Podcasts about Robert Boyle

In addition to their mission of providing financial services and products to people and businesses in low-income communities, many Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) consider themselves more broadly as vehicles for economic development in their communities. Beyond supporting business creation and growth, they support the creation of quality jobs for community members. Maureen Conway, Executive Director of the Aspen Institute Economic Opportunities Program, recently sat down with executives from two leading CDFIs and Shared Success grantees: Amanda Blondeau, the Chief Strategy Officer of Northern Initiatives (founded in the face of declining resource extraction in Michigan's Upper Peninsula), and Robert Boyle, CEO of Justine PETERSEN (founded to serve the greater St. Louis region). About Shared SuccessShared Success, a project of the Economic Opportunities Program, works with community lenders to integrate job quality programming into their small business support services, demonstrating that improved job quality can support the needs of employees while helping small businesses succeed.About the Economic Opportunities ProgramThe Aspen Institute Economic Opportunities Program hosts a variety of discussions to advance strategies, policies, and ideas to help low- and moderate-income people thrive in a changing economy. To learn about upcoming events and webinars, join our mailing list and follow us on social media.

En nuestro anterior podcast grabado precisamente el 21 de abril, fecha en la que oficialmente murió el papa Francisco les empezamos a hablar de los constructores de números. No encontramos casual que el papa falleciese exactamente ese dia, ya que no es un día cualquiera. Es el Natalis Romae, el aniversario fundacional de Roma, ciudad que desde hace más de dos mil años ha sido el epicentro del poder político, religioso y simbólico de Occidente. Y precisamente hoy, en esta fecha cargada de ritual y resonancia, muere el Papa Francisco. En plena resurrección de Jesucristo, uno muere y el otro renace. ¿Casualidad? En este podcast, ya sabéis que no creemos en ellas. Hoy, en Buscadores de la Verdad, vamos a descifrar lo que muchos pasarán por alto: la profunda e inquietante importancia del número 8 en la vida, el legado y la muerte del Papa. Francisco fue el primer Papa jesuita, el primero procedente de América, el Papa de la Agenda 2030, de las vacunas, de la simplificación de los rituales. Un Papa atípico. Y, como veremos, un Papa marcado por el 8 desde el principio hasta el final. Nació un 17 de diciembre de 1936. Fallece un 21 de abril de 2025. 88 años y 125 días después. Un doble 8 y un 1+2+5 = 8. El símbolo del infinito. El equilibrio kármico. El reinicio del ciclo. Pero no acaba ahí: convertido en el octavo Papa enterrado en Santa María la Mayor, bajo un escudo papal alterado misteriosamente para exhibir una estrella de ocho puntas, su historia está plagada de estos guiños numéricos que parecen trazados por una mano invisible. En este episodio vamos a hablar de arquitectura oculta, de rituales milenarios, de cómo la elite que gobierna entre bambalinas utiliza los números y los símbolos como herramientas para construir la realidad. Y en este caso, el número 8 aparece como la clave de todo. Porque cuando entiendes el lenguaje oculto de los que mandan, sabes que todo está diseñado. Desde las fechas, hasta los funerales. Desde los escudos hasta los silencios del Vaticano. El 21 de abril, Roma celebra su nacimiento... y el Vaticano entierra a su Papa más simbólico. La era de Francisco se cierra en un ciclo perfecto, sellado con un 8. ¿Qué se abre ahora? ¿Qué nuevo paradigma se está gestando en la sombra? Prácticamente desde el principio de este podcast, en el UTP8 Universo fractal ya tratamos la importancia de los números y como estos crean la realidad que vivimos. Son, como dijimos en el anterior podcast, los ladrillos del universo. Leere unos pasajes de la tesina “Los conjuntos numéricos a través de la historia” de Veronica Valdez: “En el pasado la matemática fue considerada una ciencia relacionada directamente a las cantidades, en relación con las magnitudes (desde la geometria); a los números (desde la aritmética) o a la generalización de los dos (desde el álgebra). Las primeras nociones de número y la acción de contar datan de la prehistoria. La causa que originó el desarrollo de este conocimiento en el hombre primitivo fue su necesidad de proteger sus bienes, la adaptación a los ciclos que la madre naturaleza le imponía le aseguraban su alimentación. El hombre prehistórico plasmó los primeros indicios matemáticos en sus vasijas (dibujos geométricos) y sus primeros sistemas de cálculos se basaron en el uso de los dedos de las manos o la utilización del cuerpo, este método resulta evidente al ver que muchos de los sistemas de numeración son de base 5 o 10.” Fueron los egipcios en el tercer milenio antes de cristo los que desarrollan unas matemáticas más avanzadas llegando a plantear problemas complejos como el calculo de superficies, lo cual era vital para el reparto de la tierra fértil fecundada por las crecidas del Nilo. La tierra se movia y cambiaba ligeramente de aspecto y era imprescindible para que reinase el orden que dicho reparto fuera lo mas ajustado a derecho posible. Luego los romanos mejoraron hasta cierto aspecto el uso de jeroglíficos de los egipcios por simples letras. En ese momento se seguía utilizando todavía el sistema babilónico que consistía en escribir en tablillas de arcilla utilizando un palito en forma de cuña. Una cuña apuntaba hacia abajo y la otro hacia la izquierda. El problema consistia en que era un sistema con solo 60 números, lo cual limitaba mucho el calculo mental. Los babilonios utilizaban, eso si, la forma en que cada dígito tenia un valor disitinto dependiendo de la posición que ocupase. El primer sistema matematico que utilizo al mismo tiempo el principio posicional y el cero fue el sistema de los mayas. “En este sistema 1 kin (sol) representa un día, 20 kines forman un huinal. Como 20 huinales representan 400 días, lo cual es mucho mayor que la duración exacta del año (este sistema fue utilizado para cálculos astronómicos), los mayas llamaron tun a 18 huinales, o 360 días. Excepto por este nivel, el resto del sistema es vigesimal.” “No se tiene conocimiento con exactitud cómo surgió, pero se sabe que fue un sistema de numeración mejorado por los hindúes y los árabes lo llevaron a Europa. De esta forma a las cifras se las llamó árabes debido a su origen, de la misma manera que escribirlas de derecha a izquierda (unidad, decena, centena, etc.) Hacia el año 976 Gerberto Aurillac (futuro Papa) conoce las primeras cifras en España, que ya estaba influenciada por la cultura musulmana, pero su influencia fue limitada. En el siglo XII se conoce las primeras traducciones al latin de las obras de un matemático árabe al- Jwarizmi, de quien se conocen los términos algoritmo y guarismo; de esta forma las cifras árabes comienzan a introducirse en el círculo culto europeo. En el año 1202, Fibonacci publica el "Libro del ábaco" que acopía y amplia las cifras y los procedimientos de cálculo utilizados por los árabes. Durante este siglo se consolidó la aritmética decimal sobre todo en los concerniente a las actividades comerciales. Sin embargo el método árabe y sus ventajas para calcular debieron sortear varios inconvenientes por parte de los calculistas de la época que ante la amenaza de un nuevo método mucho más sencillo, que atentaba supuestamente a su fuente de trabajo, recurrieron a estrategias bajas como hacer correr el rumor que el sistema de cálculo árabe tan sencillo, debía tener algo de magia o un cierto poder demoníaco. Esta acusación fue astutamente utilizada en la época de la Inquisición. Recién a fines del siglo XVI con Montaigne comenzó a abrirse paso nuevamente el sistema de numeración árabe y finalmente se generalizó con la Revolución Francesa. A partir de dicho momento histórico se comenzó a utilizar al 10 como base del sistema métrico decimal.” Con todo este resumen vengo a comentar que el enorme poder de los números estaba en poquísimas manos hasta bien entrado siglo 16 y que para ese entonces muchos de los secretos y la simbología que escondían estos paso a ser solo aprendido en las sectas, en las logias y en las futuras universidades que estaban también creadas por los mismos. LA EDUCACION según Lord Bertrand Russell en su obra "La Perspectiva Científica", 1931, nos dice: "Los jesuitas proporcionan una clase de educación a los niños que han de ser hombres corrientes en el mundo, y otra distinta a áquellos que han de llegar a ser miembros de la Compañía de Jesús. De análoga manera, los gobernantes científicos proporcionarán un género de educación a los hombres y mujeres corrientes, y otro diferente a aquéllos que hayan de ser el poder científico. Los hombres y mujeres corrientes es de esperar que sean dóciles, diligentes, puntuales, de poco pensar y que se sientan satisfechos. Por otro lado, aquellos niños y niñas que estén destinados a ser miembros de la clase gobernante, recibirán una educación muy diferente. Serán seleccionados, algunos antes de nacer, otros durante los primeros tres años de vida, y unos pocos entre los tres y seis años. Toda la ciencia conocida se aplicará al desarrollo simultáneo de su inteligencia y de su voluntad. ….." Y es que para todos la ciencia ha sido creada supuestamente por científicos, ¿no? Uno de los parangones mundiales es la Royal Society fundada el 28 de noviembre de 1660 en Londres. Sus fundadores fueron un grupo de 12 científicos y pensadores, entre los que destacan Christopher Wren, Robert Boyle, John Wilkins y William Petty. Lo que no nos cuentan es que el milenarismo y la cábala estaba en los orígenes de la Royal Society. Pero como escribió Boyle, los científicos, "sacerdotes de la naturaleza", habrían de adquirir, durante el milenio, "un conocimiento mucho mayor del que Adán pudo tener del maravilloso universo de Dios". Esta afirmación supone que, en la expectativa de Boyle, la ciencia permitiría alcanzar un estadio más avanzado que el presupuesto por la condición adánica, y acceder, en cierto modo, a la condición divina. Con palabras de la serpiente a Eva, ya había asegurado Bacon en la Nueva Atlántida que algún día los hombres serían como dioses, y ésta habría de ser, decía Lewis Mumford, "la meta final no declarada de la ciencia moderna”. (Noble 1999, pág 88). Dentro de la UNED (la universidad a distancia en España) podemos leer un texto titulado “LA ROYAL SOCIETY Y LA MASONERÍA” que dice asi: “La Royal Society se origina cuando doce hombres cultivados adoptaron la costumbre, poco después de 1640, de reunirse esporádicamente en Londres para conversar y discutir en la residencia de uno de ellos o bien en una taberna próxima al Gresham College. Al poco tiempo, bajo patrocinio del monarca, decidieron crear una asociación para el estudio de los mecanismos de la naturaleza. Para asegurarse de que los dogmas no fueran un obstáculo, desterraron de sus asambleas toda discusión de tintes religiosos y políticos. Y eso a pesar de que los doce fundadores diferían tanto en cuestiones políticas y religiosas, como en experiencia científica y rango social. Entre los nombres de los primeros miembros de la Royal Society se encuentran científicos que dieron nombre a sus descubrimientos; así, la Ley de Hooke, la Ley de Boyle, la construcción de Huygens, las leyes de Newton, el movimiento browniano, y esto sin contar a científicos de menor talla como Christopher Wren, John Eveyn, John Wilkins, Elias Ashmole, John Flamsteed o Edmund Halley. Sin embargo, los hombres que fundaron esta Sociedad no sólo fueron los primeros científicos, sino, al mismo tiempo, los últimos "magos". De hecho, Ashmole pertenecía a una sociedad de rosacruces y practicaba la astrología, Newton estudió y escribió acerca de los conceptos alquímicos de los rosacruces, y Hooke llevó a cabo experimentos con arañas y cuernos de unicornio.” Mucho antes John Dee, el asesor de la reina Isabel I de Inglaterra aunque no participó directamente en la creación de la Royal Society, su legado como defensor de las matemáticas, la navegación y el conocimiento empírico influyó en el ambiente intelectual que dio lugar a esta institución. Su reputación como "mago" y las acusaciones de nigromancia reflejan la percepción de sus prácticas herméticas y adivinatorias, que, aunque controvertidas, eran parte de su búsqueda de conocimiento universal. Recordemos que hoy dia podemos ver en el museo de Londres su piedra de obsidiana negra donde el mismo reconocía que veía a seres de otro mundo con los que decia comunicarse. Dee creo el alfabeto enoquiano, también conocido como el "lenguaje angélico" o "alfabeto mágico" desarrollado por Dee y su colaborador Edward Kelley durante sus sesiones de videncia (scrying) en la década de 1580. Mientras Isabel I valoraba a Dee como consejero (eligió la fecha de su coronación en 1559 basándose en sus cálculos astrológicos), otros lo veían como un charlatán peligroso. Su casa fue saqueada tras su partida a Europa en 1583, y bajo Jacobo I, enemigo de la brujería, Dee perdió ese trato de favor. Su imagen como "mago" inspiró personajes como Próspero en La Tempestad de Shakespeare y perduró en la cultura popular, como en la ópera de Damon Albarn o la canción de Iron Maiden “El Alquimista”. Termino esta entradilla con otro texto de Lord Bertrand Russell extraído de su obra, "El Impacto de la Ciencia en la Sociedad", 1951: "Aunque esta ciencia será estudiada con diligencia, deberá reservarse estrictamente a la clase gobernante. Al populacho no habrá de permitírsele saber cómo fueron generadas sus convicciones. Una vez perfeccionada la técnica, cada gobierno que haya estado a cargo de la educación por una generación, podrá controlar a sus sujetos de forma segura, sin la necesidad de recurrir a ejércitos ni policías. Actualmente, la población del mundo crece a razón de unos 58.000 individuos por día. La guerra, hasta ahora, no ha tenido un gran efecto en este crecimiento, que continuó a lo largo de cada una de las dos guerras mundiales... La guerra hasta la fecha ha sido decepcionante al respecto... pero quizás la guerra bacteriológica resultare más efectiva. Si una peste negra se propagare una vez en cada generación, los sobrevivientes podrían procrear libremente sin llenar al mundo demasiado... La situación seguramente sería poco placentera, pero, ¿qué importa?" ………………………………………………………………………………………. Imagina por un momento que entras en una antigua ciudad del sur de Italia, hace más de dos mil quinientos años. Calles de piedra, templos consagrados a dioses griegos... y una puerta. Una puerta modesta, sin adornos ostentosos, pero con una inscripción grabada con precisión geométrica: "No entre aquí quien no sepa geometría”. Estás ante la escuela de los pitagóricos, una de las sociedades más enigmáticas de la historia antigua. Fundada por Pitágoras de Samos, no era solo una escuela de matemáticas, como a veces se enseña en las aulas. Era una hermandad. Una especie de secta del conocimiento, donde los números eran algo más que herramientas: eran divinidades, principios cósmicos, claves para entender el alma del universo. Los pitagóricos creían que todo en la naturaleza —el movimiento de los astros, los ciclos vitales, incluso la música— respondía a proporciones numéricas. El número uno simbolizaba la unidad, el origen. El dos, la dualidad, lo femenino. El tres, la perfección. El cuatro, la justicia. Y el diez... el número perfecto, resultado de sumar 1+2+3+4. Un número sagrado. Este triángulo tiene cuatro filas y, si las cuentas todas, suma diez puntos. Ese número —el 10— era considerado el número perfecto por los pitagóricos, porque resultaba de la suma de los cuatro primeros números naturales: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10 Pero esto no era solo una curiosidad matemática. Cada número tenía un significado simbólico y cosmológico: 1 representaba la unidad, el origen, el punto de partida de toda existencia. 2 simbolizaba la dualidad: luz y oscuridad, masculino y femenino, arriba y abajo. 3 era la tríada perfecta, el equilibrio entre los opuestos (principio muy común también en filosofías orientales). 4 simbolizaba la estabilidad, los cuatro elementos (tierra, agua, aire y fuego), las cuatro estaciones, los puntos cardinales. Así, la Tetraktys se convertía en un resumen místico del universo: todo lo que existe puede explicarse a través de esta progresión sagrada. No era un simple dibujo. Los pitagóricos juraban sobre la Tetraktys, como otros juran sobre la Biblia o una constitución. Su fórmula era: "Juro por el que entregó a nuestra alma la Tetraktys, fuente que contiene en sí la raíz y fuente de la eterna naturaleza." ¿Lo notas? No están hablando solo de matemáticas. Están hablando de la naturaleza eterna, de algo fundamental que estructura el cosmos. Este juramento era una especie de sacramento, una alianza con la armonía universal. Utilizaban símbolos que aún hoy reconocemos. La estrella pentagonal, también conocida como pentagrama, era para ellos un emblema de perfección y salud. Cada ángulo de la estrella formaba la razón áurea, ese número casi mágico que sigue apareciendo en la naturaleza, en la arquitectura, en el arte… y, para algunos, incluso en el diseño de logotipos de poderosas organizaciones contemporáneas. Y aquí es donde la cosa se pone interesante. Los pitagóricos dividían a sus miembros en dos categorías: los akusmáticos, que solo escuchaban y obedecían sin cuestionar, y los matemáticos, que accedían a las enseñanzas ocultas. Este modelo jerárquico, basado en el secreto y la iniciación progresiva, suena familiar. Muy familiar. ¿A qué otras organizaciones te recuerda? Algunas sociedades secretas modernas —como ciertas logias masónicas— han heredado no solo la estructura iniciática, sino también muchos símbolos y conceptos pitagóricos. La estrella de cinco puntas, el ojo que todo lo ve, el uso de números y proporciones sagradas, la idea de que el verdadero conocimiento no debe estar al alcance de todos, sino reservado para una élite que lo custodia. La Tetraktys no desapareció con la caída de los pitagóricos. Su simbolismo se filtró a través de corrientes esotéricas posteriores. Por ejemplo: En la Cábala judía, el Árbol de la Vida también parte de una estructura numérica y jerárquica del universo. En la masonería, aunque no se usa directamente la Tetraktys, la idea del triángulo sagrado, la progresión simbólica del número y la veneración de la geometría sagrada están muy presentes. En el hermetismo y el neoplatonismo, se reutiliza el simbolismo pitagórico para hablar de los planos de existencia, del alma y del conocimiento secreto. Incluso en el mundo moderno, algunos investigadores creen que ciertos símbolos corporativos y arquitectónicos siguen patrones de proporción y estructura que tienen su origen, directa o indirectamente, en la Tetraktys. La Tetraktys no era un dibujo bonito. Era una clave esotérica. Un mandala numérico. Una representación del orden invisible que rige el universo. Para los pitagóricos, entenderla era un paso hacia la iluminación intelectual y espiritual. Y ahora, volvamos a los números. Porque hay una historia que suele pasar desapercibida en los libros de texto... Se cuenta que los pitagóricos sabían más de lo que enseñaban. Por ejemplo, que ocultaron deliberadamente conceptos como los números negativos. ¿Por qué? Porque esos números, que hoy usamos sin pensar, eran perturbadores. ¿Cómo podía existir algo menos que nada? ¿Cómo explicar al pueblo llano la idea de restar una cantidad mayor a una menor y obtener un resultado real, aunque invisible? La respuesta fue simple: lo escondieron. Evitaron esas operaciones, redefinieron los problemas, o simplemente los consideraron imposibles. Para ellos, un universo perfecto no podía contener números "erróneos", "oscuros" o "negativos". Así de poderosa era su creencia en la armonía matemática del mundo. Y ahora piensa en esto: ¿cuántas cosas damos hoy por verdaderas sin entenderlas? ¿Cuántas ideas nos han sido negadas por parecer “imposibles”? La sombra de los pitagóricos es alargada. Y si miras con atención, quizá todavía la veas en las instituciones que dirigen el conocimiento, en los rituales simbólicos que acompañan actos de poder, o incluso… en las matemáticas que se enseñan en nuestras escuelas. Porque como decía otro sabio antiguo: la ignorancia no es falta de información, sino la imposición del silencio. ………………………………………………………………………………………. Los terrenos donde se construyó Washington, D.C., eran parte de una zona conocida como "Rome" (Roma) antes de que se estableciera la capital de Estados Unidos. Este nombre se debe a que, en el siglo XVII, un terrateniente llamado Francis Pope, quien era propietario de una parcela en la zona, nombró su propiedad "Rome" en un guiño humorístico a la ciudad de Roma, Italia, y al río Tíber, comparándolo con el río Anacostia o el Potomac. Incluso se dice que Pope se autoproclamó "Papa de Roma" en tono jocoso. Cuando se decidió construir la nueva capital federal en 1790, los terrenos de "Rome" fueron parte de las tierras cedidas por Maryland para crear el Distrito de Columbia. Sin embargo, el nombre "Rome" cayó en desuso con el desarrollo de la ciudad planificada por Pierre Charles L'Enfant y la adopción del nombre "Washington" en honor a George Washington. El hombre que recibió el encargo de diseñar la nueva capital de Estados Unidos en 1791 fue Pierre Charles L’Enfant, un arquitecto y urbanista nacido en Francia que había luchado en la Guerra de Independencia estadounidense junto a George Washington. Era un apasionado de la arquitectura monumental y tenía una visión muy clara: la ciudad debía ser una representación del nuevo orden del mundo. Aunque no hay registros definitivos que lo identifiquen como masón —al contrario que muchos de sus contemporáneos como George Washington, Benjamin Franklin o Thomas Jefferson—, su diseño está repleto de símbolos que son clave en la tradición masónica y pitagórica. Esto ha llevado a muchos estudiosos a pensar que, si no era miembro formal de la masonería, al menos estaba fuertemente influenciado por ella. Cuando observamos desde el aire (o en un plano detallado) el trazado urbano de Washington D.C., comienzan a aparecer formas geométricas muy específicas que nos indican el uso de la geometría sagrada en el plano de la ciudad: La estrella de cinco puntas Una de las figuras más debatidas del diseño de Washington es la estrella pentagonal (el pentagrama), que muchos dicen puede verse trazando líneas entre la Casa Blanca, el Capitolio, y varios otros puntos clave como el Washington Monument y el Jefferson Memorial. El pentagrama es un símbolo ancestral que los pitagóricos veneraban como representación del equilibrio, la salud y la proporción áurea. Los masones lo heredaron y lo usan como símbolo del hombre perfecto, microcosmos del universo. La escuadra y el compás Estos dos instrumentos, esenciales en la arquitectura, son símbolos masónicos por excelencia. La escuadra representa la rectitud moral y el compás, los límites que uno debe imponer a sus pasiones. En el plano de Washington, las avenidas diagonales que cruzan la cuadrícula ortogonal tradicional parecen estar trazadas con escuadra y compás. Por ejemplo, Pensylvania Avenue y Maryland Avenue se cruzan formando ángulos casi rituales, como si fuesen dibujadas con instrumentos de aprendiz de logia. El triángulo y la Tetraktys Al unir algunos de los puntos clave de la ciudad se forman triángulos equiláteros y escaleno, que recuerdan tanto a la Tetraktys pitagórica como al Delta radiante masónico, el triángulo con el ojo que todo lo ve en su interior. Washington D.C. no fue construida al azar. Su disposición recuerda más a la de un templo iniciático que a la de una ciudad práctica. Cada monumento, cada calle y cada eje visual parece tener una función simbólica. La ciudad se convierte así en un espacio ritualizado, diseñado para canalizar no solo el poder político, sino el espiritual. Esto concuerda con la visión de muchos de los Padres Fundadores, que eran masones y creían en una forma de deísmo ilustrado, donde Dios no era el dios de una religión concreta, sino el Gran Arquitecto del Universo, la divinidad racional que había creado el cosmos a través de leyes matemáticas y geométricas. Hay quienes consideran todas estas conexiones como meras coincidencias. Pero otros —historiadores, ocultistas, arquitectos, e incluso funcionarios del propio Capitolio— han reconocido que la influencia masónica en el diseño de Washington D.C. no puede negarse. George Washington, masón de alto grado, puso la primera piedra del Capitolio en una ceremonia masónica el 18 de septiembre de 1793, vistiendo su delantal de logia. La colocación de monumentos, obeliscos (como el del Washington Monument) y referencias astrológicas refuerzan la idea de que la ciudad está alineada no solo con principios políticos, sino con principios cósmicos. Washington sigue siendo una ciudad codificada. Muchos de sus símbolos están a la vista, pero pocos los reconocen. El diseño original de L’Enfant fue alterado con el tiempo, sí, pero los patrones geométricos centrales permanecen. Y algunos sostienen que el espíritu de los antiguos pitagóricos, con su amor por los números sagrados y la geometría divina, vive hoy en las estructuras de poder moderno… solo que oculto entre calles, columnas y monumentos. ………………………………………………………………………………………. Bueno y me despido con algunas de mis ultimas Frases_UTP, ya saben, esas perlas que voy soltando de vez en cuando y que tienen agrupadas en Twitter bajo ese hastag: “Somos jockeys ocasionales de almas inmanentes, montando a galope los corceles efímeros de nuestra existencia terrenal, en un fugaz viaje donde el viento del tiempo susurra nuestra impermanencia y la tierra guarda el eco de nuestras huellas pasajeras." “Tanto el sabio como el ignorante pueden tomar malas decisiones, pero solo el ignorante no admite haberlas tomado.” “Si trabajas el presente nunca sentirás vergüenza por el pasado y te sentirás orgulloso en el futuro.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. Conductor del programa UTP Ramón Valero @tecn_preocupado Un técnico Preocupado un FP2 IVOOX UTP http://cutt.ly/dzhhGrf BLOG http://cutt.ly/dzhh2LX Ayúdame desde mi Crowfunding aquí https://cutt.ly/W0DsPVq Invitados Dra Yane #JusticiaParaUTP @ayec98_2 Médico y Buscadora de la verdad. Con Dios siempre! No permito q me dividan c/izq -derecha, raza, religión ni nada de la Creación. https://youtu.be/TXEEZUYd4c0 …. soros triplehijueputa @soroshijueputa2 En contra de un sistema corrupto al servicio de la élite globalista …. José Antonio @jasava7 Mensajero de la Nueva Era. Librepensador y escritor. Ciudadano del Mundo. Derecho Natural. DDHH. Paz, equidad y fraternidad. Jinete en lucha por un Mundo Mejor. …. SirGalahad @Sirgalahad79 Mi honor se llama lealtad. …. LaJessi @LaJessibot Donde hay bromas hay verdades | Qué no te engañen la pena es la novia del pene #NoTeRaye #TweetStar Filósofa del barrio #CBD No me llames cani o #tekillyulabida …. Ernesto @Ernesto22596980 A mi me paga Putin EXPEDIENTE ROYUELA …. Luz Madeleine Munayco @lecabel8 ………………………………………………………………………………………. Enlaces citados en el podcast: AYUDA A TRAVÉS DE LA COMPRA DE MIS LIBROS https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2024/11/16/ayuda-a-traves-de-la-compra-de-mis-libros/ UTP8 Universo fractal https://www.ivoox.com/utp8-universo-fractal-audios-mp3_rf_9991951_1.html El Papa y Roma… https://x.com/ElHiloRojoTV/status/1914235914999521647 Hilo sobre el papa https://x.com/tecn_preocupado/status/1914770003712467453 Féretro de papa Francisco como bandera de España https://x.com/ayec98_2/status/1915421017083711970 Capilla ardiente papa Francisco como sexo femenino https://x.com/ayec98_2/status/1915173455655215303 UTP268 Matematicas Vorticiales: Explorando el Tejido del Universo https://www.ivoox.com/utp268-matematicas-vorticiales-explorando-tejido-del-universo-audios-mp3_rf_121126662_1.html UTP272 Matemáticas Vorticiales: los vórtices de la vida https://www.ivoox.com/utp272-matematicas-vorticiales-vortices-vida-audios-mp3_rf_122197421_1.html ………………………………………………………………………………………. Música utilizada en este podcast: Tema inicial Heros ………………………………………………………………………………………. Epílogo ÚRSULA - AGUA DE LIMÓN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKfs8GIorhc

