I have only just begun, but right away I wanted to clarify something. On pg 15, where you reference Godel's theorem, I need to correct what it seems Paul Davies was suggesting. Of course I'm correcting him once-removed.
> > 
> > The line is thus: "Godel's Theorem (1931) is proof that not evetything can be explained: he conclusively demonstrated "that mathematical statements existed for which no systematic procedure could determine whether they are true or false." 
> > 
> > I don't know Davies, but his generalization here is wrong--and dangerously so. 
> > 
> > Godel's incompleteness theorems (there are two, the second makes the first stronger) states that for every set of theorems obtained from an axiomatic system using the natural numbers there will be one theorem that is true, but it will not be derivable from any theorem in the set. 
> > 
> > In his own words: "For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent."
> > 
> > In plain terms, no formal axiomatic theory can be both consistent and complete.
> 
> We are dealing with my very incomplete math background. I've recently bought a calculus course to put on my computer and study.-David, -Don't be hard on yourself, you were quoting Paul Davies! The only possible error on your part was in taking him at his word; after all, physicists tend to be pretty good at math. This doesn't however, mean they're mathematicians. But I don't consider this a fault of yours.-Hawking for example has long since abandoned the idea of a "theory of everything" after having given much thought about Godel's incompleteness theorem. It is at the centerpiece of my criticism of String Theory. If String Theory is found to be complete, it will necessarily be inconsistent. -Calculus is good--by all means--but in all truth it won't get you to "real" math. (Not that calculus isn't 'real,' only that in most cases a course in calculus is targeted for engineering computations and not for abstract mathematics--ie Godel.) I would suggest this book to build the comprehension needed to tackle more abstract ideas. I can suggest others (and cheap others) beyond that, if it suits you. And if you choose to get that book, get it used... the current list price is atrocious...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

David,
> 
> We haven't had this discussion before, but you spend a good deal of time on Behe's blood clotting example of "irreducible complexity."
> 
> In nature, are there not clotting systems in other animals that are less complex than what we find in humans? -
Yes, but somewhat different. Note the difference when I discuss the lobster and clotting. Other mammals like us are about the same'


> > As for the relationship between Religion and Science, I still maintain that the true nature of religion is how man deals with man on earth. This necessarily puts it in a different box than science in the first place. 2 of how many chapters in the Hebrew Bible are devoted to creation? How many deal with the dealings of men?
> 
> You make an excellent point. There are two creation stories in Genesis, and the rerst of the Torah is do unto others, as Rabi Hillel preached 100 years before Jesus.-I thought Hillel was a contemporary? I'm reading an older book "A History of the Jewish Experience" by Rabbi Leo Trepp. I could have sworn I read that he was an opponent of King Herod.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

You make several comments about us gaining a good "how" about the universe but not the "why." 
> > 
> > Personally, I don't understand the seduction of "why" questions. It must be something uniquely Western that I simply managed to miss altogether while growing up. 
> 
> 
> I've thought about this comment for a day or so. My book is semi- autobiograhical, and is meant to show doubters, atheists, or kids asking questions, whether there might be scientific evidence for a greater power. I use the word God because it is familiar usage. UI is a foreign term until some discussion is presented. The style and content of the writing is an attempt to stay at an upper high school, lower college level. One problem is that when I went to school, all those levels were much higher than today. My high school was considered among the top 20 in the country. My college is now ranked (by US Report, however valuable that is) as 15th, varying a little year by year. I tried to pass on my thoughts as simply as I could. The 'why' issue is central to my attempt. And in my thinking as you know, the amazing 'hows' point to a 'why'.-Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily against asking the questions, but they're also necessarily subjective. In my case, keep in mind, growing up as an only child in a single-parent household, you gain a "moving" perspective. Meaning, that which does not move you forward in some way, is something that you necessarily subsume to a higher imperative--be it survival or whatever. So for me, how questions are always much more important than why questions; if you know the how, you don't really need to know the why. Generally in all things it's much better for everyone involved that things just get done. I think I need to treat this a little further. Why questions generally don't have an answer. Therefore--they don't move you forward. -In a grander perspective... probably by about the age of 20 I started mellowing from a militaristic atheist perspective because I started realizing that the question of the existence of God was utterly an inconsequential dilemma. Even if someone was able to prove tomorrow that yes, there really is a God, it wasn't going to affect me on a day-to-day level. I learned how to make my path, I learned how to live my life--psychologically the existence of God isn't going to do anything to enhance me or my human condition.-It's common for atheists to look at theism and call it 'weak.' I used to share that perspective but that too mellowed; to me, whatever a person needs to get through the day is fine by me. In my case, I began the process of self-reliance at the age of 11. I had to cook for myself, do my own laundry--all that. (This would affect me very negatively after the age of 15.) The author Chuck Palaniuk (wrote Fight Club) said that one thing he was toying with in that book/movie was the idea of growing up fatherless. All the atheists he knew, were coincidentally only children to single mothers. That observation chilled me to the core; learning how to live life without a model, forces you to find your own way. Thankfully, the power of myth is a very powerful teacher. And the convenient store scene by itself underlines the majority of my viewpoint on life. -So again, it's not that I don't think 'why' questions are silly, but simply that if you ask one and the answer is "don't know," shelve it. It's not going to do anything for you. Learn the 'how,' come back to the 'why' later. -PS, The education system didn't fail me--I failed IT. Many teachers tried to set me on the right path, but you can't change the path of someone who is determined to move through life in their own way--no matter reality.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

