Is it perhaps time Biological Evolution was taught in History classes in
schools?
History deals, not only with recorded history, but pre-historic times;
this can extend right back to formation of the earth and solar system.
Biological Evolution is so well established nowadays (even the Catholic
Church accepts it), that its teaching as part of a history syllabus seems
warranted. This is not to say the full mechanism of evolution need be
covered, but at least the basic facts could be stated.
Perhaps there already is some mention; after all, any treatment of history
needs a starting point.
Religion can be bought in too, but only on an equitable basis with all
religions covered; which involves a chronological order.
History of Science itself is a fascinating topic, with all the false
theories and lack of experimentation of earlier times.
======================================

From:	AG Wolfe
Subject:	Re: Evolution, in History classes?
Date:	Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:33:11 +1100

Don H wrote:

> Is it perhaps time Biological Evolution was taught in History classes in
> schools?

> History of Science itself is a fascinating topic, with all the false
> theories and lack of experimentation of earlier times.

Hi
perhaps you are right, but at University level I reckon.
in school, evolution is part of Biology (yes, even at Catholic HS) and
History already covers a lot !

Of course, History gets bigger every year doesn't it !! :-)

cheers, A.

From:	Don H
Subject:	Re: Evolution, in History classes?
Date:	Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:30:46 GMT

"Of course, History gets bigger every year doesn't it !! :-)"
I'm glad to hear it. I'd heard some universities were, due to govt squeeze
on funds, having to get rid of "useless" (in biznes' eyes) faculties, such
as Philosophy, History ("History is bunk": Henry Ford)
I recommend the Nov'04 issue of "National Geographic" magazine, with its
provocative cover blurb - "Was Darwin Wrong?" - and, having captured its
audience, goes on to prove that, overall, Darwin was right.
====================================
"AG Wolfe" wrote in message
news:41BE5EF7.6000706@optusnet.com.au...
>
>
> Don H wrote:
>
> > Is it perhaps time Biological Evolution was taught in History classes in
> > schools?
>
> > History of Science itself is a fascinating topic, with all the false
> > theories and lack of experimentation of earlier times.
>
>
>
> Hi
> perhaps you are right, but at University level I reckon.
> in school, evolution is part of Biology (yes, even at Catholic HS) and
> History already covers a lot !
>
> Of course, History gets bigger every year doesn't it !! :-)
>
>
> cheers, A.
>
>
>
>

From:	Daedalus
Subject:	Re: Evolution, in History classes?
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 07:47:05 GMT

I guess it depends on how you define "history". In some definitions you
could reasonably argue for the inclusion for any event in the past to be
included in History classes. The problem with that is the History syllabus
will quickly become unworkable, and unlearnable.

Inasmuch as the history of Evolution (given that the capital E usually
denotes the Darwinian theory, and remembering that evolution is an ongoing
process) is a theory of the history of biological development, I would have
to suggest that it is more practical to leave it in the realm of physical
sciences, and Biology in particular.

(Phew, covered some ground in that sentence!)

In the same way I guess the history of economics, or mathematics, religion,
philosophy, science, or any other discilpine, really has to be a subset of
that discipline.Thus I would think that say ... mid high school economics
classes should include a unit on "The History of Economics".

This brings us to the point of having History on a syllabus at all. (Before
anyone goes nuts ... I do support the teaching of History!) I don't think
that the teaching of History should be confined to (or even primarily
focussed on) the learning of historical facts. I'd advocate a syllabus
teaching the scope, value and methods of History, and leave the historical
facts of each disciple to those faculties within the various institutions.
Now read that last bit again and note the different uses of upper and lower
case "H". I recognise that I'm arguing towards an academic utopia ... but
what the heck ... *shrug*.

D.

"Don H" wrote in message
news:CPlvd.71530$K7.44622@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Is it perhaps time Biological Evolution was taught in History classes in
> schools?
> History deals, not only with recorded history, but pre-historic times;
> this can extend right back to formation of the earth and solar system.
> Biological Evolution is so well established nowadays (even the Catholic
> Church accepts it), that its teaching as part of a history syllabus seems
> warranted. This is not to say the full mechanism of evolution need be
> covered, but at least the basic facts could be stated.
> Perhaps there already is some mention; after all, any treatment of
> history
> needs a starting point.
> Religion can be bought in too, but only on an equitable basis with all
> religions covered; which involves a chronological order.
> History of Science itself is a fascinating topic, with all the false
> theories and lack of experimentation of earlier times.
> ======================================
>
>