Robert Boyle Nacido el 25 de enero de 1627, fue un filósofo natural, químico, físico e inventor anglo-irlandés. Boyle nació en Lismore Castle, en el condado de Waterford , Irlanda. Fue el decimocuarto hijo del primer conde de Cork y Catherine Fenton. Lord Cork, entonces conocido simplemente como Richard Boyle, había llegado a Dublín desde Inglaterra en 1588 durante las plantaciones Tudor de Irlanda. Había acumulado enormes riquezas y posesiones de tierras cuando nació Robert, y fue nombrado conde de Cork en octubre de 1620. Catherine Fenton, condesa de Cork, era hija deSir Geoffrey Fenton , exsecretario de Estado de Irlanda. Cuando era niño, Boyle fue acogido por una familia local, al igual que sus hermanos mayores; para cimentar su educación. Boyle recibió clases particulares de latín, griego y francés y cuando tenía ocho años, tras la muerte de su madre, fue enviado al Eton College de Inglaterra. El amigo de su padre, Sir Henry Wotton, era entonces el rector de la universidad. Durante este tiempo, su padre contrató a un tutor privado, Robert Carew, que tenía conocimientos de irlandés , para que actuara como tutor privado de sus hijos en Eton. Sintamos el relato…

What are the challenges of gardening on a large, rural property? Today we meet Cass Hooke, garden consultant, to tell us more about her experience about building a new garden from scratch.From her family upbringing to her first paid job with gardener Robert Boyle, Cass has immersed herself with landscaping and gardening. With a passion for conservation and the protection of threatened species, we hear about Cass's journey and the creation of her garden with all the challenges of low rainfall, bore water and a harsh climate.Cass share's her journey of the creation of her rural Riverina NSW garden via her instagram @outbackgardens.Where you can find all things Muddy Boots!Website: https://www.muddyboots.net.au/Instagram: www.instagram.com/muddybootspodcast/ Facebook: Muddy Boots Podcast | Facebook

The Cochrane Skin group has produced more than 100 reviews. These were added to in August 2024 by a new network meta-analysis of topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema. We asked lead author, Robert Boyle from Imperial College London in the UK to tell us about the condition and the findings of his review in this podcast.

The Cochrane Skin group has produced more than 100 reviews. These were added to in August 2024 by a new network meta-analysis of topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema. We asked lead author, Robert Boyle from Imperial College London in the UK to tell us about the condition and the findings of his review in this podcast.

In this episode of the Legal Zeidgeist podcast, the Overseas Fund Regime (OFR) takes centre stage. In this 2 part special, Kate Horgan is joined by Robert Boyle, Solicitor and Partner at Zeidler Legal Services LLP to dissect the key aspects of the OFR and its implications for fund marketing in the UK.In part 1 as the industry prepares, discover the current methods of marketing UCITS into the UK, understand the intricacies of the OFR, and learn when and how to register a fund under this regime. 

In this episode of the Legal Zeidgeist podcast, the Overseas Fund Regime (OFR) takes centre stage again. In this 2-part special, Kate Horgan is joined by Robert Boyle, Solicitor and Partner at Zeidler Legal Services LLP, to dissect the key aspects of the OFR and its implications for fund marketing in the UK.In Part 2, join us as we examine whether a UK country supplement to the prospectus will be required and what its content will entail. Gain insights into the potential fees for registering under the OFR and whether a UK facilities agent will be necessary. Explore the key takeaways for fund professionals to effectively adapt to the OFR.

In this episode I speak with Cass Hooke from Outback Gardens. Cass is a garden consultant and writer, writing for Graziher magazine.Cass started out in the industry while she was at school working for Robert Boyle before studying in Botany, working in veggie production nurseries and working in conservation for threatened species.Cass is holding a garden event at her property in October 2024 with guest speakers and workshops and a tour of her garden. Details are on a pinned post on her Instagram page.Cass also did a podcast for Graziher which was a great listen, and you can find it here for to listen on Spotify and listen here for apple musicYou can find Cass on Instagram @outbackgardensIf you're wanting to sign up to be on the mailing list for The Landscaping School, you can find the link here.You can follow along with the projects we're currently working on via our Instagram page@instyle_gardens@thelandscapingpodcastYou can view each episode on our YouTube channel

Las cerillas, o los fósforos, o los cerillos han quedado en desuso masivo. Ya ni siquiera se tienen en casa para encender las barbacoas, se han sustituido por mecheros o encendedores, por lo que la magia de encender un fósforo, queda en la memoria sólo de algunos y de los pocos que aún lo usan. Las cerillas, también conocidas como fósforos, son un invento fascinante que ha evolucionado a lo largo de los siglos. El uso de varillas con azufre que prendían al contacto con la chispa se remonta a la antigua China. En 1680, el físico y químico inglés Robert Boyle experimentó con el fósforo, pero no tuvo éxito debido al olor fétido y los vapores venenosos que desprendía la mezcla. En 1827, el farmacéutico inglés John Walker vendió cerillas en su botica, pero no patentó su invento. Las cerillas modernas aparecieron en Suecia en 1852 y se fabricaban con fósforo y algodón trenzado en lugar de madera. La fabricación de cerillas es un proceso interesante que involucra una mezcla de fósforo, agentes oxidantes, goma y otros materiales. En los primeros años, los cerillos contenían fósforo blanco, un agente oxidante (bióxido de manganeso, clorato o nitrato potásicos) y goma, en cantidad suficiente para formar una pasta espesa. El calor originado por frotamiento sobre arena, o papel esmeril, producía la inflamación, que a veces era explosiva, sobre todo cuando se utilizaba clorato como agente oxidante. La mezcla inflamable se prepara agitando lentamente el fósforo en una solución caliente de dextrino o cola; se adicionan entonces los materiales oxidantes, y la pasta sigue agitándose hasta que se enfría. Frecuentemente, se colorea con ultramar, cromato de plomo, negro de humo, etc. Se esparce luego uniformemente en capa delgada sobre una tabla, y se hacen penetrar en ella, una o dos veces, palitos previamente preparados, con lo que se forman las cabezas. Cuando están secas las cabezas, suelen introducirse en un barniz o goma, para cubrirlas con una ligera capa que las protege de la humedad. Los cerillos modernos son más seguros y eficientes que sus predecesores. Los cerillos de fricción, que se encienden al frotarlos contra una superficie rugosa, son los más comunes. Los cerillos de seguridad, que se encienden al ser raspados contra una superficie especial, son menos comunes pero más seguros. Los cerillos de seguridad se utilizan en lugares donde los cerillos de fricción podrían causar una explosión, como en minas y fábricas de productos químicos. En resumen, las cerillas son un invento interesante que ha evolucionado a lo largo de los siglos. Desde su invención en la antigua China hasta los cerillos modernos, las cerillas han sido una herramienta útil para encender fuegos. Puedes leer más y comentar en mi web, en el enlace directo: https://luisbermejo.com/furusato-zz-podcast-05x20/ Puedes encontrarme y comentar o enviar tu mensaje o preguntar en: WhatsApp: +34 613031122 Paypal: https://paypal.me/Bermejo Bizum: +34613031122 Web: https://luisbermejo.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ZZPodcast/ X (twitters): https://x.com/LuisBermejo y https://x.com/zz_podcast Instagrams: https://www.instagram.com/luisbermejo/ y https://www.instagram.com/zz_podcast/ Canal Telegram: https://t.me/ZZ_Podcast Canal WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va89ttE6buMPHIIure1H Grupo Signal: https://signal.group/#CjQKIHTVyCK430A0dRu_O55cdjRQzmE1qIk36tCdsHHXgYveEhCuPeJhP3PoAqEpKurq_mAc Grupo Whatsapp: https://chat.whatsapp.com/FQadHkgRn00BzSbZzhNviThttps://chat.whatsapp.com/BNHYlv0p0XX7K4YOrOLei0