David,
> Your complaint about your dreams, and I consider the complaint the fact that they puzzle you, you should read more Feynman if you haven't. He could recognize he was dreaming and could then control the dream and steer it in directions he prefered. That consciousness is a fundamental part of reality I have no doubt: my wife dreams of things that happen, not perfectly, not all the time but enough to disturb her, She also 'sees' events at a distance when they occur, as I have mentioned before. She also can tell me where something is that I have misplaced, even if it is up in the barn, under something so that it is currently not visible.
> -Yes, the technique is called 'lucid dreaming' and this is something that I myself have been able to do. The difficult part is finding that balance of asserting too much control. Too much and you wake up. But these dreams are slightly different. They feel different. But even a universal consciousness doesn't explain how a future event--however inane--can be viewed.-> As for cycling, that rings of your Buddhist experiences. If I remember correctly, a Buddhist estimate of the universal cycle is about 4 billion years, but science says we are at 13.7 byo and counting. As for cyclilng within current universal time, which you seem to be applying, again circles witin circles, if consciousness is part of reality, why not. We repeat our thoughts, and I firmly believe that our minds are a small indication of that counsciousness.
> .-The tradition I followed was Soto Zen; and Zen traditions by far are different from your textbook versions of Buddhism. First, a bit of historical context. The cycles really are an artifact of Hinduism, and in a very real way, Buddhism was a social rebellion against the caste system. Nirvana is seen as a release from the cycles of birth/rebirth, and the shattering part for Hinduism was that this was possible even for the untouchables in the caste system. Traditional Hinduism reserved leaving the cycle only for your Brahmans or upper-caste. -But even back then, the Buddha's teaching was more radical than that. It is generally agreed that one of the experiential tenets of Buddhism is that death doesn't happen. Which sounds laughable, but they do hold that the part of us that is not our mind--our consciousness--is the same entity for all people, and that it is not tied to the body. The 'soul' if you will.-While many Buddhist traditions still hold to the old tenet of the Hindu cycle of death/rebirth, Zen traditions view that teaching as historical, needed only to get people that want an afterlife into Buddhism. The Buddha often spoke of his teachings as only a "raft" to get to the other shore. Death/rebirth being such a "raft." Zen views the cycles as part of Buddhist Psychology--that death and rebirth are terms that happen in our life now. Same thing with Karma.-One final thought... the afterlife in Zen is taught as something that is a kind of clinging that causes suffering. A true Buddhist is able to be light enough of spirit that the need for an afterlife goes away. I learned that this is the same for all Buddhist traditions, but I'm not so sure--it might be a tenet of the monastics, but not necessarily the lay people.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

