, thereby strengthening your soul energy, and assisting your advancement.

 

[aragorn]

New interview with Behe:

Eric Metaxas interviews biochemist Michael Behe on "the new science about DNA that challenges evolution" as told in Behe's book, DARWIN DEVOLVES.

 

[aragorn]

The interviewer, Metaxas, is a bit irritating...he should have given Behe more time to answer. He kept interrupting him with his 'witty' commenting.

 

[goyacobol]

The interviewer, Metaxas, is a bit irritating...he should have given Behe more time to answer. He kept interrupting him with his 'witty' commenting.

aragorn,

He still got through to me despite Metaxas trying to upstage him.

Behe was fairly "witty" too. My favorite remark of Behe was when asked if his theories came out after his tenure he said "My momma didn't raise no idiot".

 

[Joe]

I was thinking recently about just how pernicious the materialist/darwinist world view that has been foisted on modern society really is. Materialism, by definition, implies that there is nothing more that physical existence, the physical universe, and that after death there is 'nothing'. I think it's highly likely that that idea - spread widely throughout the population - has a net negative effect on human beings, creating in them a pervasive, if mostly unconscious, (or all the more pernicious because it's unconscious) fear or anxiety about death.

If we consider the 'survival instinct' that all living beings have - which among humans includes an attempt to achieve 'immortality' through procreation - the drive to stay alive and avoid injury and death and to 'continue on' is very strong. We can reasonably assume therefore that the idea that there is 'nothing' after you die, no continuation, is pretty stressful and unpleasant, and may create a tendency in people to block out thoughts about their own mortality by escaping into ever more materialism and materialistic pursuits. Materialistic beliefs create more materialistic thinking and behavior.

In that context, think about the many terror attacks in recent years and the effect they have had on many people around the world. They cause fear and anxiety that may arise from the pointed awareness of our own mortality that such attacks provoke. That, I think, is why you have such an outpouring of anger and demands that "something must be done" in the aftermath of such events, and why politicians use executive power to pass laws that invariably lead to more restrictions on civil freedoms, that the people themselves misguidedly welcome. So the general public response to such attacks may be motivated less by real sympathy for the victims than a visceral fear-based response centered on a sense of their own existential vulnerability.

Imagine, on the other hand, if everyone was more or less convinced of the reality of life after death. How would people then view death, in it's varied manifestations, including terror attacks? If people were aware that the people who were killed really are in a 'better place', and there is no existential harm done, and for that reason no personal existential anxiety was provoked, the response would be very different I think. There could and would be a similar level of justified anger, but for less self-centered reasons that would focus more on rejection of the obvious infringement of the free will of the people who were killed to keep on living. Then again, I think I remember in a session somewhere that it was said that when someone kills someone else, there is always an 'agreement' "at some level" for that to happen. That raises an interesting question about whether or not free will is actually abridged in that kind of scenario, although the session comment may relate only to specific circumstances.

We can't mention materialism and darwinsism without mentioning atheists. I asked in a session a while back whether atheists are people who have no ability to conceive of something higher than the material world because there isn't much in the way of anything 'higher' about them, and the answer was 'yes'. Still, I find it hard to believe that atheists don't experience some form of existential dread. I mean they too have a self-preservation instinct, so I'd be surprised if they can contemplate the idea that they are 'nothing' after they die without being a bit concerned about it. Then again, maybe people who are only able to conceive of and therefore 'worship' the material universe find the idea of a non-physical existence more disturbing than the idea that they will cease to exist, and that is the source of atheists strident rejection of an afterlife or anything more than the material universe.

 

[luc]

I'm currently reading Betty's "When Did You Ever Become Less By Dying?", and he says (rightly) that the idea that there's nothing after death often leads to the fear of missing out, to the obsession of "cramming everything into one lifetime", to feelings of disappointment/jealousy etc. if you don't succeed (which you can't) and so on. Obsession with money, power, status etc. also seems less attractive if you think there's more to it than this life - and especially if you believe that you will be held accountable for your selfishness. Materialism is mindbogglingly pernicious I think!

Imagine, on the other hand, if everyone was more or less convinced of the reality of life after death. How would people then view death, in it's varied manifestations, including terror attacks?

You could extend the list. Just think about "man-made climate change" - doesn't seem so scary if you believe in an afterlife, now does it? Who would buy that nonsense anyway if people believed in an afterlife? People would care a lot more about their fellow human beings in the NOW than in some distant future.

Or think about all those ideologies with their silly utopias. They would just vanish!

Now of course, religions can and do have their own issues. But I fully agree with Betty that if people had a somewhat vague but sound understanding of what the afterlife is about, our world would be so much better. No doubt.

 

[goyacobol]

From a 3D perspective the materialist infuence of Darwinism is looking more and more relevant in it's pervasiveness. Even though I never thought I personally could buy into the primordial soup with the random mutation explanations it was still affecting my everyday life and decisions because it came not only from the scientific arena but from the business world, government control, philosophies, ideologies and even religion in the sense of a Christian view of one chance one lifetime to get it right (no reincarnation).

We now have the concept of not just this 353535 (3D to 5D) revolving door but there is this unseen level that I had not even conceived of before finding Laura and the Cs sessions and that is 4D. With this level of unseen influence as a possible reality I have had to re-think almost everything.

If this 4D level of influence really exits then it kind of changes the "playing field".

One of my fellow FOTCM friends (I think he will know who he is) recently mentioned "Ormethion".

Session 20 October 1994:

Q: Is Ormethion who the Lizzies worship?

A: Close.

Q: Who do they worship? What do they call their god?

A: Physical universe.

Q: The physical universe is their god?

A: Yes.

Maybe those atheists are worshiping a god they don't even have a clue exists.

 

[mkrnhr]

If we consider the 'survival instinct' that all living beings have - which among humans includes an attempt to achieve 'immortality' through procreation - the drive to stay alive and avoid injury and death and to 'continue on' is very strong. We can reasonably assume therefore that the idea that there is 'nothing' after you die, no continuation, is pretty stressful and unpleasant, and may create a tendency in people to block out thoughts about their own mortality by escaping into ever more materialism and materialistic pursuits. Materialistic beliefs create more materialistic thinking and behavior.

I think people have two reaction to the fear of nothingness that sort of drive their everyday behaviour. One is of an obsessive "everything now", which leads to an over exaggerated drive to acquire whealth and status, while forgetting to live. The other reaction is of a denial of mortality where one doesn't do anything because maybe unconsciously, he's eternal (no rush), thus forgetting to live too.
Th healthiest attitude, even if one adopts a narrowly utilitarian viewpoint, is to be aware of one's mortality while aknowledging that the passage one this earth is but a part of a grander adventure of the soul.

 

[mkrnhr]

Maybe those atheists are worshiping a god they don't even have a clue exists.

They do. Atheism is th stupidest religion, or belief system, there is. A mind cannot function without some basic postulates about reality, and those postulates are the basis of the belief system whether one aknowledges it or not. Saying that one doesn't believe in anything is a big self-delusion.