Shownotes and Transcript Intelligent Design may not be an idea you are familiar with but it has interested me since I was a child.  I find it impossible to accept that the world we live in and the complexity of human beings is all based on luck and chance. There has to be an intelligent designer.  Stephen C Meyer is one of the most renowned experts on this very topic and his recent appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience has made many people question the theory of a universe without God.  At what point did intellectuals decide that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic beliefs? Is it even statistically possible for such complexity to just appear? What about the question of who is this intelligent designer?  Stephen Meyer will help you view the world around you with a brand new perspective. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In 2004, Meyer ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peer-reviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design. Meyer has been featured on national television and radio programs, including The Joe Rogan Experience, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CBS's Sunday Morning, NBC's Nightly News, ABC's World News, Good Morning America, Nightline, FOX News Live, and the Tavis Smiley show on PBS. He has also been featured in two New York Times front-page stories and has garnered attention in other top-national media. Dr. Meyer is author of the New York Times bestseller Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design and Signature in the Cell, a Times Literary Supplement Book of the Year. He is also a co-author of Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism and Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. Connect with Stephen... WEBSITE           https://stephencmeyer.org/                            https://www.discovery.org/                            https://returnofthegodhypothesis.com/ X                         https://x.com/StephenCMeyer?s=20 BOOKS               https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/author/B001K90CQC Interview recorded 13.12.23 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            https://heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ TRANSCRIPTS   https://heartsofoak.substack.com/ Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts....  SHOP                  https://heartsofoak.org/shop/ *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Dr. Stephen Meyer. It's wonderful to have you with us. Thank you so much for your time today. (Stephen C Meyer) Thanks for inviting me, Peter.  No, it's great to have you. And people can find you on Twitter @StephenCMayer. It's on the screen there. And also discovery.org, the Discovery Institute. And you obviously received your PhD in philosophy of sciences from England, from University of Cambridge, your a former geophysicist, college professor, and you now are the director of Discovery Institute, author of many books. The latest is Return of the God Hypothesis, Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe, and the links for those books will be in the description. But, Dr. Meyer, if I can maybe, I think I remember as a child, church loyalty, being at church and getting a stamp for attending. I remember asking for a book on creationism then, and we may touch on different creationism, intelligent design. I mean, it was 10 or 11. And I remember being fascinated by this whole topic of how God can be seen in the world around us. Maybe I can ask you about your journey. What has been your journey to being one of the, I guess, main proponents on intelligent design? Well, I've always been interested in questions at the intersection between science and philosophy or science and  larger worldview questions or science and religion the questions that are addressed about, you know, how do we get here and what is, is there a particular significance to human life, what is the meaning of life, in the early part of my scientific career I was working as a geophysicist as you mentioned the introduction and in the city where I was working, a conference came to town that was investigating that intersection of science and philosophy, science and belief, and it was addressing three big questions, and they were the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin and nature of human consciousness. And the conference was unique in that it had invited leading scientists and philosophers representing both theism, broadly speaking, belief in God, and scientists and philosophers who rejected theism and who affirmed the more common view among leading scientists at that time, which was materialism or sometimes called naturalism. We have the New Atheist Movement with their scientific atheists and people of more of that persuasion. So it was, let's look at the origin of the universe from the standpoint. What do the data say, what do you theists say about it, what do you non-theist materialists say about it, and it was a fascinating conference and I was particularly taken by the panels on the origin of the universe and the origin of life because surprisingly to me it seemed that the theists had the intellectual initiative that the the evidence in those about the origin of the universe, and then about the complexity of the cell and therefore the challenges it posed to standard chemical evolutionary theories of the origin of life that in both these two areas, both these two subjects, it seemed that there were powerful, theistic friendly arguments being developed, in one case about the, what you might call, a reviving of the ancient cosmological argument because of the evidence that scientists had discovered about the universe having a beginning. And in the other case, what we now call the theory of intelligent design, that there was evidence of design in the cell, in particular, in the digital code that is stored in the DNA molecule, the information and information processing system of the cell. And was it that time? And still to this day is something that undirected theories of chemical evolution have not been able to explain. And instead, what we know from our experience is that information is a mind product, which is a point that some of these scientists made at this panel, that when we see digital code or alphabetic text or computer code, and many people have likened the information and DNA to a computer code, we always find a mind behind that. So this was the first time I was exposed to that way of thinking. I got fascinated with that. A year later, after the conference, I ended up meeting one of the scientists on the Origin of Life panel, a man named Charles Thackston, who had just written a book with two other co-authors called The Mystery of Life's Origin. He was detailing in that book, he and his colleagues were detailing sort of chapter and verse the problems with trying to explain the origin of the first cell from simpler chemicals in some alleged or presupposed prebiotic soup. And the three authors showed that this was implausible in the extreme, given what we know scientifically about how chemistry works versus how cells work. And over the ensuing year, he kind of mentored me and I got fascinated with the subject and ended up getting a fellowship. A Rotary Fellowship to study at Cambridge for a year and then ended up extending on. I did my master's thesis and then my PhD thesis both on origin of life biology within the History and Philosophy of Science Department at Cambridge. And while I was there, I started to meet other scientists and scholars who were having doubts about standard Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories of life's origin. And by the early 90s, a number of us had met each other and connected and had some private conferences. And out of that was born a formal program investigating the evidence for intelligent design in biology, in physics, in cosmology, and in 96, we started a program at Discovery Institute. You were very kind to me to call me the director of the whole institute. I direct a program within the institute called the Center for Science and Culture, which is the institutional home. A network of scientists who are investigating whether or not there is, empirical scientific evidence for a designing mind behind life in the cosmos and and the program just continues to grow, the network especially continues to grow, we've got fantastic scientists from all around the world now who are sympathetic to that position and I would mention too that it's a position that's kind of reviving an ancient view going back to certainly the time of the scientific revolution. In particular, we've discovered back to the scientific revolution in Cambridge where I had been fortunate enough to study. There's a, in the college that I was part of, St. Catherine's, there was back in the 17th century, one of the founders of modern botany, who was also one of the first authors of what's called British National Theology. His name was John Ray. Ray was the tutor of Isaac Barrow, a mathematician who in turn tutored Newton and so this whole tradition of seeing the fingerprints of a creator in the natural world is something that was launched in Britain, particularly in Cambridge there were other figures like Robert Boyle who were in other places but the Cambridge tradition of natural theology was very strong from that time period in the 17th century, late 17th century, right up to figures like James Clerk Maxwell, the great physicist in the late 19th century who was critical, sceptical of Darwinism and articulated the idea of design. And I think that's now being revived within contemporary science. There's a growing minority of scientists who see evidence of design in nature.  Now, the understanding of intelligent designer, that's a new thinking, but through the millennia, that's been the norm. Individuals have viewed the world through the lens that there is a God, and that has helped them understand and see the world. But there must have been a point, I guess, when intellectuals decided that scientific knowledge conflicts with that that traditional belief, that traditional theistic belief. Yeah, that's a great way of framing the discussion, Peter. There's a historian of science in Britain named Steve Fuller, who's at Warwick. And he's argued that the idea of intelligent design has been the framework out of which science has been done since the period of the scientific revolution at least and that the the post Darwinian deviation from that, denying that there's actual design and only instead as the Darwinian biologists say the appearance or illusion of design, you may remember from Richard Dawkins's famous book the blind watchmaker, page one he says biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. And of course, for Dawkins and his followers, and for Darwinians from the late 19th century forward, the appearance of design is an illusion. And it was thought to be an illusion because Darwin had formulated an undirected, or had identified an undirected, unguided process, which he called natural selection that could mimic the powers of a designing intelligence, or so he argued, without itself being designed or guided in any way. And that's kind of where we've engaged the argument. Is that appearance of design that nearly all biologists recognize merely an appearance, or is it the product of an actual guiding intelligence? And that's why we call our theory intelligent design. We're not challenging the idea that there has been change over time, one of the other meanings of evolution we're not challenging even the idea of universal common descent though some of us myself included are quite sceptical of that, the main thing we're challenging with the theory of intelligent design is that is that the appearance of design is essentially an illusion because an unguided undirected mechanism has the capability of generating that appearance without itself being guided or directed in any way and that's, to us the key issue. Is the design real or merely apparent? You may remember that Francis Crick also once said that biologists must constantly keep in mind, that what they see was not designed, but instead evolved. So there's this, the recurrence of that strong intuition among people who have studied biological systems. And I would say, going back all the way to Aristotle, you know, this has been, the Western tradition in biology has been suffused with this recognition. That organisms look designed, they look like they're designed for purpose, they exhibit purpose of behaviour. And now in the age following Watson and Crick, following the molecular biological revolution of the late 50s and 1960s and 70s, we have extraordinarily strong appearances of design. We've got digital code. We have a replication system. We have a translation system as part of this whole information processing system. Scientists can't help but use teleological wording to describe what's going on. We see the purpose of nature, of all of the biological systems and subsystems. And so what we've argued is that, at least at the point of the origin of life, there is no unguided, undirected, or there is no theory that invokes, that has identified an unguided, undirected mechanism that can explain away that appearance of design. Many people don't realize that Darwin did not attempt to explain the origin of the first life. He presupposed the existence of one or a few very simple forms. And so he started it effectively with assuming a simple cell and then said, well, what would have come from that? We now know, however, that the simple cell was not simple at all and displays this many very striking appearances of design that have not been explained by undirected chemical evolutionary processes. Dawkins himself has said that the machine code of the genes is strikingly computer-like. And so you have this striking appearance of design at the very foundation of life that has not in any way been explained by undirected processes. Well, I want to pick up on a number of that, the new discoveries, how things have changed, the complexity. But I can go back, you're challenging, I guess, hundreds of years of new thinking that the complexity of the universe simply points to luck and chance. And I guess there's a statistical side of that, whether that's even possible. We look around and we see things just working perfectly. And I wonder whether it's even possible for a chance element to make all those things come together and make the world as it is. Well, in my book, Signature in the Cell, which was the first of the three books that I've written on these big topics, I look at the argument for the chance origin of life and even more fundamentally, the chance origin of, say, DNA and the protein products that the DNA codes for. And one of the first things to take note of in addressing the chance hypothesis is that no serious origin of life researcher, no origin of life biochemist or biologist today reposes much hope in the chance hypothesis, it's it's really been set aside and the reason for that, I explained the reason for that in in signature in the cell and then do some calculations to kind of back up the thinking that most origin of life biologists have adopted and that is that the cell is simply far too complicated to have arisen by chance. And you can, and the large biomacromolecules, DNA and proteins, are molecules that depend on a property known as sequence specificity, or sometimes called specified complexity. That is to say, they contain informational instructions in essentially a digital or typographic form. So you have in the DNA you have the four character chemical subunits that biologists actually represent with the letters A, T, G, and C. And if you want to build a protein, you have to arrange the A's, C's, G's, and T's or the evolutionary process or somehow the A's, C's, G's, and T's must have been sequenced in the proper way so that when that genetic message is sent to the ribosome, which is the the translation apparatus in the cell, then what comes out of that is a properly sequenced protein molecules. Proteins also are made of subunits called amino acids. There are 20 or so, maybe as many as 22 now, protein-forming amino acids. And to get the protein chain that is built from the DNA instructions to fold into a proper functional conformation or three-dimensional shape, those amino acids have to be arranged in very specific ways. If they're not arranged properly, the long peptide chain, as it's called, will not fold into a stable protein. And so in both cases, you have this property of sequence specificity that the function of the whole, the whole gene in the case of DNA or the whole protein in the case of the the amino acids, the function of the whole depends upon the precise sequencing of the constituent parts. And that's the difficulty, getting those things to line up properly. Turns out there's all kinds of difficulties in trying to form those subunits, those chemical parts, out of any kind of prebiotic chemical environment that we've been able to think of. But the most fundamental problem is the sequencing. And so you can actually run, because there's, if you think of the protein chain, you have 1 in 20 roughly chances of getting the right amino acid at each site. Sometimes it's more or less because in some cases you can have any one of, there is some variability allowed at each site, but you can run numbers on all this and get very precise numbers on the probability of generating even a single functional protein in the known history of the universe. And it turns out that what are called the combinatorials or the probabilities associated with combinatorials, the probabilities are so small that they are small even in relation to the total number of possible events that might have occurred from the Big Bang till now. In other words, here's an example I often use to use to illustrate, if you have a thief trying to crack a bike lock. If the thief has enough time, even though the combination is hidden among all the possibilities, and then the probability of getting the combination in one trial is very small, if the thief has enough time and can try and try and try again, he may crack it by sheer chance. But if the lock is, we have a standard four-dial bike lock, but if the thief encounters a 10-dial bike lock, and I've had one rendered by my graphic designer to get the point across, then in a human lifetime, there's not enough opportunities to sample that number of possible combinations. If you've got 10 dials, you've got 10 to the 10 possibilities, or 10, that's 10 billion. And if the thief spins the dial once every 10 seconds for 100 years and does nothing else in his entire life, he'll only sample 3% of those total combinations, which means it's much more likely that the thief will fail than it is that he will succeed by chance alone. And that's the kind of, that's the, so the point is that there are, there are degrees of complexity or improbability that dwarf what we call probabilistic resources, the opportunities. And that's the situation we have when we're talking about the origin of the first biomacromolecules by reference to chance alone. Only it's not just that you would with those events, you know, all the events that have occurred from the beginning of the universe until now could only sample about one, I think I've calculated about one ten trillion trillionth of the total possibilities that correspond to a modest length protein. So it's like the bike thief trying to sample that 10-dial lock, only much, much worse. You know, it turns out that 14 billion years isn't enough time to have a reasonable chance to find informational biomolecules by chance alone. I mean, is the whole scientific argument that removes God, is it just an attempt by science to play God, because whenever we are told that scientific principles break down and no longer exist at the very beginning, for instance, and it doesn't make sense, but we're told that that's just how it happened and you have to accept that. And it seems to be people jumping over themselves with a desperation to try and remove the idea that there is an intelligent designer. Well, I tend to think that the questions of motivation in these debates are kind of a wash. I think as theists, we have to, I'm a theist, okay, I believe in God. In my first two books, I argued for designing intelligence of some kind as being, of some unspecified kind as being the best explanation for the information, for example, in the cell or the information needed to build fundamentally new body plans in the history of life on earth. So, but in my last book, I extend that argument, I bring in evidence from cosmology and physics and suggest that the best explanation for that, the ensemble of evidence that we have about biological and physical and cosmological origins is actually a designing intelligence that has attributes that, for example, Jews and Christians have always described to God, transcendence, as well as intelligence. For example, no being within the cosmos, no space alien, and some scientists have proposed even Crick, Francis Crick in 1981 in a little book called Life Itself floated the idea that yes we do see evidence of design in life. The origin of life is a very hard problem, we can't see how it could possibly have happened on Earth so maybe there was an intelligent life form from space who seeded life here. He was subsequently ridiculed a bit and said, I think he was embarrassed that he'd floated this and said he would not, he foreswore any further speculation on the origin of life problem. It was too difficult, he said. But in any case, back to your question, I think the whole question is. Oh, I was finishing a thought, and that is that the evidence of design that we have from the very beginning of the universe and what's called the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics and the initial conditions of the universe, the basic parameters of physics, which were said at the beginning, are exquisitely finely tuned against all odds. And no space alien, no intelligence within the cosmos could be responsible for the evidence of design that we have from the very beginning of the universe because any alleged space alien would itself have had to evolve by some sort of naturalistic processes further down the timeline, once you have stable galaxies and planets and that sort of thing and so no being within the cosmos could be responsible for the conditions that made its future evolution possible nor could a space alien to be responsible for the origin of the universe itself. So when you bring in the cosmological and the physical evidence, I think the only type of designing intelligence that can explain the whole range of evidence we have is one that is transcendent, that is beyond the cosmos, but also active in the creation, because we see evidence of information arising later, and information, as I've mentioned, is a mind product based on our uniform and repeated experience.  