On the nature of chance vs. design, we're in a disagreement about what all the mathematical evidence in this chapter means: My take is that we're clearly in a state of ignorance. And me being me, I don't make decisions when I've found myself in a state of ignorance. 
> 
> You seem to have a very specific point of view re math evidence. I've pointed out math professors and others who are perfectly happy to attempt odds for chance Darwinism. 
> > -Its in.your interpretation: yes the odds are astronomical. But they are odds based upon systems that we clearly don't understand. -> > On page 72 of my copy, you discuss that scientists are actively trying to refute God. My margin note asks the question, "Where is this refutation in the scientific literature?" You seem to (accidently?) make the insinuation that science and scientists really are against theology of any kind. 
> 
> Chapter Two is where much of the material is presented. Scientists and atheism are discussed, and many of them quoted. Not accidental. I think it affects their thinking.
> 
> > I would have preferred a more firm discussion characterizing the nature of how science *really* works, and then discussing the interpretive nature that leads people (with different thought frameworks) down to differing conclusions. 
> 
> Fair enough, but I think that is beside the point for my book.-No... its fundamental. If you're arguing that theists should accept science as well as your arguments, it needs to be underlined that what you're doing is evaluating evidence in a philosophically different way that what atheists are doing, and that the science itself is unaffected by either argument. Science in the end is a tool, and the mental framework you bring while using that tool will shape your interpretation of what that tool provides you.-> > 
> > A relatively newer criticism I might have, is that clearly there had to be some kind
 of selection going on. Yet, we know that at least once life appears, there's no need for direct intervention. (Though the bigger jump as dhw has often pointed out, is the jump from bacterial to multicellular, so the question of abiogenesis has two main prongs.) But we know that life as it is now evolves based on autonomous selection. Life uses what it has available to make changes under stress. This is a big "if," but this can be applied to before life as well. You still wouldn't know if a designer was involved, but there still has to be a physical explanation. God may fill the gap as you say, but it still doesn't explain the "how," an ultimately more satisfying question. 
> 
> I left all of your comment. I view it as a purely atheistic position. My theory is as before, God coded evolution into the genome. God (the UI) started life as a very simple working cell with its many thousands of various protein molecules working in concert 
> > -See, and it's not purely atheistic at all. If you're already accepting a creator with limits, physical limits are a natural place to begin. Therefore there's no reason to assert that life started ex nihilo. -> > Towards the end of the chapter, you discuss that conditions on earth had to be the same everywhere else in the universe. Really? What grounds do we have to make this claim? I know you appeal to the "apparent uniformity of conditions in the universe" but this is highly debatable.
> 
> The sentence needed some expansion. What I implied is that 'other Earths' would look much like ours. I really don't think that is debatable if you read "Real Earth" or "Privileged Planet". Life really requires "Earth conditions".
> -I'm not convinced that we can be sure about things when we haven't set upon those places for study, though I will gladly add those books to the queue.
 
> Thank you for a very thorough and thoughtful review. I wish I had known you before and had both you and dhw as editors. I was my own editor, and dhw has spotted misspellings to my chagrin.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Bah... one more thing I forgot to add. -You also perpetuate the public's use of the word "theory" which really means "hypothesis." A scientific theory is a theory that has been repeatedly verified by experiment, where scientific laws are taken often taken as axioms. -Now... this isn't to say that theories are by any means incomplete, but it's a pet peeve of mine when people use the word "theory" when they should have used "hypothesis."