From:	Don H
Subject:	Re: Evolution, in History classes?
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:01:26 GMT

I agree with much of what you say; and any syllabus can only cover so much.
But any history of our past covers both -
(1) recorded history (in as equitable manner as possible), and,
(2) pre-history, ie. history as deduced from relics, fossils, etc. (a
secular record, based on fact)
When I was a child at State school, we learnt our recorded history with a
(natural) slant to history of the British Empire, and colonial exploration
of Australia; with some reference to aborigines.
What religious history was included was as fair and balanced as possible,
but I still went to Sunday School, and celebrated Guy Fawkes Day on 5th Nov.
There might have been some Catholics at State School, but most went to their
own school, across the road.
To me, as a child, dinosaurs were merely some among many "prehistoric
animals", and were mentioned at school, including mammoths and sabre-toothed
tigers. This, with the Creation Story, at Sunday School, did cause some
mental confusion; but, as kids, we had more important things on our minds.
However, in today's world, the evidence for Biological Evolution is so
overwhelming, and taxonomy of Biology so dependent on it, that it could well
be covered in History at least in broad outline - as part of the
Pre-historic record; the origin of the Solar system, and of the Earth.
Of course, even today, evolution can be subject to revision, eg. it's only
recently claimed that birds are descended from dinosaurs.
I'd claim there is an Evolution of Religion, thus:
(1) Naturism - an animal fear of Nature itself;
(2) Animism - belief in spirits in rocks, trees, animals, including
fetishism, totemism, voodoo.
(3) Polytheism - the anthropomorphic deities; pantheism of gods and
goddesses; evolved from tribal gods; ancestor worship. (Religion at its
peak)
(4) Monotheism - the elimination of rival gods by the jealous god of the
Israelites or similar; the cosmic, no-graven-image God of theology.
(5) Atheism - a consequence of the rise of Science and Technology; the god
hypothesis rendered redundant.
However, this is only my own historical theory, and I can't claim or
advocate that it be taught in schools as history - yet.
================================
"Daedalus" wrote in message
news:ZfRwd.77255$K7.5277@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I guess it depends on how you define "history". In some definitions you
> could reasonably argue for the inclusion for any event in the past to be
> included in History classes. The problem with that is the History syllabus
> will quickly become unworkable, and unlearnable.
>
> Inasmuch as the history of Evolution (given that the capital E usually
> denotes the Darwinian theory, and remembering that evolution is an ongoing
> process) is a theory of the history of biological development, I would
have
> to suggest that it is more practical to leave it in the realm of physical
> sciences, and Biology in particular.
>
> (Phew, covered some ground in that sentence!)
>
> In the same way I guess the history of economics, or mathematics,
religion,
> philosophy, science, or any other discilpine, really has to be a subset of
> that discipline.Thus I would think that say ... mid high school economics
> classes should include a unit on "The History of Economics".
>
> This brings us to the point of having History on a syllabus at all.
(Before
> anyone goes nuts ... I do support the teaching of History!) I don't think
> that the teaching of History should be confined to (or even primarily
> focussed on) the learning of historical facts. I'd advocate a syllabus
> teaching the scope, value and methods of History, and leave the historical
> facts of each disciple to those faculties within the various institutions.
> Now read that last bit again and note the different uses of upper and
lower
> case "H". I recognise that I'm arguing towards an academic utopia ... but
> what the heck ... *shrug*.
>
> D.
>
>
>
>
> "Don H" wrote in message
> news:CPlvd.71530$K7.44622@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Is it perhaps time Biological Evolution was taught in History classes in
> > schools?
> > History deals, not only with recorded history, but pre-historic times;
> > this can extend right back to formation of the earth and solar system.
> > Biological Evolution is so well established nowadays (even the Catholic
> > Church accepts it), that its teaching as part of a history syllabus
seems
> > warranted. This is not to say the full mechanism of evolution need be
> > covered, but at least the basic facts could be stated.
> > Perhaps there already is some mention; after all, any treatment of
> > history
> > needs a starting point.
> > Religion can be bought in too, but only on an equitable basis with all
> > religions covered; which involves a chronological order.
> > History of Science itself is a fascinating topic, with all the false
> > theories and lack of experimentation of earlier times.
> > ======================================
> >
> >
>
>

From:	Daedalus
Subject:	Re: Evolution, in History classes?
Date:	Sun, 19 Dec 2004 06:08:24 GMT

I'm not married to the ideas that I've added into your post here, uch of it
is

"Don H" wrote in message
news:GU0xd.77693$K7.26447@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>I agree with much of what you say; and any syllabus can only cover so much.
> But any history of our past covers both -

I'm suspect that saying "any history" carries an implied value, which I
happen to agree with, but that we nevertheless need to be careful of in case
it distorts rational debate on what we want the teaching of History to
achieve.