But as to the motivation issue, I kind of think it's a wash. I think theists have to acknowledge that all people, including those of us who are theists, have a motivation, maybe a hope that there is a purposeful intelligence behind the cosmos. I think there's a kind of growing angst in young people. Harvard study recently showing that over 50% of young people have doubts about there being any purpose to their existence. And this is contributing to the mental health crisis. And so I think all of us would like, to be possible, for there to be life after death, for there to be an enduring purpose to our lives that does not extinguish when we die or when eventually there's a heat death of the universe. I think theism, belief in God, gives people a sense of purpose in relation, the possibility of a relationship to our creator. That's a positive thing. I think there's also a common human motivation to not want to be accountable to that creator and to have moral, complete moral freedom to decide what we want to do at any given time. And so oftentimes theists or God-believers, religious people will say, well, you just like these materialistic theories of origins because you don't want to be accountable to a higher power. That might be true, But it's equally true that the atheist will often say, well, but you guys just need a cosmic crutch. You need comfort from the idea of a divine being, a loving creator, father, whatever, you know, the divine father figure. And Freud famously critiqued or criticized religious belief in those terms. So I think that those two kind of motivation, arguments about motivation are something of a wash and that what I've tried to do in Return of the God Hypothesis is set all of that aside, look at the evidence that we have, and then evaluate it using some standard methods of scientific reasoning and standard methods of evaluating hypotheses, such as a Bayesian analysis, for example, that come out of logic and philosophy. And set the motivation questions aside. And my conclusion is that the evidence for an intelligent designer of some unspecified kind is extremely strong from biology, and that when you bring in the cosmological and physical evidence, the evidence of fine-tuning and the evidence we have that the material cosmos itself had a beginning, I think materialism fails as an explanation, and you need to invoke an intelligence that is both transcendent and active in the creation to explain the whole range of evidence. Well, let me pick you up on that change, because initially there is a change from someone who believes the evolutionary model, big bang, there is no external force. That step from there to there is an external force, there is intelligent design feeding into the universe we have. And then it's another step to take that to there is an intelligent designer, now there is a personal God. And that step certainly, I assume, is frowned upon in the scientific community. Tell us about you making that step, because it would have been much safer to stay, I guess, in the ID side and not to make the step into who that individual is. Tell us about kind of what prompted you to actually make the step into answering that who question.  Right. Well, I've been thinking about this question for 35, 36, I don't know, since the mid-80s when I was a very young scientist. And it was at the conference that inspired it, because at the conference, there were people already thinking about the God question, especially the cosmologists. At that conference, Alan Sandage announced his conversion from scientific agnosticism he was a scientific materialist to theism and indeed I think he became Christian, and he talked about how the evidence for the singularity at the beginning of the universe, the evidence that the material cosmos itself had a beginning was one of the things that moved him off of that materialistic perspective, that it was clear to him that as he described it, that the evidence we had for a beginning was evidence for what he called a super, with a space in between, natural events, nothing within the cosmos could explain the origin of the cosmos itself, if matter, space, time and energy have a beginning and as best we can tell they do and there are multiple lines of evidence and theoretical considerations that lead to that conclusion and I developed that in return of the god hypothesis, it is the evidence from observational astronomy and also developments in theoretical physics converge on that conclusion. And if that's the case, if matter and energy themselves have a beginning, and indeed if space and time themselves have a beginning, then we can't invoke any materialistic explanation to explain that. Because before there was matter, before the beginning of matter, there was no matter to do the causing. And that's the problem. There must be something. For there to be a causal explanation for the universe, it requires a transcendent something. And when you also consider that we have evidence for design from the very beginning in the fine-tuning of the initial physical parameters of the universe, the initial conditions of the universe, the initial establishment and fine-tuning of the physical laws, then you have evidence for that transcendent something being a transcendent intelligent something. And if something is intelligent, capable of making choices between one outcome or another, that's really what we mean by personhood. I mean, this is very close to a, the idea of a personal gun, now that entity may not want to have anything to do with us, but we're talking about a conscious agent when we talk about evidence for intelligent design, and then we have further evidence I think in biology with the presence of the information and information processing system inside cells. And so when you bring all that together, I think you can start to address the who question. So after I wrote Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt, a lot of my readers were asking, OK, that's great. We have evidence of a designing intelligence, but who would that intelligence have been? Is it a space alien, something imminent within the cosmos, like Crick and others have proposed? Or is it a transcendent intelligence? And what can science tell us about that question? So I thought it's a natural question that flows from my first two books. I would stipulate that the theory of intelligent design, formally as a theory, is a theory of design detection. And it allows us to detect the action of an agent as opposed to undirected material processes. We have this example that we often use. If you look at the faces on the mountains at Mount Rushmore, you right away know that a designing intelligence of some kind was responsible for sculpting those faces. And those faces exhibit two properties which, when found together, invariably and reliably indicate a designing intelligence. And we've described those properties as high probability and what's called a specification, a pattern match. And we have evidence of small probability specifications in life. If something is an informational sequence, it's another way of revealing design, so that we can get into all of that. The point is, we've got evidence of design in life, but, the cosmology and fine-tuning allow us to adjudicate between two different design hypotheses, the imminent intelligence and the transcendent one. And I thought, well, let's take this on. It's a natural, it goes beyond the theory of intelligent design, formally speaking, and it addresses one of the possible implications of the evidence of design that we have in biology, that maybe we're looking at a theistic designer, not a space alien.  I just want to pick one or two things from different books. Signature in the Cells, you have it there behind you. And when you simply begin to look at the complexity of cells. You realize that they are like little mini cities, that actually everything, so much happens within. And I guess we are learning more and more about everything in life. And you talk to doctors and they tell you that they are learning more and more about how the body functions. And there's a lot of the unknown. But when you look at that just complexity of, we call it the simple cell, which isn't really very simple, that new research and that new understanding, surely that should move people to a position that, this is impossible, that this level of complexity simply just happens. So tell us about that, just the cell, which is not simple.  Yeah, that's the sort of ground zero for me in my research and interest in the question was this origin of life problem. That's what I did my PhD on. And I think it's really interesting. We could have debates about the adequacy of Darwinian evolutionary theory. I'm sceptical about what's called macroevolutionary theory. But set that all aside. Darwin presupposed one or a few simple forms. And in the immediate wake of the Darwinian Revolution, people like Huxley and Heckel started to develop theories of the origin of those first simple cells. And they regarded the cell in the late 19th century as a very simple, as Huxley put it, a simple homogenous globule or homogeneous globule of undifferentiated protoplasm. And they viewed the essence of the cell as a simple chemical, it's coming from a simple chemical substance they called protoplasm. And so it kind of, and they viewed it as a kind of jello or goo, which could be produced by a few simple chemical reactions. That viewpoint started to fall by the wayside very, very quickly. By the 1890s, early part of the 20th century, we were learning a lot more about the complexity of metabolism. When you get to the molecular biological revolution in the late 1950s and 1960s, nobody any longer thinks the cell is simple because the most important biomacromolecules are large information-bearing molecules that are part of a larger information processing system. And so this is where I think, and in confronting that. And so any origin of life theory has to explain where that came from. My supervisor used to say that the nature of life and the origin of life topics are connected. We need to know what life is in order to formulate a plausible theory of how it came to be. And now that we know that life is much more complex and that we have an integrated informational complexity that characterizes life, those 19th century theories and the first origin of life theories associated with figures like Alexander Oparin, for example, from the 1920s and 30s. These are not adequate to explain what we see. But what's happened, and this is what I documented in Signature in the Cell, is that none of the subsequent chemical evolutionary theories, whether they're based on chance or based on self-organizational laws or somehow based on somehow combining the two, none of those theories have proven adequate either. This problem of sequence specificity or functional information has defied explanation by reference to theories that start from lower level chemistry. It's proven very, very difficult, implausible in the extreme. Here's the problem. Getting from the chemistry to the code is the problem. And undirected chemical processes do not, when observed, move in a life-friendly, information-generative direction. And this has been the problem. So the impasse in origin of life research, which really began in the late 70s, was documented by this book I mentioned, the mystery of life's origin and books, another book, for example, by Robert Shapiro called, Origins, A Sceptic's Guide. That impasse from the 1980s has continued right to the present. Dawkins was interviewed in a film in 2009 by Ben Stein, the American economist and comic. And very quickly, Stein got Dawkins to acknowledge that nobody knows how we got from from the prebiotic chemistry to the first cell. Well, that's kind of a news headline. We get the impression from textbooks that the evolutionary biologists have this all sewed up. They don't by any means. This is a longstanding conundrum. And it is the integrated complexity and informational properties of the cell that have, I think, most fundamentally defied explanation by these chemical evolutionary theories. And I think that's very significant when you think of the whole kind of evolutionary story. Darwin thought that if you could start with something simple then the mutation selection, oh, he didn't have mutations, but the mutation, sorry, the natural selection variation mechanism, could generate all the complexity of life. You'd go from simple to complex very gradually. Well, if the simplest thing is immensely complex and manifest a kind of complexity that defies any undirected process that we can think of, well, then you don't have a seamless evolutionary story from goo to you. Because I guess when you're Darwin's doubt, the next book you wrote, I guess when Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, he assumed it was settled. But science is never settled. There are always developments. And yet it seems, oh, that's sacrosanct, and that cannot be touched and must be accepted. Yeah, and what I did in the second book was show or argue that the information problem is not something that only resides at the lowest level in the biological hierarchy, at the point of the origin of the first cell, but it also emerges later when we have major innovations in the history of life as documented by the fossil record, events such as the Cambrian explosion or the origin of the mammalian radiation or the angiosperm revolution. There are many events in the history of life where you get this sudden or abrupt appearance in the fossil record of completely new form and structure. And we now know in our information age, as it's come to biology, that if you want to build a new cell, you've got to have new proteins. So you have to to have information to build the first cell. But the same thing turns out to be true at the higher level. If you want to build a completely new body plan, you need new organs and tissues. You need to arrange those organs and tissues in very specific ways. And you need new proteins to service the new cell types that make the organs and tissues possible. So anytime we see the abrupt appearance of new biological form, that implies the origin of a vast amount of new biological information.  And so in Darwin's doubt, I simply asked, well, is there, can the standard mutation natural selection mechanism explain the origin of the kind of information that arises and the amount of information arises? And I argue there that no, it doesn't. That we have, there are many, many kinds of biological phenomena that Darwin's mechanism explains beautifully, the small scale variation adaptation, that sort of thing. So 2016, a major conference at the Royal Society in London. First talk there was by the evolutionary biologist Gerd Müller. The conference was convened by a group of evolutionary biologists who think we need a new theory of evolution. Whereas Darwinism does a nice job of explaining small-scale variation, it does a poor job or a completely inadequate job of explaining large-scale morphological innovation, large-scale changes in form. And Mueller, in his first talk at this 2016 event, outlined what he called the explanatory deficits of Neo-Darwinism, and he made that point very clearly. And so it's, I think it's a new day in evolutionary biology, the word of this is not percolating so well perhaps but that was part of the reasons I wrote Darwin's doubt is that within the biological peer-reviewed biological literature it's well known that the problem of the origin of large-scale form, the origin of new body plans is not well explained by the mutation selection mechanism. At this 16 conference, the conveners included many scientists who were trying to come up with new mechanisms that might explain the problem of morphological innovation. Afterwards, one of the conveners said the conference was characterized by a lack of momentousness. Effectively, the evolutionary biologists proposing new theories of evolution and new evolutionary mechanisms had done a good job characterizing the problems, but had not really come up with anything that solves the fundamental problems that we encounter in biology when we see these large jumps in form and structure arising. And in Darwin's Doubt, I didn't just critique standard neo-Darwinian theories of evolution, but many of these newer theories as well, showing that invariably the problem of the origin of biological information and the form that arises from it is the key unsolved problem in contemporary evolutionary theory.  Mueller and Newman wrote a book with MIT Press called On the Origins of Organismal Form, which was a kind of play on the origin of species. Darwinism does a nice job of explaining speciation, small-scale changes within the limits of the pre-existing genomic endowments of an organism, but it doesn't do a good job of explaining new form that requires new genetic information. And these authors, Newman and Mueller, listed in a table of unsolved problems in evolutionary theory, the problem of the origin of biological form. That's what we thought Darwin explained back in 1859, and instead we realized that the mechanisms that he first envisioned have much more limited creative power and much more limited explanatory scope. So that's what my second book was about, and also I think it's still, this is still very much right at the cutting edge of the discussion in evolutionary biology. We can explain the small scale stuff, but not the big scale stuff. Let's just finish off with actually disseminating the information, because all of this is about taking issues which are complex and actually making it understandable to the wider public. And I guess part of that is, I mean, obviously being on the most popular podcast in the world, Joe Rogan, I was like, oh, there's Steve Meyer and Joe Rogan. And taking that information and that turbocharges that. So maybe just to finish off on the ability to disseminate this, because I think in the US, the ID movement is more understood, where I think maybe in Europe, it's certainly it's more misunderstood and not as accepted where there is an acceptance in the States. But tell us about that and how being on something like podcasts like that turbocharge the message. Yeah, well, I can tell you, you know, now that I'm getting introduced at conferences and things after The Joe Rogan Experience, it's as if I never did anything else in my life. No, that's the only thing people care to mention. I mean, he's got a monster reach. He's extremely, his questions on the interview were very probative. Of course, slightly to moderately sceptical, maybe more, but I thought they were fair. I thought it was a great discussion and it was a lot of fun. And, you know, we've had not only, I think he gets something like 11 million downloads on average for his podcast. We couldn't even believe these numbers when we were told them. But there have been over 25 million derivative videos that social media influencers and podcasters have made about the Rogan interview, analysing different sections of our conversation. So, yeah, that was a huge boost to the dissemination of our message. But one thing I realized in our conversation that there's a simple way to understand the information argument. And that's one of our tools in getting some of these ideas out is distilling some of these things that we've been talking about at a fairly deep level to a more understandable level. So let me just run that argument, that argument sketch or the distillation of the argument by your audience. And then they would talk about some of the things we're doing to get the word out. Our local hero in the Seattle area here is Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft. And he has said, like Dawkins, that the digital code in the DNA, that the DNA is like a software program, but much more complex than any we've ever created. Dawkins, as I mentioned before, says it's like a machine code. It contains machine code. Well, if you think about that, those are very suggestive quotations because what we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which is the basis of all scientific reasoning, is that information always arises from an intelligence source. If you have a section of software, there was a programmer involved. If you have a hieroglyphic inscription, there was an ancient scribe involved. If you have a paragraph in a book, there was a writer involved. As we're effectively broadcasting, we're transmitting information, that information ultimately issues from our mind. So whenever we look at information, an informational text or sequence, and we trace it back to its ultimate source, we always come to a mind rather than a material process. All attempts to explain the origin of life based on undirected material processes have failed because they couldn't explain the information present in DNA, RNA proteins. So the presence of that information at the foundation of life, based on our uniform and repeated experience about what it takes to generate information is therefore best explained by the activity of a designing intelligence. It takes a programmer to make a program, to make a software program. And what we have in life is, from many different standpoints, identical to computer code. It is a section of functional digital information. So that's a kind of more user-friendly sketch of the argument but the point is some of these some of these key ideas that are that make intelligent design so, I think so persuasive at a high scientific level if you actually look at the evidence, can be also explained fairly simply and so we're generating a lot of not just Joe Rogan podcast interviews but coming on many many podcasts and that sort of thing but also we're generating a lot of YouTube video short documentaries that get some of these ideas across and for your viewers, one that I might recommend which is on of any it was out on the internet it's called science uprising and it's a series of 10 short documentary videos, another one that we've done called the information enigma which I think would would help people get into these ideas fairly quickly, the information enigmas I think it's a 20 minute short documentary it's up online and we've had hundreds of thousands of views so we're doing a lot to sort of translate the most rigorous science into accessible ideas and disseminate that in user-friendly ways. The best website for finding a lot of this compiled is actually the website for my most recent book, Return of the God Hypothesis. So the website there is returntothegodhypothesis.com. Okay, well, we will have the link for that in the description.  Dr. Stephen Meyer, I really appreciate you coming along. Thank you so much for coming and sharing your experience and understandings of writing and making that understandable, I think, to the viewers, many of them who may not have come across this before.  So thank you for your time today. I really appreciate you having me on, Peter.