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

On page 93... you write "I have presented this digression on evolution to clearly indicate to you that evolution is a theory, not fact, and there are all sorts of holes and inconsistencies in what is generally presented in schools and to the public."
> 
> However, in the next paragraph you write "... I believe the process of evolution actually happened,[emphasis added] while proposing that the mechanisms theorized by Darwin are not the way evolution has occurred."
> 
> So...
> 
> Which is it? To me, it seems like you stopped at the end of the paragraph where the first quote lives, probably after reading a nasty comment about religious people being stupid by Dawkins, then took a day or two off and then sat down to write the second. 
> 
> Evolution IS a fact; we started with simple bacteria and ended up to where we're at today. In your own book you have already stated several times an implicit belief that evolution happened... simple to more complex.
> 
> So its a fact. 
> 
> Later in paragraph 2, "It is the interpretation of the causes of events that should be under debate." 
> 
> So its an open and shut case for you. Evolution happened. In your own words, evolution is a fact.
> 
> However, that first quote... is careless. It IS Behe and Dembski and even Hovind all over again...
> 
> You seem caught in two worlds with these quotes (on the same page.) -
I have re-read the section yhou are discussing, and we are not of the same interpretive mind. Your math/programmer background makes you extremely precise in your thought patterns. If you had been my editor, we could have made the area of writing a little more precise. To my mind, even currently, evolution is a theory, which I accept as fact. But I don't know of any studies that absolutely prove that we evolved as we think we did from the fossil evidence, etc. Punctuated equilibrium casts some doubts, as does the Cambrian Explosion, even more so with all of the Australian and Chinese findings. These large sudden enormous changes do cast doubt that something or some one may be monkeying with the mechanisms, to paraphrase Fred Hoyle. And Hoyle, an atheist, became a believer when he saw how the monkey-works worked.-So in a sense, I am caught between two worlds. Remember, I have stated many times, I think complexification is part of the genome code, and God may have directed evolution to produce us, either by initial coding or fiddling along the way. Gerald Schroeder believes in the fiddling (he is orthodox)as with the Chicxulub asteroid, which he mentions. -Further, early on, I tried to approach my agnosticism with an open slate of a mind. I was convinced from cosmology alone, along with particle physics that there was a superior intelligence at work, John Leslie having convinced me early on. When my first book editor suggested Adler and to study Darwin for a second book, I did just that, and was amazed at how poor Darwism was in explaining evolution. I never doubted evolution from the beginning. In my mind it was always mechanism. That is why I have pounced on epigenetics. Reznick's guppies are discussed right close to the page we are debating. I could sense Lemarkism returning in full glory.-And so my blank slate is not so blank anymore, and I keep on reading, currently a Jesuit's book. And he is aiming for a classical God of pure simplicity, and that is not going to work for my own theories, if that is the way his 'proof' turns out to be.-So Matt, read on. Let's continue to debate, even though our min-sets differ.

Although this discussion is strictly between Matt and David in relation to David's book, I hope you won't mind my joining in, as there are some extremely provocative statements here that I think are of interest to us all.-MATT (to David): You also perpetuate the public's use of the word "theory" which really means "hypothesis". A scientific theory is a theory that has been repeatedly verified by experiment, where scientific laws are taken often as axioms.-And this is a source of confusion. Why should scientists use terms in a manner contrary to "public" use? The term "theory" as used in relation to evolution seems to me a fine example of the ambivalence of this distinction, as illustrated by the following observation in your earlier post:-"Evolution IS a fact; we started with simple bacteria and ended up to where we're at today."-A fact is incontrovertible. It is as near to knowledge as we can get, and I myself would not wish to dispute the second part of your sentence. But this is only part of what most of us understand by The Theory of Evolution, because it is a theory composed of many different hypotheses, very few of which HAVE been verified by experiment, including the claim that humans can evolve from bacteria! The hypothesis that changes in the environment can produce totally new species is also unproven by experiment. (We know that such changes can produce adaptation and variation, but these enable existing species to survive.)-So what do our atheist scientists fall back on? Natural Selection. You wrote: "I have always understood NS as the entire system [....] The entire theory is called "evolution by natural selection" and this holistic view encompasses the entire process from stimulus to action." David has explained that he sees NS as "the endpoint, that is, who survives", and has always stressed that NS is passive. This is worth repeating a dozen times. Natural Selection does nothing more than decide which organs and organisms survive. It makes absolutely no contribution to the origins, adaptations or innovations without which there could be no evolution. If we are descended from bacteria, and bacteria have survived every environmental change that's ever happened, what on earth was the need for legs, eyes, brains, hearts, penises etc.? And how did they come about? Without these colossal changes, there would still be nothing but bacteria on earth, and there would be nothing to select from! -Darwin's theory, and the theory subscribed to by Dawkins et al, is a collection of hypotheses, and by focusing on the two that seem most convincing ... common ancestry and natural selection ... apologists claim that evolution is as close to knowledge as we can hope to get. But the hypotheses concerning how and why new organs and species came into existence (this is not a metaphysical why, but a biological why) remain far from factual, and these innovations ... not natural selection ... and the mechanisms that enabled them to take place are the crucial driving force without which there could have been no evolution, and life would have remained on the level of bacteria. Thus the claim that the Theory of Evolution is a fact, i.e. has been repeatedly verified by experiment, is highly misleading, and many aspects of it conform to the despised public use of the term "theory" and not the scientific use.