> (1) recorded history (in as equitable manner as possible), and,
> (2) pre-history, ie. history as deduced from relics, fossils, etc. (a
> secular record, based on fact)

In an ideal world, both of these will based on facts. It's really only a
question of the medium of the information, and our ability and motives in
interpreting that information.

> When I was a child at State school, we learnt our recorded history with
> a
> (natural) slant to history of the British Empire, and colonial exploration
> of Australia; with some reference to aborigines.
> What religious history was included was as fair and balanced as
> possible,
> but I still went to Sunday School, and celebrated Guy Fawkes Day on 5th
> Nov.
> There might have been some Catholics at State School, but most went to
> their
> own school, across the road.

The teaching of history of religion is perhaps one area that I would be
inclined not to leave in the hands of the people promoting it. I simply
wouldn't trust most religious practitioners to be impartial.I mean no
offence to any reader's own religious belief here. However I feel that it is
in the essence of all the religions that I've looked at, some only very
briefly, to say "we are right and eveybody else is not only wrong but evil".

Off the top of my head I'd suggest that Religion (note the capital again) is
probably an exeptional case because it isn't strictly an academic
discipline. Don't get me wrong here, there are certainly academic
disciplines that address religion as a personal or social experience, etc
(Psychology, Sociology, Anthroplogy and Philiosophy come to mind). I'm
thinking that the history of religions would perhaps best be taught as a
unit of, say ...metaphysics, as a branch of Philosophy. It's just a pity
that we don't have, to the best of my knowledge, Philosophy on the secondary
school syllabus. (There I go off into my Education utopia again)

> To me, as a child, dinosaurs were merely some among many "prehistoric
> animals", and were mentioned at school, including mammoths and
> sabre-toothed
> tigers. This, with the Creation Story, at Sunday School, did cause some
> mental confusion; but, as kids, we had more important things on our minds.
> However, in today's world, the evidence for Biological Evolution is so
> overwhelming, and taxonomy of Biology so dependent on it, that it could
> well
> be covered in History at least in broad outline - as part of the
> Pre-historic record;...

Please don't misunderstand my earlier post, I'm certainly 'For' the teaching
of the theory of Evolution, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be
touched on within the context of teaching History. I guess what I was trying
to get at before is a notion that there is a distinction to be made, let's
call it Pure History vs Applied History. In this dichotomy the Applied
History of the various disciplines is better left largely (not exclusively)
within those disciplines, while the Pure History bits, the thoery of History
as a discipline, is taught as seperate subject.

.... the origin of the Solar system, and of the Earth.

This, for example, is astronomy, or at university level perhaps
astrophysics.

> Of course, even today, evolution can be subject to revision, eg. it's
> only
> recently claimed that birds are descended from dinosaurs.

mmm ... not really. I recall the notion being around in the 70s. And any
good academic process will include a process of revision.

> I'd claim there is an Evolution of Religion, thus:
> (1) Naturism - an animal fear of Nature itself;
> (2) Animism - belief in spirits in rocks, trees, animals, including
> fetishism, totemism, voodoo.
> (3) Polytheism - the anthropomorphic deities; pantheism of gods and
> goddesses; evolved from tribal gods; ancestor worship. (Religion at its
> peak)
> (4) Monotheism - the elimination of rival gods by the jealous god of the
> Israelites or similar; the cosmic, no-graven-image God of theology.
> (5) Atheism - a consequence of the rise of Science and Technology; the god
> hypothesis rendered redundant.

Now we are onto what could be a minefield. First, as I said above, please be
assured that I don't intend any offence to anybody's religious convictions.
To make my own position clear, I have no belief in any religion or higher
being. Now that the disclaimer is out of the way ...