In the latest episode of Christ the Center, we explore the fascinating intersection of science, faith, and philosophy through the life and contributions of Robert Boyle, the seventeenth-century chemist often dubbed the father of modern chemistry. Our guest, Dr. Edward B. Davis, Professor Emeritus of the History of Science at Messiah University, shares his extensive knowledge on Boyle's experiments, the development of Boyle's Law, and the broader implications of Boyle's work on the relationship between emerging scientific disciplines and religious thought. We also delve into the historical context of Boyle's era, his influence on the mechanical philosophy, and how his devout Anglican faith shaped his understanding of the natural world. Listen as we explore the complex relationship of how scientific inquiry and religious belief have related throughout history. Edward B. Davis on ResearchGate Robert Boyle, the Bible, and Natural Philosophy

In the latest episode of Christ the Center, we explore the fascinating intersection of science, faith, and philosophy through the life and contributions of Robert Boyle, the seventeenth-century chemist often dubbed the father of modern chemistry. Our guest, Dr. Edward B. Davis, Professor Emeritus of the History of Science at Messiah University, shares his extensive […]

This episode explores the journey of natural philosophy from encompassing multiple fields in the ancient world to becoming synonymous with physics by the mid-19th century. It discusses the works of pioneers like Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, and Robert Boyle, and delves into philosophical debates and concepts that continue to influence modern scientific thinking. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A Social History of Truth, published by Vaniver on August 1, 2023 on LessWrong. This is a chapter-by-chapter summary of A Social History of Truth by Steven Shapin. Focused on Robert Boyle, a founder of the Royal Society considered the first modern chemist, it is interested primarily in his social context and how he (and others) changed it. He was widely considered a role model at the time, and likely saw himself as creating the role of experimental scientist that many would follow. What did he create it from, and why that particular way? [You may also want to read thru Novum Organum, also available on Less Wrong; published seven years before Boyle was born. While Boyle claims it had little direct influence on him, it undoubtedly had significant indirect influence.] The Great Civility: Trust, Truth, and Moral Order "Truth" is often used to refer to correspondence between beliefs and reality. What is there to write a 'social history' about? Shapin isn't interested in the inaccessible truth of philosophers--correspondence between map and territory--but the practical truth of societies--correspondence between a statement and a map. Given that I don't have unmediated access to reality, I can only judge statements as "true according to me" instead of "absolutely true"; and "true according to me" has a bunch of interesting detail behind it. In particular, Shapin is interested in trust. You probably believe that Caesar was a real person who actually lived on Earth, and you probably never met him, instead following a chain of trust (you believe an author who themselves believed another author, and so on to antiquity). This trust is morally textured; if someone lies about something like the existence of Caesar, it's not a neutral action, and actions are coordinated (or not) based on what beliefs people have trust in, which depends on which people are trusted. Shapin points to thinkers from Cicero to Giddens identifying trust as one of the foundational elements of social order. Of course, our eventual subject will be Robert Boyle, the Royal Society, and the birth of science, which claim to be opposed to historical systems of trust. The Royal Society's motto is Nullius in verbia, or "take nobody's word for it", and the promotional literature for science foregrounds experiments and direct experience. But radical skepticism or absolute distrust are both impractical and impolite: Skeptics run the real risk of being ejected from the practical communities of which they are members. Their skepticism expresses an uncooperativeness which invites uncooperativeness from others. Persistent distrust, therefore, has a moral terminus: expulsion from the community. If you will not know, and accept the adequate grounds for, what the community knows, you will not belong to it, and even your distrust will not be recognized as such. Science as it stands today is built almost entirely out of received knowledge instead of experienced knowledge, and this is how it manages to accumulate at all. Society's system of shared knowledge is a communal good, produced like any other. He introduces the phenomenologist's concept of the 'natural attitude', a common-sense realism that views everyone as having access to different perceptions of the same underlying reality; accounts are supposed to not be too discrepant (as that calls into question there being one underlying reality) but some discrepancy is be expected (as observers have different locations, perspectives, perceptual tools, and so on). Shapin also brings up the idea of 'free action', i.e. being uncoerced by one's situation, which was highly relevant to early modern England. A promise made under duress is not considered a promise (and contracts signed under duress are not enforceable); a person under duress is not trustworthy, as the things they say m...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A Social History of Truth, published by Vaniver on August 1, 2023 on LessWrong. This is a chapter-by-chapter summary of A Social History of Truth by Steven Shapin. Focused on Robert Boyle, a founder of the Royal Society considered the first modern chemist, it is interested primarily in his social context and how he (and others) changed it. He was widely considered a role model at the time, and likely saw himself as creating the role of experimental scientist that many would follow. What did he create it from, and why that particular way? [You may also want to read thru Novum Organum, also available on Less Wrong; published seven years before Boyle was born. While Boyle claims it had little direct influence on him, it undoubtedly had significant indirect influence.] The Great Civility: Trust, Truth, and Moral Order "Truth" is often used to refer to correspondence between beliefs and reality. What is there to write a 'social history' about? Shapin isn't interested in the inaccessible truth of philosophers--correspondence between map and territory--but the practical truth of societies--correspondence between a statement and a map. Given that I don't have unmediated access to reality, I can only judge statements as "true according to me" instead of "absolutely true"; and "true according to me" has a bunch of interesting detail behind it. In particular, Shapin is interested in trust. You probably believe that Caesar was a real person who actually lived on Earth, and you probably never met him, instead following a chain of trust (you believe an author who themselves believed another author, and so on to antiquity). This trust is morally textured; if someone lies about something like the existence of Caesar, it's not a neutral action, and actions are coordinated (or not) based on what beliefs people have trust in, which depends on which people are trusted. Shapin points to thinkers from Cicero to Giddens identifying trust as one of the foundational elements of social order. Of course, our eventual subject will be Robert Boyle, the Royal Society, and the birth of science, which claim to be opposed to historical systems of trust. The Royal Society's motto is Nullius in verbia, or "take nobody's word for it", and the promotional literature for science foregrounds experiments and direct experience. But radical skepticism or absolute distrust are both impractical and impolite: Skeptics run the real risk of being ejected from the practical communities of which they are members. Their skepticism expresses an uncooperativeness which invites uncooperativeness from others. Persistent distrust, therefore, has a moral terminus: expulsion from the community. If you will not know, and accept the adequate grounds for, what the community knows, you will not belong to it, and even your distrust will not be recognized as such. Science as it stands today is built almost entirely out of received knowledge instead of experienced knowledge, and this is how it manages to accumulate at all. Society's system of shared knowledge is a communal good, produced like any other. He introduces the phenomenologist's concept of the 'natural attitude', a common-sense realism that views everyone as having access to different perceptions of the same underlying reality; accounts are supposed to not be too discrepant (as that calls into question there being one underlying reality) but some discrepancy is be expected (as observers have different locations, perspectives, perceptual tools, and so on). Shapin also brings up the idea of 'free action', i.e. being uncoerced by one's situation, which was highly relevant to early modern England. A promise made under duress is not considered a promise (and contracts signed under duress are not enforceable); a person under duress is not trustworthy, as the things they say m...

Die Themen: Hype um »Barbie« und »Oppenheimer«; Glamping statt Camping; Lauterbach mahnt wegen Klimawandel; Die Bundesjugendspiele sollen kein Wettkampf mehr sein; Taylor Swift geht auf Tour; Robert Boyle und die Royal Society; Heide Simonis tot; Polizist richtet Waffe auf Steffen Henssler; Millennials und das Leben und Multimullionäre machen Sport Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte: https://linktr.ee/ApokalypseundFilterkaffee

In this episode I speak with Craig Clarke from Total Garden Management, a garden maintenance company based in Melbourne.Craig started in the industry by mowing lawns when he was about 8, and hasn't left in more than 30 years. He worked for Semken Landscaping and Robert Boyle in his first 10 or so years in the industry so had a couple of great companies to learn from prior to going out on his own.He's since built relationships with designers such as Gareth Le Page and Jaye Metcalf where he maintains some of the gardens they design, and it was a great example of how beneficial that can be, working with regular designers, so that you get to understand their vision and how they like their gardens to be realised.You can follow Craig on Instagram @totalgardenmanagementYou can follow along with the projects we're currently working on via our Instagram page@instyle_gardens@thelandscapingpodcastYou can view each episode on our YouTube channel

Welcome back to ParaPower Mapping. The Boston Brahmin Watch Bus is on the road again today—it's a surprise double header. Support the show & access the Premium Feed by subscribing: patreon.com/ParaPowerMapping ! We first unpack the mythic & historical antecedents of Bryan Johnson's alchemical vampirism & elite pursuit of the Elixir of Life, including an examination of the Rosicrucian Royal Society & Robert Boyle's involvement in the very first blood transfusions, the Epic of Gilgamesh, & examples from Ancient China, Hindu scriptures, etc.; from there, we discuss Richard & Isabella Ingalese, a husband-wife duo of New Thought gurus (as well as a corporate mining lawyer & psychic) who authored numerous Kybalion-esque self-help texts and then relocated to Southern California to attempt the Great Work, eventually attesting in an interview w/ the Occult Review that they'd succeeded in attaining the Red & White Stones of the Philosophers, also claiming that they personally knew alchemists living in SoCal that were 600, 400, & 200 years old; the Ingalese's pyramid scheme "Renewal Club"—which may have been a coven of alchemical vampires—that mirrors AMORC & future New Age-y California cults; we continue exploring Stavish's history of American alchemy, which serves as an introduction to AMORC & AMORC's non-accredited Rose + Croix University; we discuss founder H. Spencer Lewis's publicity stunt where he performed the "transmutation" of zinc into gold in front of an audience of AMORC grandmasters & newspaper journalists, which supposedly gave him 2nd & 3rd degree burns on his hands; we mention the California magus Frater Albertus, an AMORC lab alchemy graduate who would go on to proselytize the "life-enriching" aspects of alchemy, briefly playing a clip of a presentation he gave at UC Davis on alchemy at the exact same time that Timothy Leary was signing autographs in another hall on campus; from there, we transition to working our way through the first few chapters in Richard Spence's Secret Agent 666, investigating the evidence of Crowley's espionage work, his early recruitment through the Primrose League & a "gunners" cadet corps in Worcestershire, spying interpretations of his varied & globetrotting travels in the late 1890s & early 1900s, his involvement in securing oil in Mexico & initiation into a Mexican Scottish Rite Masonic order, the possibility that Crowley met Rasputin (and may have been in Russia at the same time as Gurdjieff), the likelihood that sexpionage & sexual blackmailing may have made up a significant part of Crowley's toolkit, the strong possibility that Crowley was assigned to infiltrate both the Golden Dawn & OTO to surveil enemy elements of the Crown & British Empire establishment in both orders, the fact that German agent Theodore Reuss was likely trying to turn Crowley by recruiting him into the OTO, the numerous intelligence officers that were members in Crowley's own order Astrum Argenteum, and finally, the cover & motives of Crowley's arrival in NYC aboard the Lusitania at the onset of World War I (a British armament or finance business deal, surveillance of German occultists, and the tracking of Irish republican Sir Roger Casement). Pt. I of II. The second is dropping momentarily. Songs: | Randy Newman - "Spies" | | Henry Mancini - "Peter Gunn Theme" OST |

Linking the Travel Industry is a business travel podcast where we review the top travel industry stories that are posted on LinkedIn by LinkedIn members.  We curate the top posts and discuss with them with travel industry veterans in a live session with real audience members.  You can join the live recording session by visiting BusinessTravel360.com and registering for the next event.Your Hosts are Riaan van Schoor, Ann Cederhall and Aash Shravah.Stories covered on this session include -Snowfall rescued the online booking tool PSNGR1 last year and they have now repackaged it as Junction One. Sri Lankan Airways post a half a billion dollar loss.The sad news that Sabre Corporation is cutting it's workforce by up to 15% hits hard for many, with our posts filled with jobseekers having spent decades at the company. Virgin Atlantic has been loss-making for six years in a row now. Robert Boyle asks some questions about this.BCD Travel names it's new CEO - Stephan Baars (De) - who will take over from John Snyder on 1 July.Lufthansa is testing facial recognition at Berlin airport, in lieu of boarding passes.Air Canada teams up with flydubai.This post by PaxExAero provides some interesting insights into one aspect of airline retailing, in-flight entertainment by easyJet.People want to do more business meetings, and blended travel keeps growing.Investment news:- Worldia, a B2B2C connected-trip company, raised €25 million in Series B funding.IBS Software sees Apax fund buy Blackstone's minority shares for $450M.You can subscribe to this podcast by searching 'BusinessTravel360' on Google Podcast, Apple Podcast, iHeart, Pandora, Spotify, Alexa or your favorite podcast player.This podcast was created, edited and distributed by BusinessTravel360.  Be sure to sign up for regular updates at BusinessTravel360.com - Enjoy!Support the show

What's good, ParaPower Mappers? It's another installment of “The Secret History of MasSUSchusetts” & the return to our “Historical Materia Ultima” miniseries, as we draw the story of John Winthrop the Younger's Rosicrucian alchemical plantation project to a close.  Many thanks to @MKstorie (Twitter) for the very chill, glyph-y episode artwork! Give 'em a follow, y'all. Can you spy the Monas Hieroglyphica? Songs: | Franz Liszt - "Hungarian Rhapsody #2" |  | X - "Nausea" |  | The Cowboy Junkies - "Sir Francis Bacon at the Net" |  This episode includes:  A comprehensive list of the various alchemists & occultists who were part of the collegium that orbited Winthrop Jr.; more colonial prospecting for precious minerals (this time the Brewsters & Endecotts); alchemical economic development schemes, like Winthrop's saltpeter manufacturing plant; the alchemist Johann Glauber's sodium nitrate propagandizing & claim that it is the “universal menstruum”; copies of Agrippa's Occult Philosophy making the rounds in NE; the fact that French's translation was dedicated to Robert Child; the Paracelsian prophecy of the alchemical messiah Elias Arista; Winthrop's involvement in the founding of Yale; Brewster's alchemical secrets; Winthrop the Younger's alchemedical cures, including Rubila, which his descendants marketed the shit out of; an Oliver Wendell Holmes sighting; the miserableness of frontier medical practices, which primarily involved purging (puke & shit); humoral theory and its correspondences w/ the Aristotelian elements; the hype for pansophia highlighting the Enlightenment view of the world as interlocking systems; pansophia & alchemy's impact on the emergence of capitalism; alchemical secrecy = profit motive; other metallurgical cures; a personal favorite—the “weapon salve”, Sir Kenelm Digby's sympathetic magickal remedy which was supposed to heal wounds over distance thru the application of salves to the weapon that caused the wound (plus the obligatory masturbation jokes LOL); the connection between healing ability, status, & power… …a lot of lists in this one, one being a rundown of known alchemists in colonial New England—Mathers, Bulkeley, Stoughton, Danforth, Ezra Stiles, Hoar, Stiles, Child, Winthrops, etc.—powerful men who were ministers, college presidents, doctors, governors, & magistrates (a couple even sitting on the Court of Oyer & Terminer during the Salem trials); the story of alchemist Samuel Danforth Sr.'s “execution sermon” (supposedly the first ever), which was delivered at the execution of the teenager Benjamin Goad who had been found guilty of bestiality & which Danforth later published as a tract (slimey)... …Winthrop the Younger's status as first colonial member of the Royal Society; the ascent of Charles II; Winthrop's trip to London around the time of his coronation; the coincident charters for the Royal Society, Board of Trade, Council for Plantations, & Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; the Royal Society's empire-building & intelligence-gathering purpose; Winthrop's relationship w/ Benjamin Worsley (former surveyor general of Ireland & alchemist), Lord Brereton, Robert Boyle, Sir Robert Moray, Elias Ashmole, the Hartlib Circle, etc., further explicating the closeness of Rosicrucianism, Freemasonry, & the R.S.; the intersection of espionage, magic, & science in the Society; Boyle's emphasis on the dual exploitation of information for divine knowledge & profit; a new charter for Connecticut; the Royal Society's investment in the Royal African Company (John Locke, F.R.S. a managing member) & the East India Co., showing the Society's role in the triangular trade; the Royal Society's conceptual origins in the Fama Fraternitatis & Francis Bacon's New Atlantis (specifically the symbol of Solomon's House); a note about Society members' interest in technology (evoking John Dee); & lastly, a wonderment about science-fiction-as-magickal-rewriting-of-reality & its connection to R.S.

This week Robert Boyle, born in Ireland in the 17th century was one of the world's great scientists. I'm talking about him with Eoin Gill, Eoin Gill is a director of Calmast STEM Engagement Centre at South East Technological University, who likes Robert Boyle so much he made an entire summer school about him. Boyle was a massive deal in the scientific revolution of the 17th century, and his work laid the groundwork for modern chemistry, a founder of the Royal Society, part of a list of big scientific cheeses like Newton and Kepler who discovered the universe was a mathematical and not just a miraculous place. But for all his science, dabbled in alchemy and sometimes he still just wanted a miracle.

Anna Keay is a historian who specializes in the cultural heritage of Great Britain. As the director of the Landmark Trust, she has overseen the restoration of numerous historical buildings and monuments, while also serving as a prolific author and commentator on the country's architectural and artistic traditions. Her book, The Restless Republic: Britain Without a Crown, was one of Tyler's top picks for 2022. Tyler sat down with Anna to discuss the most plausible scenario where England could've remained a republic in the 17th century, what Robert Boyle learned from Sir William Petty, why some monarchs build palaces and others don't, how renting from the Landmark Trust compares to Airbnb, how her job changes her views on wealth taxes, why neighborhood architecture has declined, how she'd handle the UK's housing shortage, why giving back the Koh-i-Noor would cause more problems than it solves, why British houses have so little storage, the hardest part about living in an 800-year-old house, her favorite John Fowles book, why we should do more to preserve the Scottish Enlightenment, and more. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links, or watch the full video.  Recorded February 23rd, 2023 Other ways to connect Follow us on Twitter and Instagram Follow Tyler on Twitter Follow Anna on Twitter Email us: cowenconvos@mercatus.gmu.edu Learn more about Conversations with Tyler and other Mercatus Center podcasts here.