However I keep returning to the point that overall as a process, we haven't observed an evolutionary race happen without some kind of selection pressure... maybe you're going to deal with that somewhere in the book, but to me thus far, I don't see a way to avoid stimulus->response, which to me is truly the underlying mechanism for evolution.-I'm sure it is your training, but I've always thought of natural selection as part of a passive mechanism, and I haven't changed my mind, even though you have argued for it as more than passive. NS only deals with what 'might' be presented to it; there is ino way around that concept. Can an organism survive an environmental mileau alteration. On the other hand environmental stress, we now know, allows organisms to create their own changes. And only then does NS have a role in this circumstance.

&#13;&#10;> From my standpoint, your argument doesn&apos;t move NS (as I know it).-We know our differences now, but my book was aiming for a relatively uneducated audience, who know a little about the original Darwin, gradual change and modification. &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> PE is much more clearly a &quot;macro&quot; theory of evolution, and not one specifically of micro... but if epigenetics begins to play a more important role, I think you can kiss the old theory of gradualism goodbye overall. -I think it is kissed goodbye.-&#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> You close this chapter with a brief discussion of embryology... an excellent shot towards YEC that deny evolution of all kinds... but I think I need clarification on what you&apos;re discussing here. -I not sure what you are after, but I was leading up to the ape discussion. The point of that paper strongly suggested from the embryologic comparison, the common ancestor might be more humanoid than simian. It is something we don&apos;t know as yet. No fossils.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> What does an ape fetus that looks like a human fetus for a brief period of its existence have to do with evolution? All arguments I&apos;ve heard regarding embryology have always been described as anecdotal. Is there really a connection here? While its true that we briefly have gills, -No we don&apos;t ever have gills. &#13;&#10;There are some folds, but they are not homolgous with gills.-> &#13;&#10;> So how does this argument negate a common ancestor of humans and apes?-It doesn&apos;t. See above.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Finally, your argument via Denton about Survival of the Fittest being tautology was heavily destroyed in the 90&apos;s. &quot;&quot;Survival of the fittest&quot; is a poor way to think about evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition of Origin of Species. -I don&apos;t believe he ever used it. I can&apos;t come up, at the moment,with the name of the associate who did. But by itself, it is absolutely an example of a tautology. -> Overall, this chapter is extremely well argued. Classic inductive piece, I&apos;d prefer not to see so many appeals to other ID writers (I feel they tend to weaken you more than strengthen you.) In other words, your ideas stand on their own merits, without reliance on 3rd parties.-Thank you. I used many references because I am not known as any sort of expert. &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> I have a much better appreciation of your view of chance, when coupled to geological events (such as PE). These are not fallacious; they&apos;re like looking at the odds of getting the universe we have-->they are simply fact. But your view of chance as looking at evolution applies only to strict, original Darwinian thinking, and I do not think applies to Natural Selection as I currently understand it.-I would disagree here. All stressors occur by chance.-> &#13;&#10;> Your focus on the original Darwininan model is probably the strongest criticism I have, because I don&apos;t feel you&apos;re talking about the same theory that I learned. You attacked gradualism, but not anything I learned that can force speciation in < 50 years as in the Rock Wallaby experiment in HI, or in the guppy experiment you discuss.-Explained above.