I would disagree that these various types of religions evolve in a chain
from one to another, in their own right. This is mainly because religion is
a function of the culture inwhich it operates. Rather I suspect that each
culture develops a religion which fits into the members of that culture's
experience of the life and the world. As the culture changes, expires, is
supplanted, conquered or asssimilated into another, the type of religion
held will go down the same route. For example, it is not to difficult to
think of situations where Animist cultures have had Monotheism imposed on
them.

As a minor digression, just how sincerly it is taken up is open to some
conjecture. I remember reading an account of early Australian missionaries
teaching the indigenous converts that thier burial practice, placing the
body in a cave and running away before the spirit could possess them, was
entirely wrong. The missionaries explained all the hygene and biblical
benefits of good christian burials. The locals submitted and started burying
their dead in good christian graves, and then running away before the
spirits could possess them!

Anyway, I've said a bucketful, and the nature of religion as a phenonoma is
enough to have already filled many large books.

> However, this is only my own historical theory, and I can't claim or
> advocate that it be taught in schools as history - yet.

ditto

D.

> ================================
>>
>
>

From:	Daedalus
Subject:	Re: Evolution, in History classes?
Date:	Sun, 19 Dec 2004 08:16:06 GMT

"Daedalus" wrote in message
news:sV8xd.78600$K7.65671@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
> I'm not married to the ideas that I've added into your post here, uch of
> it is
>
> "Don H" wrote in message
> news:GU0xd.77693$K7.26447@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>I agree with much of what you say; and any syllabus can only cover so
>>much.
>> But any history of our past covers both -
>
> I'm suspect that saying "any history" carries an implied value, which I
> happen to agree with, but that we nevertheless need to be careful of in
> case it distorts rational debate on what we want the teaching of History
> to achieve.
>
>> (1) recorded history (in as equitable manner as possible), and,
>> (2) pre-history, ie. history as deduced from relics, fossils, etc. (a
>> secular record, based on fact)
>
> In an ideal world, both of these will based on facts. It's really only a
> question of the medium of the information, and our ability and motives in
> interpreting that information.
>
>> When I was a child at State school, we learnt our recorded history with
>> a
>> (natural) slant to history of the British Empire, and colonial
>> exploration
>> of Australia; with some reference to aborigines.
>> What religious history was included was as fair and balanced as
>> possible,
>> but I still went to Sunday School, and celebrated Guy Fawkes Day on 5th
>> Nov.
>> There might have been some Catholics at State School, but most went to
>> their
>> own school, across the road.
>
> The teaching of history of religion is perhaps one area that I would be
> inclined not to leave in the hands of the people promoting it. I simply
> wouldn't trust most religious practitioners to be impartial.I mean no
> offence to any reader's own religious belief here. However I feel that it
> is in the essence of all the religions that I've looked at, some only very
> briefly, to say "we are right and eveybody else is not only wrong but
> evil".
>
> Off the top of my head I'd suggest that Religion (note the capital again)
> is probably an exeptional case because it isn't strictly an academic
> discipline. Don't get me wrong here, there are certainly academic
> disciplines that address religion as a personal or social experience, etc
> (Psychology, Sociology, Anthroplogy and Philiosophy come to mind). I'm
> thinking that the history of religions would perhaps best be taught as a
> unit of, say ...metaphysics, as a branch of Philosophy. It's just a pity
> that we don't have, to the best of my knowledge, Philosophy on the