In the third installment of The Secret History of MasSUSchusetts and the second part of our Historical Materia Ultima miniseries, we continue our mapping of the New England node of the transatlantic Rosicrucian and alchemical brotherhood that initiated the colonization, enslavement, & transmutation of America. The sundry foci of this EP: Slave-owning ministers & congregants of King's Chapel; the Society of the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, the colonizing and plantation-owing arm of the Anglican Church; shitty modified baptismal rites; John Winthrop Jr.'s tutelage of George Starkey; the 17th century obsession with social-reforming “utopias”; Winthrop Jr.'s relationship w/ Jan Comenius; his John Dee fandom and library; his uncle Emmanuel Downing's push for the enslavement of indigenous Americans; John Winthrop Sr.'s bloody rule of MA during the Pequot War and the fact that the Mystic Massacre cleared the land for Winthrop Jr.'s alchemical plantation; John Winthrop Sr.'s membership in the General Court that drafted the MA Body of Liberties, the first legal document in New England, which legalized slavery... ...John Locke's secret Rosicrucian triumvirate w/ Isaac Newton & Robert Boyle, his hypocritical investments in Companies & employment by Councils directly responsible for creating the slavery economy, and the justifications for slavery in his “liberal” political theories; Newton's millenarian interpretations of the Book of Revelation; alchemical & Rosicrucian philosophies reifying social hierarchies... ...the Templar origins of England's Inns of Court barrister society, and the Inner Temple & Gray's Inn's connections to Rosicrucianism through Winthrop Jr. & Francis Bacon (+ the Order of the Pegasus); Hospitallers, fighting monks, and Wat Tyler's Rebellion; Winthrop's education there, and alchemical experiments... ...alchemical ciphers; Winthrop's search for legit Rosicrucians & pilgrimage to Constantinople; Winthrop Jr.'s alchemical economic development of New England, including its first ironworks, salt works, etc.; pansophic & millenarian attempts to convert Native Americans; the divine nature of salt; Winthrop's Eurotrip and a shit ton of alchemists named Johann; Moraien's “universal menstruum” and his beef w/ Descartes; Glauber's salt; animist metallurgical beliefs and spiritual alchemical allegories that Winthrop used to justify Native conversion & colonization; thiccccccc deposits of limonite; makin' money in the Enlightenment; Winthrop's connection to slave-trading Gov. Endecott... ...the saga of Thomas Morton; John Adams, J. Quincy Adams, & Thomas Jefferson's interest in Morton; Morton's arms-trading with local Ninnimissinuok; his friendly relations w/ his indigenous neighbors; his matriculation in the Inns of Court; work on behalf of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, anti-Puritan royalist; his frontier rager & the infamous maypole; a comparative religious & literary analysis of Hawthorne's “The May-pole at Merry Mount” by way of J.G. Frazer's The Golden Bough; May Day, Lord of Misrule, Beltane, wicker men; the Lord & Lady of the May; the quasi-Oedipal story of Attis & Cybele; Bacchanalia; Saturnalia; dick sacrifices; Morton's poem to Hymen; Midsummer (& Midsommar); St. John's Eve; Myles Standish's attack on Merry Mount; Morton's arrest and marooning on the Isle of Shoals; and much more. A list of all the texts, research papers, & articles referenced will be uploaded w/ notes on Substack or Patreon at a later date. Songs:  | Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel ~ “White, White Dove” | | The Wizard of Oz ~ “Ding-Dong! The Witch is Dead” | | Nina Simone ~ “Four Women” | | Barney & Friends ~ “John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt” | | Bobby Krlic (aka The Haxan Cloak) ~ Midsommar (Mushrooms & The Maypole Queen Dance Scene) | | Leonard Cohen ~ “Dress Rehearsal Rag” |

A local non-profit wants your no longer needed and gently used mattress, box springs, sofa, dining room table and other essential items. We talk to Robert Boyle, Executive Director of the Furniture Bank of Southeastern Michigan, about the high demand for furniture donations to help local families in need. He shares how your tax-deductible donation helps others have a stable and comfortable home and how your furniture can be picked up for free or for a small fee professional movers can remove donated items for you.

The second episode of ParaPower Mapping continues our investigation of The Secret History of MasSUSchusetts and kicks off a mini-series within the series, throughout which we will map the New England node of a transatlantic alchemical & Rosicrucian brotherhood that set the English colonization of America in motion, founded plantations & settlements patterned after alchemical "utopian" visions, and pushed for the colonies to institute slavery in the service of "economic development". Episode II includes: Protestant eschatological schemes of world domination; accompanying philosophies such as millenarianism and pansophism; the life of Jan Comenius; some basic Christian alchemical terminology; the archwizard John Dee, his plans for a Protestant British global empire, his Arthurian justifications for colonizing the New World, his influence on American alchemists like John Winthrop Jr., & his belief that his work was inspired by angels (perhaps he was wrong… and he was conversing with demons instead); the relationship between Francis Bacon & John Dee and their influence on Rosicrucianism; a discussion of the Rosicrucian manifestos Fama Fraternitatis, Confessio, & The Chymical Wedding; the Invisible College/ Royal Society; a ton of Rosicrucian Enlightenment figures, such as Isaac Newton, Elias Ashmole, Michael Maier, Samuel Hartlib & the Hartlib Circle, Sir Walter Raleigh, Edmund Spenser, Robert Boyle, Robert Fludd; the introduction of American alchemists like John Winthrop the Younger & George Starkey; the odyssey of Scottish alchemist Alexander Seton, who toured Europe performing the transmutation of metals into gold; the Rosicrucian royals Frederick & Elizabeth of Bohemia and their brief reign prior to the Thirty Years War; connections between Rosicrucianism and speculative Scottish Freemasonry; the Ancient & Mystical Order Rosæ Crucis (AMORC); a possible voyage to Massachusetts by the Scottish Sinclair family (who are connected to the Templars, Rosicrucianism, & Freemasonry) and a Venetian prince named Zeno; Puritan and Protestant practitioners of Cabala, alchemy, and magic; the prevalence of the occult in colonial New England and Puritan interpretations of Biblical magic; various judges of the Court of Oyer & Terminer from the Salem Trials & their connections to alchemy & witches; Col. Israel Stoughton, father-in-law of alchemist George Starkey, and his involvement in the Pequot War and the enslavement of Native Americans and connections to the slave-trading Endecott family; Cotton Mather's interests in astrology, bibliomancy, and Cabala; the Harvard alchemical curriculum and various Ivy League practitioners of alchemy; the Pequot War; John Winthrop Jr.'s alchemical plantation in Connecticut; a psychogeographic history of King's Chapel and the King's Chapel Burying Ground; the podcaster's uncanny experience photographing the tombstone of the Winthrop family tomb in the King's Chapel Burying Ground and a blue orb appearing; evidence from Levenda for a Massachusetts curse; the beginnings of a thesis of the alchemical transmutation of America into a land of unbridled profits for the capitalist ruling elite; etc.  Some of the texts cited in this episode:  | Dame Frances Yates - The Rosicrucian Enlightenment & The Occult in the Elizabethan Age | | Peter Levenda - Sinister Forces: A Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft | | Jason Louv - John Dee and the Empire of Angels | | Steven Sora - Rosicrucian America | | D. Michael Quinn - Early Mormonism and the Magic World View | | Lewis Putnam Turco - Satan's Scourge: A Narrative of the Age of Witchcraft in England & New England | | Walter H. Woodward - Prospero's America: John Winthrop Jr., Alchemy, and the Creation of New England Culture | Songs: | XTC - Human Alchemy | | Wheel of Fortune (Australia) - Theme from 1981 - 1985 | | Boldy James (Prod. Alchemist) - Pinto | | The Sugarcubes - Dear Plastic | | Cathedral - Alchemist of Sorrow |

We give consent to those who govern us, but after that, they can kinda just do whatever they want except kill us. At least, according to the 17th century political theorist Thomas Hobbes! In this episode, we break down all of Hobbes' political theories, particularly how his nominalism relates to politics, the role of the sovereign, the state of human nature, and whether he ever answers the question of what one can do against a wicked ruler. We also look at a bad review of our content claiming that we are faux mouthpieces of right wing propaganda, which is clearly untrue, as we really are mouthpieces of right wing propaganda! There's nothing faux about us! We also begin a new t-shirt giveaway for Seasons 3 and 4, so listen to the end of the episode or follow us on Twitter @UlmtdOpinions for more information!

Historian of science Dr. Ted Davis unpacks legendary myths in the history of religion and science. An advisor to the Smithsonian and Museum of the Bible, Ted provides a sneak peek into our upcoming Science and Scripture exhibition along with insights on flat earth theory, the Medieval Church and science in the Middle Ages, Copernicus, the Scientific Revolution, Robert Boyle, Johannes Kepler, and much more.

From London Temporada 28: El viaje a La Luz del Misterio, en London Radio World, de esta semana, nos lleva en primer lugar a conocer qué era el Colegio Invisible. A mediados de la década de 1640, un grupo de filósofos naturales comenzaron a reunirse en Inglaterra para promover el conocimiento del mundo natural a través de la observación y la experimentación. El grupo incluía filósofos naturales (hoy llamados científicos) como Robert Boyle -considerado como el primer químico moderno- y Robert Hooke -el primero en visualizar un microorganismo-, y al arquitecto Christopher Wren, también anatomista, astrónomo, geómetra y matemático-físico. Luego hacemos un pequeño homenaje para recordar a Colin Bloy. Fue un sanador británico, pionero en la investigación de los círculos de la Campiña Inglesa. Nos dejó en el año 2004 y fue autor de diversos libros sobre el tema, ha destacado por su intenso trabajo en el campo de la sanación espiritual, la Qabbalah, las líneas telúricas de Gaia, los Templarios y los mundos sutiles son algunos de los conceptos frecuente e íntimamente relacionados por este investigador y sanador, con las esferas de actuación de la sanación espiritual, a través de los arquetipos. En la siguiente entrevista que realizabamos en La Luz del Misterio en el año 1994, desvela algunas de las bases sutiles que impregnan esta práctica espiritual. La sanación espiritual se nutre de fundamentos sutiles que pueden curar a las personas, las ciudades, a los países e incluso hasta el planeta en general. Además de la hablar de los misteriosos círculos de la Campiña Inglesa. Y terminaremos conociendo algunos enigmas y recomendaciones para viajar a las Islas Galápagos de la mano del aventurero y experto, Ángel Crespo. Síguenos a través de: edenex.es ZTR Radio.online London Radio World En Ivoox Itunes Spotify YouTube Si deseas apoyarnos: https://www.ivoox.com/ajx-apoyar_i1_support_29070_1.html SI DESEAS SALUDARNOS DESDE CUALQUIER PUNTO DEL PLANTA PUEDES HACERLO A TRAVÉS DE NUESTRO WHATSAPP 00 44 7378 880037 Más información: laluzdelmisterioradio.blogspot.com laluzdelmisterio@gmail.com #colinbloy #sanacionespiritual #circuloscampiñainglesa #colegioinvisible #charlesdarwin #islasgalápagos #angelcrespo

From London Temporada 28: El viaje a La Luz del Misterio, en London Radio World, de esta semana, nos lleva en primer lugar a conocer qué era el Colegio Invisible. A mediados de la década de 1640, un grupo de filósofos naturales comenzaron a reunirse en Inglaterra para promover el conocimiento del mundo natural a través de la observación y la experimentación. El grupo incluía filósofos naturales (hoy llamados científicos) como Robert Boyle -considerado como el primer químico moderno- y Robert Hooke -el primero en visualizar un microorganismo-, y al arquitecto Christopher Wren, también anatomista, astrónomo, geómetra y matemático-físico. Luego hacemos un pequeño homenaje para recordar a Colin Bloy. Fue un sanador británico, pionero en la investigación de los círculos de la Campiña Inglesa. Nos dejó en el año 2004 y fue autor de diversos libros sobre el tema, ha destacado por su intenso trabajo en el campo de la sanación espiritual, la Qabbalah, las líneas telúricas de Gaia, los Templarios y los mundos sutiles son algunos de los conceptos frecuente e íntimamente relacionados por este investigador y sanador, con las esferas de actuación de la sanación espiritual, a través de los arquetipos. En la siguiente entrevista que realizabamos en La Luz del Misterio en el año 1994, desvela algunas de las bases sutiles que impregnan esta práctica espiritual. La sanación espiritual se nutre de fundamentos sutiles que pueden curar a las personas, las ciudades, a los países e incluso hasta el planeta en general. Además de la hablar de los misteriosos círculos de la Campiña Inglesa. Y terminaremos conociendo algunos enigmas y recomendaciones para viajar a las Islas Galápagos de la mano del aventurero y experto, Ángel Crespo. Síguenos a través de: edenex.es ZTR Radio.online London Radio World En Ivoox Itunes Spotify YouTube Si deseas apoyarnos: https://www.ivoox.com/ajx-apoyar_i1_support_29070_1.html SI DESEAS SALUDARNOS DESDE CUALQUIER PUNTO DEL PLANTA PUEDES HACERLO A TRAVÉS DE NUESTRO WHATSAPP 00 44 7378 880037 Más información: laluzdelmisterioradio.blogspot.com laluzdelmisterio@gmail.com #colinbloy #sanacionespiritual #circuloscampiñainglesa #colegioinvisible #charlesdarwin #islasgalápagos #angelcrespo

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: AI-assisted list of ten concrete alignment things to do right now, published by Luke H Miles on September 7, 2022 on The AI Alignment Forum. Background So I'm thinking that AI-assisted summarization, math, bug-finding in code, and logical-error finding in writing is at a point where it is quite useful, if we can improve the tooling/integration a little bit. In code I've found it helpful to comment out some lines and write // WRONG: above them and // FIXED VERSION: below them then let copilot try a few things. For writing you could take a paragraph excerpt and write a critique post: "John Smith wrote '...' This immediately strikes me as absurd because" Imagine you were doing chemistry research in uh 1650 and had direct immediate written feedback from uh Robert Boyle on directions to pursue, dead ends, errors, etc except that 75% of the time he says something backwards or is just pattern matching. I think you might still do much better work than you would've without noisy-Boyle. I'm not aware of anyone trying to actually use LLMs for meaningful writing/thinking assistance so I decided to try. I wrote the below text in about an hour. Consider this merely a demonstration that you can get a decent amount of semi-meaningful content in the right direction quite quickly. It's rare you can expect that much from someone. List Rob Bensinger gave this suggestion in a comment: I think that this is a really good exercise that more people should try: Imagine that you're running a project yourself that's developing AGI first, in real life. Imagine that you are personally responsible for figuring out how to make the thing go well. Yes, maybe you're not the perfect person for the job; that's a sunk cost. Just think about what specific things you would actually do to make things go well, what things you'd want to do to prepare 2 years or 6 years in advance, etc. Try to think your way into near-mode with regard to AGI development, without thereby assuming (without justification) that it must all be very normal just because it's near. Be able to visualize it near-mode and weird/novel. If it helps, start by trying to adopt a near-mode, pragmatic, gearsy mindset toward the weirdest realistic/plausible hypothesis first, then progress to the less-weird possibilities. I took the above prompt together with below underlined text and used BLOOM to generate ten concrete things to do right now. For each item, I generated three completions and picked my favorite one then did bit of editing. I had trouble editing the math into something reasonable so consider it creative inspiration. (Repeat, my writing / prompting is underlined and AI completion is not:) Here, I will try it right now. I'm in charge of OpenMind and it is clear from our rate of progress that we will have AGI in less than 24 months. It's been decided that we will build it and deploy it but I have some influence on additional efforts we can take to reduce the risk. Here's ten things I would try: For starters, I would try to test each new model in an isolated (ie not internet connected) environment with constrained IO channels for a month before deploying it. I would also use any and all interpretability methods available to inspect the model and try to predict off-distribution behavior. If I had the sway, I might run a red-team blue-team contest to see how good we are at predicting off-distribution. There are some old posts about safety implications of on-policy vs off-policy RL that I read but did not fully digest. I would go back and absorb those more fully and see if the distinction can be adapted to our use case. (Off-policy was much better in some ways if I recall correctly) I'm pretty strongly in favor of the near miss principle: if an adversary or an incompetent user almost succeeds in exploiting the system, then we should log t...