David begins to go for the jugular rather early, combining what I suspect is his Adlerian background into building a case that we&apos;re smarter than we need to be.&#13;&#10;> > &#13;&#10;> > My reading is early and very preliminary, but I have a simple question to ask:&#13;&#10;> > &#13;&#10;> > Could it not be the case that as soon as our primitive ancestors--under pressure from the Ice Age you discuss--began to identify their geniuses and began a program of selection of their own? &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Cute start to your comments. But(!), H sapiens is in Africa, and not as cold. Attraction to sex is still attraction to sex. No one in the Rift Valley is thinking about IQ.-I really, really hate that you&apos;re blowing my idea off: How long does it take before humans are aware that they are aware? How long before they notice that their best hunters are begot by their best hunters, and their smartest shamans beget smarter shamans? How long before they select for the prettiest girls?-We&apos;ve done this with dogs for millenia, and if you prepare a revision for your book, though you don&apos;t agree, I implore you to consider the role of artificial selection: it is the strongest challenge to the idea of a UI, simply because as I said once a long time ago--it creates a tapestry that is impossible to unwind! But we KNOW man has done this to himself!-Consider Plato&apos;s republic. Have you considered how strongly it models Spartan society? Sparta&apos;s policy of infanticide turns noses to modern morality, but I hardly think that they were the first group of humans to engage in the practice; and if you consider that it took only 12,000 years to go from the wolf to the Chihuahua, the wall of your argument begins cracking. -When I said a couple years back that in order to infer a UI you first must be able to differentiate between human and nonhuman intelligence--this is EXACTLY what I had in mind.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

&#13;&#10;> Don&apos;t mistake the forest for the trees.... I find Aeschylus and Shakespeare more divinely inspiring than science, in regards to human intellect! But the main reason this argument feels weak to me is that it more or less says &quot;we were designed because WE are so smart...&quot;&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Unless I oversimplified it, it makes me cringe! (Sorry! :-/ )-Don&apos;t be sorry. I have appreciated all of your comments, and I again repeat a statement from before. I wish you and dhw had been my editors. I found Adler&apos;s book, &apos;The Difference&apos; about two years after writing that chapter 5 (It was from 1967). I could have made the chapter stronger with that background. I still think Adler has a major point. You are a much more exacting thinker than I am with your philosophy background, too exacting in some areas! Like odds against chance life. :>)) Our Hat Size Is (Still) Too Big for Darwin. But now try Chapter 6, a really fuzzy area.

&#13;&#10;> Next, you discuss an instance (page 148) where you attempt to explain a &quot;psychic&quot; event. &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Do you have any metal fillings? -Only two gold inlays. -> Once, when I was... about 14 or 15, I wrote the lyrics to the song &quot;Closer,&quot; from &quot;Nine Inch Nails,&quot; a full two years before I ever heard the song... when I first heard the song and felt the amazing &quot;deja vu,&quot; I attributed it to grabbing radio waves that morning when the song first played. The song was first released May 1994, and I recall hearing it (without listening to the radio) for the first time sometime that summer. I hated the band when it first appeared... it wasn&apos;t until I heard THIS song for the first time that I realized there was a connection here... Maybe the youth of the country had an unconscious event then...?-Yours is a great example of a psychic event. Believe it. I know it when I hear about it. My wife has had several that I have observed&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> The only other negative from this chapter involves your idea of the collective unconscious...-Rupert Sheldrake has done some interesting stuff, you can&apos;t deny that. Just keep your mind open. One day we may know a great deal about such phenomena. I don&apos;t really &apos;know&apos;. I wonder, however.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> At what point can you deride dualism and advocate its existence as you do on pages 160, 167, 170, 172, and 173? -I don&apos;t know that these examples support dualism. They are just psychic events.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> If you claim that mind and body are separate as you seem to do in all but in one portion where you attribute the entire body as conscience--as I subscribe to--how do you defeat the arguments against Cartesian dualism?-My view of consciousness is that it is an emergent phenomenon from a brain, the most complex item in the universe, and is related to the UI indirectly or directly.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Finally, on page 173 you argue that &quot;science is silent theologically...&quot; How can you you possibly argue this without a discussion of what science is, what it does, and its implicit assumption of methodological materialism? &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Before I print one word to the positive of this chapter, I require you to respond to at least THAT QUESTION...-I thought I covered the methodological materialism in chapter one. Should I have repeated it?