> secondary school syllabus. (There I go off into my Education utopia again)
>
>> To me, as a child, dinosaurs were merely some among many "prehistoric
>> animals", and were mentioned at school, including mammoths and
>> sabre-toothed
>> tigers. This, with the Creation Story, at Sunday School, did cause some
>> mental confusion; but, as kids, we had more important things on our
>> minds.
>> However, in today's world, the evidence for Biological Evolution is so
>> overwhelming, and taxonomy of Biology so dependent on it, that it could
>> well
>> be covered in History at least in broad outline - as part of the
>> Pre-historic record;...
>
> Please don't misunderstand my earlier post, I'm certainly 'For' the
> teaching of the theory of Evolution, and there's no reason why it
> shouldn't be touched on within the context of teaching History. I guess
> what I was trying to get at before is a notion that there is a distinction
> to be made, let's call it Pure History vs Applied History. In this
> dichotomy the Applied History of the various disciplines is better left
> largely (not exclusively) within those disciplines, while the Pure History
> bits, the thoery of History as a discipline, is taught as seperate
> subject.
>
> ... the origin of the Solar system, and of the Earth.
>
> This, for example, is astronomy, or at university level perhaps
> astrophysics.
>
>> Of course, even today, evolution can be subject to revision, eg. it's
>> only
>> recently claimed that birds are descended from dinosaurs.
>
> mmm ... not really. I recall the notion being around in the 70s. And any
> good academic process will include a process of revision.
>
>> I'd claim there is an Evolution of Religion, thus:
>> (1) Naturism - an animal fear of Nature itself;
>> (2) Animism - belief in spirits in rocks, trees, animals, including
>> fetishism, totemism, voodoo.
>> (3) Polytheism - the anthropomorphic deities; pantheism of gods and
>> goddesses; evolved from tribal gods; ancestor worship. (Religion at its
>> peak)
>> (4) Monotheism - the elimination of rival gods by the jealous god of the
>> Israelites or similar; the cosmic, no-graven-image God of theology.
>> (5) Atheism - a consequence of the rise of Science and Technology; the
>> god
>> hypothesis rendered redundant.
>
> Now we are onto what could be a minefield. First, as I said above, please
> be assured that I don't intend any offence to anybody's religious
> convictions. To make my own position clear, I have no belief in any
> religion or higher being. Now that the disclaimer is out of the way ...
>
> I would disagree that these various types of religions evolve in a chain
> from one to another, in their own right. This is mainly because religion
> is a function of the culture inwhich it operates. Rather I suspect that
> each culture develops a religion which fits into the members of that
> culture's experience of the life and the world. As the culture changes,
> expires, is supplanted, conquered or asssimilated into another, the type
> of religion held will go down the same route. For example, it is not to
> difficult to think of situations where Animist cultures have had
> Monotheism imposed on them.
>
> As a minor digression, just how sincerly it is taken up is open to some
> conjecture. I remember reading an account of early Australian missionaries
> teaching the indigenous converts that thier burial practice, placing the
> body in a cave and running away before the spirit could possess them, was
> entirely wrong. The missionaries explained all the hygene and biblical
> benefits of good christian burials. The locals submitted and started
> burying their dead in good christian graves, and then running away before
> the spirits could possess them!
>
> Anyway, I've said a bucketful, and the nature of religion as a phenonoma
> is enough to have already filled many large books.
>
>> However, this is only my own historical theory, and I can't claim or
>> advocate that it be taught in schools as history - yet.
>
> ditto
>
> D.
>
>> ================================
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