On this ID the Future from the vault, philosopher of science Paul Nelson concludes his talk with host Andrew McDiarmid on what it takes to converse effectively with scientists who are trapped in a naturalistic parabola — that is, researchers who draw their conclusions from naturalism's authority rather than following the evidence wherever it leads. Nelson urges us to keep the third party in the conversation: nature herself. We listen to nature through experiment, he says, and warns against the message from scientists such as CalTech's Sean Carroll who have suggested that testing is “overrated.” If we listen and test, nature can keep revealing herself in surprising ways, says Nelson, which is what makes science so fun. Source

Rashes, a runny nose and weird poos are all common in babies. Parents are sometimes told these symptoms mean their baby is allergic to cows milk and are prescribed low allergy formula or advised to avoid dairy if they are breastfeeding. Marijke Peters cut dairy out of her diet to try and help the gut problems her new baby Eva was having - but it made no difference and she's still trying to find out why she has blood in her poo. Dr Robert Boyle sees babies with allergies in his clinic at St Mary's hospital in London. Those with a cows' milk protein allergy can safely drink low-allergy formula milk - but Dr Boyle thinks that more than the expected 1% of babies are being diagnosed with the allergy. So he looked at the number of prescriptions for these specialised formula milks dispensed in the UK, Norway and Australia. In the UK he says that ten times the number you'd expect to see are prescribed. Professor Paula Moynihan who's Director of Food and Health at the University of Adelaide says these formula milks could pose a risk to children's teeth because they contain different sugars than the type found in milk - which bacteria in the mouth can feed on, making it more acidic and potentially damaging the teeth. She says that any babies given the dairy-free formulas should have their teeth brushed twice a day with a fluoride toothpaste and start seeing a dentist as soon as the first tooth appears. Dr Margaret McCartney explains how long-Covid patients are going to extraordinary lengths to try unproven treatments in the hope that they will alleviate their symptoms. We hear how an investigation by the British Medical Journal uncovered how a special type of blood filtering called apheresis and hyperbaric oxygen therapy - costing thousands of pounds - are offered to long-Covid patients in European clinics but there is no evidence that they will help them. Margaret recommends instead signing up for NHS trials investigating potential treatments in a regulated way. Gout is incredibly painful but many adults diagnosed with the condition aren't taking the recommended medication a year after they were told they had it. Dr Mark Russell from Kings College hospital in London found that only a third of people with gout were taking medication to help lower urate levels in their blood which can turn into crystals in the joints and organs like the kidneys if it is too high.

John W. Huffman kimdir? John William Huffman (1932-2022), günümüzde sentetik sokak ilaçlarının en sık kullanılan formlarından biri olan Sentetik kannabinoidleri ilk bulan organik kimya profesörüydü. 1984'ten başlayarak, Huffman ve arkadaşları, vücuttaki endokannabinoid reseptörlerini hedef alan bir ilaç yapma amacıyla delta-9-tetrahidrokanabinol (THC) özelliklerine sahip kannabinoid bileşikleri sentezlemeye başladı. Yirmi yıl boyunca Huffman ve ekibi, endokannabinoidler ve kannabinoid reseptörleri için 400'den fazla sentetik kannabinoid bileşiği geliştirdi. Huffman'ın sentezlediği iki sentetik kannabinoid bileşiği (JWH-018 ve JWH-022) esrar alternatifi olarak satılan yasadışı sokak ilaçlarında (K2 ve Spice) ilk kez Almanya'da 2004 yılında saptandı. Huffman insan vücudundaki ve beynindeki fizyolojik kannabinoid kontrol sisteminin daha iyi anlaşılmasını ve sağlık ve hastalıkta bu doğal düzenleyici mekanizmayı aydınlanmasını sağlayan çok değerli sentetik kannabinoid araştırma sonuçlarını geride bırakarak 14 Mayıs 2022'de öldü. Onu kendi sözleriyle bir kez daha analım “…Sanırım bu az çok kaçınılmaz bir şeydi. İnsanların bu şeyi (Sentetik kannabinodileri) kullanacak kadar aptal olması beni rahatsız ediyor…”(John William Huffman)​1​ Nedir bu sokak ilaçları? Bir sağlık sorununu tedavi amacı dışında tıbbi olmayan nedenlerle sıklıkla “keyif almak” ve/veya "gerçeklik algısından kopmak" için kullanılan ve sürekli kullanımı sorasında beyin ve bedende hasar ile sonuçlanan bağımlılık yapıcı doğal ya da sentetik kimyasal maddelerdir. Aslında bunlar hepimizin bildiği “Uyuşturucu Maddeler” dir. Doğal ve Sentetik Bağımlılık yapıcı maddeler tarihin eski çağlarından beri bilinmekte ve gerek tıbbi gerek keyif amaçlı kullanılmaktaydı. Ancak o zamanlar bu maddeler tamamen doğaldı ve içerikleri doğadaki bitkilerin içindeki yoğunlukları kadardı. Örneğin... Koka bitkisi 16. ve 17. Yüzyıllarda Güney Amerika'dan Avrupa'ya taşındı; 1860 da Alman kimyager Albert Nieman bu bitkiden Koka maddesini izole etti ve kokanın dilinde uyuşma yaptığını fark etti. Avusturyalı oftalmolog Carl Koller de ilk kez bir katarakt ameliyatında lokal anestetik olarak kullandı. Sigmond Freud, 1884 yılında 28 yaşındayken, “bu büyülü maddeye övgü şarkısı” olarak tanımladığı “Uber Coca” başlıklı bir makale yazdı ve sonraki 12 yıl boyunca kendi kokain bağımlılığı ile mücadele etti. Bir başka örnek, Afyon bitkisi de benzer yıllarda Anadolu'dan Avrupa' ya taşındı; 1650'de İngiliz eczacı Robert Boyle afyon bitkisi üzerinde deneyler yaptı, ancak elde ettiği maddeyi ayrıştıramadı. Alman kimyager Friedrich Sertürner, 1817 yılında bu maddeyi izole etti ve adına mitolojide uyku tanrısı Hypnos'un babası olan düşler tanrısı Morpheus'un adını verdi: Morphium. Sonraki yıllarda hem koka ve hem de morfin toplumda hayatı kolaylaştıran, güzelleştiren maddeler olarak pazarlandılar örneğin 1903 yılına kadar Coca-Cola içinde doğal koka maddesi bulunmaktaydı. Toplumda gitgide artan talep doğal kaynaklar ile karşılanamayınca benzer etkili türevleri için sentetik üretim yarışı başladı. 1874 yılında C. R. Alder Wright morfinden eroini (diamorfin) sentezledi. 1887'de Rumen kimyager Lazăr Edeleanu amfetamin'i sentezlendi. Ancak 20. Yüzyılın başlarında üretim ve tüketim artışıyla bağımlılık yan etkilerinin toplumlardaki yıkıcı etkisinin ortaya çıkmaya başlaması ile hemen tüm dünyada bu maddelerin üretimi, saklanması, satışı yasal kısıtlamalar altına alındı ve serbest kullanımı yasadışı oldu. Türkiye'de de 1933'de çıkarılan "2313 sayılı Uyuşturucu Maddelerin Murakabesi Hakkında Kanun" kısmi değişikliklerle hala yürürlüktedir. Bağımlılık yapıcı maddelere Türkçe'mizde atfedilen “uyuşturucu madde” terimi de geçmişte bağımlılık yan etkisi göz ardı edilerek kullanıldığı tıbbi işlemlerdeki lokal anestezi ve uyuşturucu etkisi nedeniyledir. Yasaklanmalarına rağmen talebin her geçen yıl artarak devam etmesi, bu maddelerin kaçak laboratuvarlarda üretilmesi ve sokaklard...

Episode: 3275 Katherine Boyle Jones, a Sister of the Scientific Revolution.  Today, a sister of the Scientific Revolution.

Fiddler's Journey to the Big Screen (2022) captures a bygone era of early television and blockbuster Hollywood musicals. It also shines a light on the incredible career of fellow filmmaker Norman Jewison.  Jewison had critical success over more than three decades, but his crowning achievement might be bringing the famous musical Fiddler on the Roof to the big screen. Legendary film critic Pauline Kael called Fiddler the most powerful movie musical ever made.  Award-winning and Oscar nominated filmmaker Daniel Raim, the director of Fiddler's Journey to the Big Screen, joins us to share the unlikely story behind this iconic American film. Watch the interview at https://factualamerica.com/fiddler-on-the-roof “Like so many millions of people who learn about Jewish culture and history through “Fiddler on the Roof,” I was completely captivated by the music, the story and the production design.” - Daniel Raim Time Stamps: 00:00 - The trailer for Fiddler's Journey to the Big Screen.03:45 - What it's about and where you can watch the film.05:43 - The cultural phenomenon of the movie muscal Fiddler on the Roof.07:45 - What makes the story so relatable to people. 10:20 - Who Norman Jewison was and what made his films so powerful.13:19 - The collaboration of musicians behind Fiddler on the Roof. 16:38 - The importance of set design in the film.18:15 - The extent of Robert Boyle's attention to detail.24:19 - Norman Jewison's skill at picking actors and making them feel comfortable.28:43 - What inspired Daniel to create a documentary about the iconic film. 31:54 - The theatrical production of Fiddler on the Roof and the key differences it has to the original.36:09 - How Daniel gained access to the archival footage of Norman directing.41:00 - Different short documentaries Daniel has made and the feature documentary he is now working on. Resources: Fiddler's Journey to the Big Screen (2022) Fiddler on the Roof (1971) In the Heat of the Night (1967) Moonstruck (1987) Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) Harold and Lillian: A Hollywood Love Story (2015) Connect with Daniel Raim: WebsiteIMDb Connect with Factual America: Facebook Instagram Twitter Connect with Matthew Sherwood: Facebook LinkedIn Twitter More From Factual America: HBO's Revolution Rent: Broadway in Cuba I Am Here: The Most Inspirational Holocaust Survivor Steve McQueen: The Lost Formula 1 Movie

Robert Boyle claimed that divine revelation was necessary to do science and philosophy properly but also that the Bible must be used with care so that it is not read overly literally but also not simply relegated allegorical interpretation.

