Mysteries :  The Official forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Bent wrote:

> ArmchairObserver wrote:
> > Virginia is hardly on a religious quest. If you look at the
> > information that she has spent the last 30 years trying to
> get
> > out, it is about very early man with a site date of
> > around 200,000 years+. I think that alone highly diverges
> from
> > "creationist" thinking.
> >
> > My first thought when reading her notes, letters, and papers
> > was "wow" and being a little floored with the thought of
> "what
> > if this is correct?". My second thought was "what is this
> > going to do to evolution and out of africa theory?". I would
> > have to agree with Virginia's suspicions that the potentially
> > the primary reason why this has been quelled is due to the
> > conflict of the two major theories of human development.
> > Hence, her euphemism of "secular humanist". Same
> > words--different implications altogether.
> >
> > Stephanie
> I think you brought up some very valid points, Stephanie. I am
> as far removed from a traditional creationist in my thinking as
> an evolutionist is,
> and I have used the term 'secular humanist' as a way to
> describe the latter many times. These sorts of conflicts,
> which, in my view, have more to do with power and control of
> society than knowledge, often make life into a two way road,
> with no room for dissenting opinions on either side. Whenever I
> critizise the creationists I am accused of being a secular
> humanist, and whenever I find fault in evolutionary theories I
> am accused of being s Bible thumping creationists. However,
> many of us still know that life isn't as simple as the simple
> minded like to belive it is.
> Bent

The term 'secular humanist' has been used by religious fanatics of various sorts as a code for 'anti-religious' long enough that anyone using it is automatically suspected of being a religious fanatic. Not a good term to use if you aren't trying to whip up polarization over religious issues. But it is difficult to find a proper term for an orthodoxy that won't admit it's an orthodoxy. :) J A West's sarcastic 'Church of Progress' catches the religious fervor of its adherents but doesn't serve well as a term of technical/rational discussion. Perhaps we could model on the terms used for religious extremes and say 'Materialist Fundamentalist' or 'Materialist Extremist' but even that doesn't seem to fit all cases, such as this one where the actual physical facts are not leaning towards 'proving' any religious fanatic viewpoints, or even disrupting the 'materialist' view of nature since it relies on the accuracy of physical sciences, but simply pointing towards a different quite rationally possible materialist solution -- and yet they cannot accept this either. A slight recast of the (religious) term 'orthodox' seems to be the only reasonably accurate option at this time.

There is a facinating article about this in the May 1999 Disputatio and it can be downloaded in PDF format from the magazine site. As the title 'Anatomy of an Anomaly' indicates, it is a straightforward discussion of the reaction of 'orthodox' science to some facts that don't fit the prevailing dogma -- the date results for the Hueyatlaco site:


Like ancient Rome, we today are once more importing every form of exotic superstition in the hope of finding the right remedy for our sickness.
-- C. G. Jung
Richard Wilhelm: In Memoriam (1930), CW 15: pg. 60

Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Virginia Steen-McIntyre 807 Steve_LeMaster 11-Jun-05 06:28
Re: Virginia Steen-McIntyre 182 Lee McGiffen 11-Jun-05 06:48
Re: Virginia Steen-McIntyre 156 Steve_LeMaster 11-Jun-05 07:45
Just a note 141 Steve_LeMaster 11-Jun-05 08:14
Re: Virginia Steen-McIntyre 2240 ArmchairObserver 12-Jun-05 17:35
Re: Virginia Steen-McIntyre 106 Bent 12-Jun-05 18:34
Well said, Bent. n/t 137 Steve_LeMaster 12-Jun-05 18:40
Re: Virginia Steen-McIntyre 190 Nolondil 12-Jun-05 23:47
Re: Virginia Steen-McIntyre 209 AWSX 12-Jun-05 18:35
Re: Virginia Steen-McIntyre 166 Merrell 12-Jun-05 20:20
Re: Virginia Steen-McIntyre 110 Steve_LeMaster 12-Jun-05 20:26
Re: Virginia Steen-McIntyre 117 IanG 13-Jun-05 02:34
Re: Virginia Steen-McIntyre 103 Steve_LeMaster 13-Jun-05 08:02

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.