From:	Don H
Subject:	Re: Evolution, in History classes?
Date:	Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:47:03 GMT

An objective view of events is: what conforms to the FACTS - whether it be
in History, or in Science.
It's just that there can be dispute as to what ARE the facts; historical
records, interpretations, opinions, etc.
The fossil record of the rocks gives us the facts (excluding Piltown
skull); but how this record is interpreted, is where some difference of
opinion can occur.
The late philosopher Bertrand Russell was asked: "What can we reasonably
believe?" To which he responded, "What is long established in Science". The
question is: Has Evolution, both fact and theory, now reached that stage?"
As well as History, I'd advocate teaching of Futurology, ie. extrapolation
of past and present, to give prediction of what may come. To do this
effectively requires the best data from past and present, as accurate and
comprehensive as possible. Our weather forecasters already do this, but
same could apply in other fields.
===============================
"Daedalus" wrote in message
news:sV8xd.78600$K7.65671@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
> I'm not married to the ideas that I've added into your post here, uch of
it
> is
>
> "Don H" wrote in message
> news:GU0xd.77693$K7.26447@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >I agree with much of what you say; and any syllabus can only cover so
much.
> > But any history of our past covers both -
>
> I'm suspect that saying "any history" carries an implied value, which I
> happen to agree with, but that we nevertheless need to be careful of in
case
> it distorts rational debate on what we want the teaching of History to
> achieve.
>
> > (1) recorded history (in as equitable manner as possible), and,
> > (2) pre-history, ie. history as deduced from relics, fossils, etc. (a
> > secular record, based on fact)
>
> In an ideal world, both of these will based on facts. It's really only a
> question of the medium of the information, and our ability and motives in
> interpreting that information.
>
> > When I was a child at State school, we learnt our recorded history
with
> > a
> > (natural) slant to history of the British Empire, and colonial
exploration
> > of Australia; with some reference to aborigines.
> > What religious history was included was as fair and balanced as
> > possible,
> > but I still went to Sunday School, and celebrated Guy Fawkes Day on 5th
> > Nov.
> > There might have been some Catholics at State School, but most went to
> > their
> > own school, across the road.
>
> The teaching of history of religion is perhaps one area that I would be
> inclined not to leave in the hands of the people promoting it. I simply
> wouldn't trust most religious practitioners to be impartial.I mean no
> offence to any reader's own religious belief here. However I feel that it
is
> in the essence of all the religions that I've looked at, some only very
> briefly, to say "we are right and eveybody else is not only wrong but
evil".
>
> Off the top of my head I'd suggest that Religion (note the capital again)
is
> probably an exeptional case because it isn't strictly an academic
> discipline. Don't get me wrong here, there are certainly academic
> disciplines that address religion as a personal or social experience, etc
> (Psychology, Sociology, Anthroplogy and Philiosophy come to mind). I'm
> thinking that the history of religions would perhaps best be taught as a
> unit of, say ...metaphysics, as a branch of Philosophy. It's just a pity
> that we don't have, to the best of my knowledge, Philosophy on the
secondary
> school syllabus. (There I go off into my Education utopia again)
>
> > To me, as a child, dinosaurs were merely some among many "prehistoric
> > animals", and were mentioned at school, including mammoths and
> > sabre-toothed
> > tigers. This, with the Creation Story, at Sunday School, did cause some
> > mental confusion; but, as kids, we had more important things on our
minds.
> > However, in today's world, the evidence for Biological Evolution is so
> > overwhelming, and taxonomy of Biology so dependent on it, that it could
> > well
> > be covered in History at least in broad outline - as part of the
> > Pre-historic record;...
>
> Please don't misunderstand my earlier post, I'm certainly 'For' the
teaching
> of the theory of Evolution, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be
> touched on within the context of teaching History. I guess what I was
trying
> to get at before is a notion that there is a distinction to be made, let's
> call it Pure History vs Applied History. In this dichotomy the Applied
> History of the various disciplines is better left largely (not
exclusively)
> within those disciplines, while the Pure History bits, the thoery of
History
> as a discipline, is taught as seperate subject.
>
> ... the origin of the Solar system, and of the Earth.
>
> This, for example, is astronomy, or at university level perhaps
> astrophysics.
>
> > Of course, even today, evolution can be subject to revision, eg. it's
> > only
> > recently claimed that birds are descended from dinosaurs.
>
> mmm ... not really. I recall the notion being around in the 70s. And any
> good academic process will include a process of revision.
>
> > I'd claim there is an Evolution of Religion, thus:
> > (1) Naturism - an animal fear of Nature itself;
> > (2) Animism - belief in spirits in rocks, trees, animals, including
> > fetishism, totemism, voodoo.
> > (3) Polytheism - the anthropomorphic deities; pantheism of gods and
> > goddesses; evolved from tribal gods; ancestor worship. (Religion at its
> > peak)
> > (4) Monotheism - the elimination of rival gods by the jealous god of the
> > Israelites or similar; the cosmic, no-graven-image God of theology.
> > (5) Atheism - a consequence of the rise of Science and Technology; the
god
> > hypothesis rendered redundant.
>
> Now we are onto what could be a minefield. First, as I said above, please
be
> assured that I don't intend any offence to anybody's religious
convictions.
> To make my own position clear, I have no belief in any religion or higher
> being. Now that the disclaimer is out of the way ...
>
> I would disagree that these various types of religions evolve in a chain
> from one to another, in their own right. This is mainly because religion
is
> a function of the culture inwhich it operates. Rather I suspect that each
> culture develops a religion which fits into the members of that culture's
> experience of the life and the world. As the culture changes, expires, is
> supplanted, conquered or asssimilated into another, the type of religion
> held will go down the same route. For example, it is not to difficult to
> think of situations where Animist cultures have had Monotheism imposed on
> them.
>
> As a minor digression, just how sincerly it is taken up is open to some
> conjecture. I remember reading an account of early Australian missionaries
> teaching the indigenous converts that thier burial practice, placing the
> body in a cave and running away before the spirit could possess them, was
> entirely wrong. The missionaries explained all the hygene and biblical
> benefits of good christian burials. The locals submitted and started
burying
> their dead in good christian graves, and then running away before the
> spirits could possess them!
>
> Anyway, I've said a bucketful, and the nature of religion as a phenonoma
is
> enough to have already filled many large books.
>
> > However, this is only my own historical theory, and I can't claim or
> > advocate that it be taught in schools as history - yet.
>
> ditto
>
> D.
>
> > ================================
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

