Re: [asa] Cosmological Evolution?

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Thu Dec 28 2006 - 13:14:03 EST

At 11:01 AM 12/28/2006, George Murphy wrote:

>& apropos biocentrism, if you had read carefully what I wrote in my
>initial post on this yesterday, you would have seen that _I made the
>same distinction_ between the views of Teilhard & of those who are
>influenced by him: " Of course it's impossible to know the thinking
>of everyone who buys into Teilhard's ideas - including many who
>haven't read him 1st hand! But Teilhard himself can't be
>characterized as a "biocentrist" in the sense in which you're using
>the term. ~ George - Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:26:27 -0500
> Janice had written: ... @ If you had carefully read what I
> wrote, you would have noticed that I was talking about the
> mentalities who embrace Biocentrism. Here again is what I
> wrote: on 12/27/06: [ I ] would bet the farm that those who buy
> into this Cosmogenesis theory are the same sorts of "Greenie"
> mentalities who embrace Biocentrism (the belief that all life, or
> even the whole universe living or otherwise taken as a whole, is
> equally valuable and humanity is not the center of existence.
> Hence, humanity is no more valuable than say, mice. )
>So you see, I never said he was a biocentrist. What I did say was
>that Greenie mentalities of various weak and strong stripes
>(pantheists/panenthiests/Gaias,etc.) would be very likely to view
>him as "one of their own".

@@ You thought I meant "everyone"? Even though there are always
exceptions to the rule, it's pretty easy for me to determine what
sorts of mentalities will be willing and eager to buy into the sorts
of ideas that people who think like Teilhard espouse.

In other words, "Birds of a feather flock together" ~ Janice Sun,
01 Oct 2006 17:22:06 -0400 Re: [asa] The Old Testament God is ..

Those are __the sorts of__ mentalities who reject the conclusions
found in these three examples:


[2] God had two main goals in his work of creation:(a) the
manifestation of his glory (Ps. 19:1, Prov. 16:4, Rom. 11:36) and
(b) the good of human beings who were to subdue creation (Gen.
1:28-29) and use it for their benefit (Gen. 1:14-16; Isa. 45:28). ~

[3] For some time, the deliberate misinterpretation of the Biblical
[Genesis] phrase, "Subdue the earth," has been used as a weapon to
attack Christianity ["the graceless consequences of Christianity"],
thanks, in great part, to Karl Marx. Creation, an outgrowth of
chance, is of no consequence, according to Marx and his intellectual
heirs. Nature is lawless and directionless. Humanity must do the
creating -- progress is the _real_ truth and matter is the material
from which humans create a world worth living in. Humans are their
own creators, and human endeavors will transform, not merely shape or
"dominate" nature / the world. The "new" perspective, the false and
hubristic worship of "progress," that humans are destructive,
parasitic, nature's disease, is the cause of our own and creation's
destruction. On a more worldly note, see a recent Wall Street
Journal opinion editorial, _Climate of Fear_ / Richard Lindzen, the
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT /
04-12-06: ~
Clare W. Parr Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:21:59 -0500
- Subduing the earth and

And make fun of those who espouse those conclusions:

At 11:10 AM 9/27/2006, George Murphy wrote: "... Janice
Matchett['s]...views on the environment are preposterous..."

At 12:25 PM 9/27/2006, George Murphy wrote: Alas, poor Janice, ...
[makes] environmental claims (with a novelist as her main authority) .."

The "novelist" Janice cites, among other
authorities: Bio: CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in
Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Educated at Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta
Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting
Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965.
Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at
the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California
1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.

[[[[ "Therefore, he has as much credential as I do to discuss
environment." ~ Wayne Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:28:47
EDT Re: [asa] Edward O. Wilson shares Dawkins' basic views ]]]]

And are embarrassed by some of the birds of their feather when they
actually attempt to put these esoteric (New Age) ideas into

~ Janice ....Tree-huggers may actually be squeezing the life out of
the environment.

In a book that is alternately alarming, enlightening, ironic, and
entertaining, award-winning journalist John Berlau explores the
myriad ways in which shortsighted environmentalism actually endangers
trees, wildlife, and people. In chapter after chapter, Berlau debunks
myths and libels about:
    * global warming and climate change
    * the dangers of pesticides like DDT
    * trees and pollution
    * fuel economy and the auto industry
    * the threat posed by asbestos
    * the lifesaving role of dams and levees
    * plans to "rewild" America
Mother Nature is not a gentle person, and Berlau's pointed reporting
reveals the very real dangers to people and their environments when
Eco-Freaks prevent us from restraining her.

"Berlau makes a powerful case. . . . Thinking environmentalists who
read this book will be forced to revisit at least some of their most
deeply held beliefs."
-Joel Himelfarb, Washington Times

"Berlau says a lot of things that are not generally known that needed
to be said."
-Bruce N. Ames, recipient, National Medal of Science, 1998

Save the Planet . . . and Ourselves

In Eco-Freaks, award-winning journalist John Berlau provides a much
needed and startling expose about how the environmental movement with
its radical, shortsighted eco-activists has actually helped amplify
the dangers of natural disasters and destroyed the lives and property
of millions of Americans.

As Berlau writes, "America . . . is still mighty prosperous, but
environmentalism is putting us on the brink of danger as well. As
technology after technology that our grandparents put in place is
being banned, and new technologies never even come to market, we risk
a public-health disaster. Environmentalists have promoted all sorts
of doomsday scenarios about population explosions and massive cancer
crises from pesticides that have been shown to be false. But now,
because we have done away with so many useful products based on those
scares, we are in danger of an old-fashion doomsday returning,
because we've lost what protected us from the wrath of nature.
Indeed, as we will see throughout this book, public health hazards
caused by environmental policies are already on the scene."

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 28 13:15:27 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 28 2006 - 13:15:28 EST