From:	Don H
Subject:	Re: Futurology?
Date:	Sat, 25 Dec 2004 18:05:20 GMT

Future? See...
http://www.thefutureiswild.com
======================================
"Don H" wrote in message
news:XUkxd.79163$K7.50472@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
.......................
> As well as History, I'd advocate teaching of Futurology, ie.
extrapolation
> of past and present, to give prediction of what may come. To do this
> effectively requires the best data from past and present, as accurate and
> comprehensive as possible. Our weather forecasters already do this, but
> same could apply in other fields.
> ===============================

From:	Don H
Subject:	Re: Futurology?
Date:	Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:57:58 GMT

My original post on Futurology seems to have been (unfortunately) somewhat
prophetic, being posted on morning of Sunday 26th.
There's a US govt agency which monitors earthquakes and resultant tsunami
(Japanese: tsu=harbor; nami=wave): ie. National Oceanic and Atmosphere
Administration, or NOAA ("noah"?). But till now it has been confined to the
Pacific. Extension of this, or similar, planet-wide now seems desirable.
Although a tsunami travels rather fast there's still time to warn coastal
dwellers - at least those not close to origin - so they can flee to higher
ground.
Of current victims, some survived by -
(1) climbing a stout tree, or other strong structure, and hanging on;
(2) mounting a surf board (one couple), and riding the wave, both inland and
then out to sea;
(3) seeing the wave coming afar off, and fleeing in time (one family).
But most were swept off their feet and either drowned, or battered to
death by surrounding debris, or both. See also -
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2357.htm
===================================
"Don H" wrote in message
news:AZhzd.88268$K7.69246@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Future? See...
> http://www.thefutureiswild.com
> ======================================
> "Don H" wrote in message
> news:XUkxd.79163$K7.50472@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> ......................
> > As well as History, I'd advocate teaching of Futurology, ie.
> extrapolation
> > of past and present, to give prediction of what may come. To do this
> > effectively requires the best data from past and present, as accurate
and
> > comprehensive as possible. Our weather forecasters already do this, but
> > same could apply in other fields.
> > ===============================
>
>

From:	Don H
Subject:	Re: Nature v. Humans?
Date:	Sat, 01 Jan 2005 17:26:50 GMT

Is "Nature" is blame for the tsunami disaster? Is it a case of "the cruel
sea"? Or is it our fault, for not having an early-warning system in place,
or acted more promptly and efficiently?
What is Nature? The world as revealed by Science seems to consist
largely of the nothingness of space and time, a Universe in which our planet
is but a tiny speck, and we a transient species. The stars, including our
Sun, are large balls of fire, nuclear reactions burning on without care or
purpose; as the stars themselves are born and die, and their planets with
them.
Nature is a vast network of chaotic causal processes, a random
mass-energy system, operating in time-space, according to such "laws" as we
read into it.
There is a "uniformity" and "order" only to the extent that one day is
much the same as the previous one; as perceived by us. At any time,
unpredictable events can and do occur; there's no certainty of a "tomorrow".
Nature functions in an infinity of space and eternity of time, at macro and
micro level. Most stars have no planets, and most planets no "life"; which
itself is a chemical chain-reaction with self-replicating ability.
All life feeds off other life, or minerals, as the chemical process seeks
to perpetuate and duplicate itself. Over millions of years, life on Earth
has developed complex structures, so that reflexes, instincts, and
intelligence have accompanied the cellular, organic, physical complexity, of
later biological species.
While we humans may be unique in the universe, this is by no means
certain. Nature has produced us accidentally and indifferently. With our
disproportionate cerebral cortex, we may be an aberrant product, and our
life span, as a species, no more than a candlelight flicker in the eons of
eternity. Our bodies reflect our evolutionary past: the embryo
recapitulates biological evolution in its stages of development; while the
human adult has about 70 vestigial parts in its physiology.
So, when Nature produces a "disaster" such as an undersea earthquake and
resultant tsunami, it does so according to a chain of cause-and-effect,
entirely mechanically; unaware of, and indifferent to, what result it may
have on humans. We can't stop earthquakes from occurring, as the Earth
contracts, and the thin crust moves. All we can do is establish a
planet-wide network of early-warning stations, so as to minimise loss of
life.
We cannot "conquer" Nature, though we can learn to adapt Nature to our
needs. We're part of Nature, and can destroy ourselves by a careless
attitude towards non-human aspects of Nature. What we call the Environment,
Habitat, Ecology, is part of ourselves, and we treat it casually to our
ultimate peril.
Nature is neither kind nor cruel; Nature merely IS. Nature doesn't care if
Humans survive or perish - only we care.
======================================

From:	Don H
Subject:	Re: Nature v. Humans?
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:39:20 GMT

Via Naturae
=========
My name is Nature, I rule all,
Before my wrath all creatures fall.
I can create, and do destroy;
Am profligate, yet cull and toy,
With matter, beings, essences,
Those devoid, and those with, senses.
I'm part of you, and you of me.
Waste not your time in entreaty,
As I am neither kind nor cruel,
Not foresight wise, nor idle fool.
I just grind on, without a pause,
A vast machine of ruthless laws;
Which all obey, you have no choice,
But where you may, do not rejoice;
For every hubris you might claim,
There's nemesis to tax your brain.
What is, or was, or yet may be,
Extinction looms, o'er also thee.
While humans, with their puny gods,
May thereby hope to beat my odds.
But all such ruses cannot win;
Yet I don't gloat, or sneer, or grin.
You can adapt, live sensibly,
Ward off extinction, temporarily.
So that wild Nature you embrace,
Seek pardon for the Human Race.
'Gainst Nature in the broader sense,
You cannot fight, nor build a fence.
For I'm all-powerful, everywhere.
So, learn my laws, and be aware.
All human armies, weaponry,
Are naught compared with surging sea.
I am called Nature, yet no god,
A paradox, extremely odd.
And though for you I do not care,
Yet be assured - I'm always there!
=================================
"Don H" wrote in message
news:u3BBd.98959$K7.19937@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Is "Nature" to blame for the tsunami disaster? Is it a case of "the cruel
> sea"? Or is it our fault, for not having an early-warning system in
place,
> or acted more promptly and efficiently?
> What is Nature? The world as revealed by Science seems to consist
> largely of the nothingness of space and time, a Universe in which our
planet
> is but a tiny speck, and we a transient species. The stars, including our
> Sun, are large balls of fire, nuclear reactions burning on without care or
> purpose; as the stars themselves are born and die, and their planets with
> them.
> Nature is a vast network of chaotic causal processes, a random
> mass-energy system, operating in time-space, according to such "laws" as
we
> read into it.
> There is a "uniformity" and "order" only to the extent that one day is
> much the same as the previous one; as perceived by us. At any time,
> unpredictable events can and do occur; there's no certainty of a
"tomorrow".
> Nature functions in an infinity of space and eternity of time, at macro
and
> micro level. Most stars have no planets, and most planets no "life";
which
> itself is a chemical chain-reaction with self-replicating ability.
> All life feeds off other life, or minerals, as the chemical process
seeks
> to perpetuate and duplicate itself. Over millions of years, life on Earth
> has developed complex structures, so that reflexes, instincts, and
> intelligence have accompanied the cellular, organic, physical complexity,
of
> later biological species.
> While we humans may be unique in the universe, this is by no means
> certain. Nature has produced us accidentally and indifferently. With our
> disproportionate cerebral cortex, we may be an aberrant product, and our
> life span, as a species, no more than a candlelight flicker in the eons of
> eternity. Our bodies reflect our evolutionary past: the embryo
> recapitulates biological evolution in its stages of development; while the
> human adult has about 70 vestigial parts in its physiology.
> So, when Nature produces a "disaster" such as an undersea earthquake
and
> resultant tsunami, it does so according to a chain of cause-and-effect,
> entirely mechanically; unaware of, and indifferent to, what result it may
> have on humans. We can't stop earthquakes from occurring, as the Earth
> contracts, and the thin crust moves. All we can do is establish a
> planet-wide network of early-warning stations, so as to minimise loss of
> life.
> We cannot "conquer" Nature, though we can learn to adapt Nature to our
> needs. We're part of Nature, and can destroy ourselves by a careless
> attitude towards non-human aspects of Nature. What we call the
Environment,
> Habitat, Ecology, is part of ourselves, and we treat it casually to our
> ultimate peril.
> Nature is neither kind nor cruel; Nature merely IS. Nature doesn't care
if
> Humans survive or perish - only we care.
> ======================================
>
>