Episode 150 – Truth and Proof – Part 10 – An Inescapable God Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known… their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world. Psalm 19,verses 1 through 4, New Living Translation ******** Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you as today we conclude our series that we’ve called “Truth and Proof.” This series is all about helping our listeners think carefully about their faith. The Christian faith is not a belief system that requires its followers to abandon their brains when they surrender their hearts to Jesus. So, for the past several episodes we’ve been focusing on the logic, reason, and evidence that demonstrates that placing your faith in the God of the Bible is not only reasonable – it would actually be unreasonable to do otherwise. And today to help us complete our series we have RD Fierro back in the studio. RD is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books. RD, the world around us today clamors that we must choose between our Christian faith or science. But that demand is unreasonable isn’t it? RD: Well, before we get into our discussion for today I’d like to thank all the people who are joining us here today. Like many of our series on Anchored by Truth this “Truth and Proof” series has been intellectually challenging so we know that anyone who has listened to any of the episodes are truly serious about their Christian faith. And to answer your question, yes, it is unreasonable to ask a Christian to choose between faith and science because science actually helps demonstrate the validity of the Christian faith and worldview. And we’re certainly not the first people to point that out. For instance, in 1991 Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson wrote a book called Darwin on Trial. Johnson’s book was so compelling that the debate about design in nature and a supernatural Designer was forever changed. Johnson wrote “In brief, what makes me a ‘critic of evolution’ is that I distinguish between naturalistic philosophy and empirical science, and oppose the former when it comes cloaked in the authority of the latter.” VK: So, what Johnson is pointing out is that empirical science does not, and should not be equated with, philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is basically the idea that the only things that we can know to exist are those of the material universe. As such, philosophical naturalism rejects any claims that anything supernatural, including God, exists. But, as we have pointed out during this series, this anti-supernatural bias flies in the face of logic, reason, and evidence. It is very clear from science that the material universe does not and cannot explain its own existence. Empirical observations reveal that the universe is one giant effect – and effects need causes. RD: Exactly. But we need to point something out. The logic and reason behind the “science has proved that God doesn’t exist” is just sad but wrong but the marketing of that very bad idea has been brilliant. VK: I’ve had a few products like that through the years. The commercials were brilliant. The products were – well, let’s just be charitable and say they didn’t live up to the promises. RD: Same thing is true with the idea that “science disproves God” or its slightly better dressed cousin “faith in God is ok as long as you don’t insist it’s true.” They’re bad ideas, bad logic, and bad science but, as in so many cases, bad products that are marketed effectively will be embraced by many people. And all we have to do is look around us to see that’s what’s happened in the faith vs. science debate. The debate itself is completely unnecessary because reason and science because Christianity is perfectly consistent with real science and the founders of many of the major branches of modern science were devout Christians such as Johann Kepler who articulated the major laws of planetary motion and Robert Boyle who is regarded as the first modern chemist and the founder of modern chemistry. And Carolus Linnaeus who is credited with establishing the modern taxonomic system was also a Biblical creationist. VK: This false dichotomy that is so popular in modern entertainment and culture is one of the reasons we wanted to do a series on what is often termed “apologetics.” Apologetics does not mean anyone is apologizing for being a Christian. The term comes from a Greek word meaning “to give a defense” and that’s what Christian apologetics does – provides a reasoned defense for the truth of Christianity. And while even ardent Christian apologists will acknowledge that good apologetics may not necessarily change someone’s heart, good apologetics is a form of “pre-evangelism.” Good apologetics will hopefully remove barriers for some people. So, what do you want to cover as we wrap up this “Truth and Proof” series? RD: I’d like to examine some of the broad – but fallacious - assertions that are often tossed about that, too often, become barriers between people and accepting the truth of Christianity. VK: Then we should probably start with the assertion you hear so often. “There is no such thing as absolute truth.” How would you respond to someone who says that? RD: I’d ask them whether their assertion was “absolutely true.” The person who says that there is no such thing as absolute truth is claiming that there is no such thing as absolute truth while wanting you to accept their claim as being absolutely true. VK: In other words they are making a claim that is self-refuting or self-defeating. The same thing is true for all philosophies or claims that deny the existence of truth. Broadly speaking there are four philosophies that deny the existence of absolute truth: agnosticism, relativism, skepticism, and post-modernism. RD: But each of them is self-defeating. Each fails its own central premise. For instance the skeptic says we must doubt the existence of absolute truth – but does not doubt the absoluteness of their own position. Said differently, the skeptic is certain about doubt. The relativist tries to say “all truth is relative” but makes their claim as if the claim were absolutely true. All attempts to deny the existence of absolute truth are self-defeating. VK: How would you respond to the claim that “science has proven that there is no God?” RD: Well, first I would ask them to go talk to the previous questioner because the statement “science has proven there is no God” is an absolute truth claim. But second, I would ask which discipline within science has demonstrated that God doesn’t exist and then listen for their answer. VK: Then they might say that the Big Bang Theory has eliminated the need for God to be the Creator of the universe. RD: They might – but if they did so they have missed the most fundamental implication of the Big Bang. VK: Which is? RD: If the Big Bang Theory is true then it necessarily means that the universe had a beginning. Anything that has a beginning – or an end for that matter - cannot be eternal which means another entity must have caused the universe to come into being. And given how big and complex the universe is the cause for the universe would have to be a Being like the God of the Bible – infinite in power, knowledge, and presence. VK: Then they might say that there are other theories out there that explain how the universe can have existence but still without the need for a God. There are ideas such as a rebounding universe that just goes through endless cycles or the multiverse which postulates an infinite series of universes of which ours is just the one we happen to be in. RD: Again, it’s certain possible to make those kinds of assertions but the biggest problem that they face is that there absolutely no empirical evidence for either of these theories or any of the others that are proffered. For example, let’s take a quick look at the multiverse idea which is an extension of the notion of string theory. Many people may have heard the term “string theory” but most probably have no idea what it actually means. VK: According to one article on the Creation Ministries International website “string theory proposes that [particles] may instead exist as one-dimensional loops or ‘strings’ that cut across or exist in nine spatial … dimensions compared to the three spatial … dimensions we understand and use in relativity theory. Some suggest that these strings exist as higher dimensional objects called branes (membrane-like structures) that act like vibrating flat sheets or tubes etc. These ideas can even be extended to support the idea of multi-universes coexisting with our own, and that our own universe (the big bang) was the result of the collision of two of these branes in some higher-dimensional hyperspace. The goal is to get the universe to create itself—that way, no first cause would be needed, hence no God.” RD: Note the last sentence from the portion you just read. The goal of all these amendments to the Big Bang Theory – again, none of which have any scientific, empirical support – is to avoid the straightforward conclusion that if the universe did come into being because of a “big bang” it means the universe is not eternal and therefore needs a Creator. So, to avoid that conclusion scientists will engage in their own version of myth making – concocting these fascinating alternatives to God’s creative activity that make for great science fiction movies but completely fail in the real world. VK: And some scientists have been willing to admit that they do so. Harvard evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin wrote: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failures to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” RD: It’s really important to note that the goal of what Lewontin has called “just-so stories” is to keep that Divine Foot out of the door. Lewontin knows that the moment you acknowledge that science not only doesn’t have to exclude God – but in fact points out the need for a creative, Necessary Being – the cat is out of the bag. The point of all this is that even if the currently favored explanation for the origin of the universe, the Big Bang Theory, were true it still doesn’t avoid the conclusion that there is a God. The big bang would mean the universe had a beginning in space and time and that in turn means something or Someone must have caused it. By the way some of this discussion might give the impression that I am somehow “anti-science.” But that’s nonsense. I was trained as an engineer and I have a great appreciation for all benefits that science has conferred on our modern world. But it would be fair to say that just because I trust science that doesn’t mean I will uncritically accept the pronouncements of all who call themselves scientists. VK: That would be a dangerous bumper sticker. “I trust the science. It’s the scientists I doubt.” Well, someone might say that even if science and some scientists agree that there is a God that that doesn’t mean that God is the God of the Bible. What would you say then? RD: I’d say I agree. We can know from logic, reason, evidence, and science that God exists – but we can only know a limited amount about his attributes and character from general revelation. To know more we need God’s special revelation and we get that from the Bible. So, to know whether the Bible is the word of God we need to examine its attributes and see whether the claim can be trusted. Here at Anchored by Truth we believe that any book that makes the claim to be the word of God would have to meet two criteria. First, the book would have to be consistent with what we know of the physical universe and the history of the world. Second, the book would have to provide evidence of supernatural origin. VK: As long time Anchored by Truth listeners know we believe that there are four lines of evidence that demonstrate that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. First, the Bible is historically reliable. Second, the Bible displays a remarkable unity for a book that was composed by over 3 dozen human authors who wrote over a span of 1,500 years. Third, the Bible gives evidence of supernatural origin especially through a large body of fulfilled prophecy. And the 4th line of evidence is that the Bible has resulted in an untold number of lives that have been positively changed by its transcendent message. RD: Exactly right. For shorthand I call those lines of evidence reliable history, remarkable unity, fulfilled prophecy, and redeemed destinies. And that’s what we focus on continuously. In fact, as far as I know, Anchored by Truth, is the only radio show I know that focuses exclusively on demonstrating the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of scripture. VK: So, if someone wants to know whether the Bible is historically reliable we could point them to our “Facts in Acts” series or our series on David and Goliath. Some people think that a story about a short, teenage boy killing a 9 foot tall trained soldier must be a fable or myth - but we provide evidence from history and science that show the story is historically reasonable. RD: And we have Anchored by Truth series on the remarkable unity of scripture such as our series on miracles and “15 critical scriptures.” And we have several series on the large body of fulfilled prophecy that the Bible contains including a series on the book of Daniel, one on the role of the prophets, and an entire show on what may be the most remarkable prophecy in the Bible – Daniel’s so-called 70 weeks prophecy. We also do interview shows from time to time with people whose lives have been changed by the Bible. In some cases the changes have been dramatic. One gentleman we interviewed Armando “Mondy” Flores had his life changed by one specific scripture. VK: But only after his wife and her family had been praying for him for 19 years. RD: Yes. A remarkable example of how God used a faithful wife and His word to covert one more sinner. But once Mondy was converted, like Paul, Mondy began testifying to the grace he’d received. He was a senior executive in a Fortune 500 corporation and the day after he received Christ he was in the corporate HQ testifying to his salvation. Just about all of our episodes of Anchored by Truth are available from our website crystalseabooks.com. So, when listeners get the question about how we can be sure that the true God is the God of the Bible that website can be an invaluable resource in helping people to answer the question intelligently. VK: The irresistible conclusion from the evidence is that the Bible is exactly what it claims itself to be – the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. RD: Right. You know, as we mentioned in one of the episodes in this “Truth and Proof” series, biochemist, atheist, and co-discoverer of DNA, the late Francis Crick, began studying biochemistry in the 1940’s as a way to disprove the existence of God. But, in fact, what Crick discovered was that there was an irreducibly complex information system at the heart of all life. In effect Crick demonstrated the exact opposite of what he intended to. He thought he could show that life didn’t need a creator. What he discovered was that life not only needs a creator – and has one – but also that the Creator has left His fingerprints in every living being. Crick was a phenomenal scientist but he wrong about God. His materialistic presuppositions prevented him from acknowledging the very truth that his own work pointed out. This is such a shame because the ability to derive the truth about God from reason and evidence has eternal consequences. We do Anchored by Truth because we want people to be able to put on the full armor of God to withstand the devil and his worldly allies. And for those who are familiar with Ephesians Chapter 6 they will know that the very first piece of armor Paul mentions is the “belt of truth.” I have heard people say that it is enough to just make sure we know Jesus, but if we don’t know the truth about Jesus and are able to defend it the first person’s faith that is at risk is our own – and close behind it is the faith of our families and friends. VK: Amen. Today as we close we’re going to do something a little different. We usually like to close with a prayer but today we’re going to give our listeners a peek at one portion of Crystal Seas’ upcoming rhymed piece on Genesis – The Genesis Saga. This portion happens to be the 5th section of The Genesis Saga and it’s entitled The Truth in Genesis. We wanted listeners to hear it because it is a form of apologetics but it is done in rhyme which can make it easier for people to absorb the message. As we’ve been talking throughout this series many studies indicate that as many as 75% of the kids raised in a Christian household will abandon their faith when they leave home. And one of the biggest reason they will do is because they won’t be prepared to respond to the world’s lies that we’ve gone over in this episode. Please don’t let that happen to your kids or grandkids. If you don’t protect them by preparing them who will? ---- THE TRUTH IN GENESIS VK: Before we close we’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes in this series or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the New Living Translation) Psalm 19, verses 1 through 4, New Living Translation Is 'string' the next big thing? - creation.com TRUTH IN GENESIS 1. It has been many thousands of years 2. Since the start of creation’s tale. 3. So long ago was light released, 4. Now with legends of origins we’re regaled. 5. Some say that all we can see 6. All we can touch, taste, or feel, 7. Came from nothing and nobody 8. As if such an idea could be real. 9. Some say that the heavens and earth 10. Have always been in existence. 11. They assuredly assert that there is no God 12. And they do so with great persistence. 13. They say that atoms, energy, and space 14. Stretch back into eternity past. 15. They find no place for a Creator who’s good 16. In a cosmos that came from a blast. 17. The laws of physics and chemistry they say 18. Tell us all that we need to know 19. About how bright stars burn in the heavens 20. And provide light throughout the cosmos. 21. But if all that is came from a bang, 22. Where did the bang come from? 23. If no mind or Architect played any part 24. Wouldn’t chaos be all that could come? 25. The universe exhibits order and plan 26. Can design without a Designer spread? 27. And how can living creatures appear and arise 28. From inanimate particles that are dead? 29. The smallest cell holds billions of atoms 30. Organized with exquisite precision. 31. Did all those brilliant molecular machines 32. Come to life with no Mind’s decision? 33. And those who with great vigor contend 34. That dead things gave rise to the living, 35. When faced with those who believe otherwise 36. Often aren’t very forgiving. 37. They tell us we must turn from God 38. And let their explanation of origins speak 39. But it would be easier to trust their claims 40. If from their science, the truth hadn’t leaked. 41. If the universe is protons and electrons 42. And some energy that enables them to link. 43. Then how does this random collection 44. Give them the ability to think? 45. Can random, purposeless matter 46. Give the skill to reason and reflect? 47. Wouldn’t it take an omnipotent Being, 48. Logic with flesh to connect? 49. If they are right, their minds are built 50. Of particles that had no design. 51. So why would any care what their particles dictate, 52. When their particles deny the divine? 53. God created man in His image. 54. Part of that image is free will. 55. If that will’s used to deny the Creator, 56. The serpent’s in the garden still. 57. Man abused Free will and caused the fall 58. As he yielded to foul temptation 59. But God knew all that would come 60. And had prepared for man’s reclamation. 61. In the courts of heaven the Glorious three 62. Had selected a people to save. 63. All men sin and fall short of the goal 64. But there’s no need to lie in the grave. 65. Men and nations, people everywhere 66. The True Son wants your sin to bear 67. He made morning stars, he makes all things new 68. He made all creation, he can surely save you

Episode 148 – Truth and Proof – Part 8 – Purpose and Design Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: That’s the whole story. Here now is my final conclusion: Fear God and obey his commands, for this is everyone’s duty. God will judge us for everything we do, including every secret thing, whether good or bad. Ecclesiastes, Chapter 12, verses 13 and 14, New Living Translation ******** Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you as we continue our series we’ve called “Truth and Proof.” This series is all about helping our listeners think carefully about their faith. Specifically, we want people to understand that the Christian faith is not a belief system that requires its followers to abandon their brains when they surrender their hearts to Jesus. Far from it. Jesus told his followers that they were supposed to love God with all their heart, soul, strength, and mind. Yet, all too often today we are told that we must choose between faith and reason or between faith and science. But that’s a false dichotomy. And today to help us explore the solid foundation of logic and reason that supports Christianity we have RD Fierro in the studio. RD is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books. RD, on Anchored by Truth, we often cover the fact that the world’s demand is not only unnecessary but it is also unreasonable, don’t we? RD: We certainly do and the reason we do is because that demand gets circulated almost continuously in the popular culture and media. And even many Christians are taken in by it. The idea that people must abandon their confidence in logic, reason, and science if they want to be faithful Christians is practically a pillar of every show that purports to discuss issues that pertain to the origin of the world and cosmos. It’s become such a staple of modern philosophy that it serves as a great illustration of the old aphorism that if you tell a lie often enough people will begin to accept the lie as the truth. Our culture has completely lost sight of the fact that some of the greatest minds of the last 2,000 years – including scientists who founded major branches of modern science were devout Christians. Gottfried Leibnitz and Sir Isaac Newton who invented calculus were Christians. So, was Johann Kepler who articulated the major laws of planetary motion. Ditto for Robert Boyle who is regarded as the first modern chemist and the founder of modern chemistry. And Carolus Linnaeus who is credited with establishing the modern taxonomic system was also a Biblical creationist. The list goes on and on. VK: The point is that many people today regard Christians as being almost simple minded. But nothing could be further from the truth. RD: I agree. 10, 20, or 30 years ago we lived in a culture that readily accepted Christianity even if some individuals did not. 50 years ago you would even find some support for the Christian world view taught in grade schools and high schools because the truth of Christianity was widely accepted. But those days are long behind us. Our broader culture is not only not receptive to Christianity, but also it is outright intolerant of it. And some elements of our society are vehemently hostile. We have entered one of those periods of history where Christians can no longer be complacent. The opposition to Christianity enters every home, every day if in no other way through the internet and the so-called mainstream media outlets. Arguments against the validity of Christianity are all around us. If we do not actively prepare to counter them, first within our homes and then in our communities, the fabric of our society will continue to erode. VK: But the good news is that it does not have to be that way, does it? We have the truth on our side. But we must equip ourselves to be able to present that truth. It is not up to us to change anyone’s heart. That’s God’s job. Our job is just to be able to witness to the truth in gentle and respectful ways. RD: Yes. The good news is that the truth is on our side – and that’s what we have been reviewing in this series. We called this series “Truth and Proof” because the first task we undertook was to demonstrate that absolute truth exists. And then we have proceeded to show the lines of reasoning that support the proof of that truth. VK: And many of the ideas that we have been discussing fall within the larger umbrella of what is termed apologetics. Simply put, apologetics is a defense of the Christian faith. And thus far in our series we have gone over two apologetic approaches: a metaphysical approach to apologetics and a cosmological approach to apologetics. And anyone who would like to review those approaches in detail can simply listen to earlier versions of the “Truth and Proof” series on their favorite podcast app. Today’s lesson is the 8th in this series and we anticipate that there will be two more episodes in this series after todays. That will make a total of 10 episodes in the Truth and Proof series. So, today we want to move on to another apologetic approach – the teleological approach. RD: Right. In our last couple of lessons we discussed the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It’s the first of the commonly used arguments, but probably not the one used the most in the media, in books, or in casual conversation. The argument most likely to be used is the Teleological Argument – better known as the argument from “Intelligent Design.” “Teleological” comes from the Greek word telos, meaning “end, or purpose.” “In brief, the teleological argument reasons from design to an intelligent Designer: • All designs imply a designer. • There is great design in the universe. • Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe. In his Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics Norman Geisler put it this way: “Any time we have seen a complex design, we know by previous experience that it came from the mind of a designer. Watches imply watchmakers; buildings imply architects; paintings imply artists; and coded messages imply an intelligent sender. VK: Geisler went on to say, “the greater the design, the greater the designer. Beavers make log dams, but they have never constructed anything like the Golden Gate Bridge. A thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters for millions of years would never produce Hamlet by accident. Shakespeare did it on the first try. The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it.” RD: Well, having written a few things myself I’m not sure if Shakespeare necessarily did it on the first try but it certainly didn’t take him millions, thousands, or hundreds of years. The point is that only an intelligent being can form letters into words, words into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, paragraphs into books, books into libraries. Yet, the complexity of Hamlet is miniscule when compared to the genetic code. The genetic code, which is really the genetic message, contained in one amoeba equals the information in 1,000 sets of encyclopedias. There is no such thing as simple life! We see evidence of incredibly sophisticated and complicated design in the micro-universe of the genetic code, but we also see it in the macro-universe of the solar system, the stars, and the galaxies. VK: There is a principle that is sometimes referred to as the anthropic principle. The Greek word, “anthropos, means human being. The anthropic principle states that the universe was fitted from the very first moment of its existence for the emergence of life in general and human life in particular. If there were even the slightest variation in the conditions of the universe, even to a small degree, no life of any kind would exist. In order for life to be present there is an incredibly restrictive set of demands that must be present in the universe – and they are. All of our empirical observations tell us this. Not only does the scientific evidence point to a beginning of the cosmos, but it points to a very sophisticated high tuning of the universe from the very beginning that makes human life possible. For life to be present today, an incredibly restrictive set of demands must have been present in the early universe. RD: And this evidence of design is well recognized by scientists. Astrophysicist Robert Dicke said “that in fact it may be necessary for the universe to have the enormous size and complexity which modern astronomy has revealed, in order for the earth to be a possible habitation for living beings.” Astronomer Alan Sandage states that “the world is too complicated in all of its parts to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? The more one learns . . . the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some kind of organizing principle – an architect.” Likewise, the mass, the entropy level of the universe, the stability of the proton, and innumerable other things must be just right to make life possible. VK: Even Stephen Hawking who was not a friend of Christianity said “There may only be a small number of laws, which are self-consistent and which lead to complicated beings like ourselves who can ask the question: What is the nature of God?” And Albert Einstein seems to have almost anticipated Hawking’s question when he wrote “The harmony of natural law . . . reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” RD: And writer, broadcaster, professor, “astrobiologist,” cosmologist, and physicist Paul Davies – who typically indicates his religious belief as “undecided” – wrote in 1989, “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. . . . It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. . . . The impression of design is overwhelming.” VK: But understandably and predictably just because the universe contains an abundance of evidence of being designed there are those who don’t accept the testimony of the evidence. The arguments against intelligent design come from those who don’t believe in an intelligent designer. For them the answer to the question of how things came to be as they are is, of course, evolution. One point of Charles Darwin’s work was to establish that random purposeless natural processes can substitute for intelligent design. Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species that he was convinced that natural selection was the main mechanism responsible for the evolution of life from simple forms to complex forms. RD: And writer and Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins begins his book The Blind Watchmaker with the statement “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” His book’s title challenged the work of William Paley (1743-1805) who used the analogy of a watchmaker to support the teleological argument for the existence of God which argues from the evidence of design to the necessity of a designer. Paley built on the arguments of Socrates, Plato, Philo, and Aquinas, and believed that the complexity of the world implies a great designer. Paley studied the physical world for evidence of purpose. He concluded that a designing intelligence was responsible for the features of the natural world, and he identified this intelligence with the God of Christianity. His argument for design was published in 1802 as Natural Theology: Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, and his work remains a foundational pillar of the debate over “Intelligent Design.” VK: Dawkins and Tufts philosopher/sociologist Daniel Dennett are among the most visible, most vocal, and most angry of the atheists who have in the last few decades led an attack on the existence of God. Dawkins’ attitudes are summarized in this statement recorded in the April 9, 1989 New York Times: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane.” Some people have observed that as a scientist Dawkins is mediocre but as an apologist for atheism he is unparalleled. So, that opens up the question why do so many prominent scientists resist and reject God? RD: Simply put, scientists in our day and age have a profound bias toward materialism. In other words in their world view the only thing that exists is matter. Now this is not true of all scientists by any means. There are many fine, competent scientists who are not only outstanding scientists in their fields but also strong Biblical creationists. But, in this case, the exception identifies the rule. And one of the most amazing things about this situation is that science itself, that is the objective pursuit of the acquisition of knowledge about our universe through disciplined study, does not require that they be philosophical materialists. But most are either by individual bias or indoctrination through our education system. And even more amazingly many of them recognize this bias and the fact that is unnecessary for scientific purposes. Why don’t you read that quote from Harvard evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin: VK: Lewontin wrote: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failures to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” RD: So, let’s compare Lewontin’s statement with the statement we heard earlier from the opening of Richard Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins said “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” So, Dawkins acknowledges that the evidence for design exists in nature. He just doesn’t like the conclusion that the evidence leads to. So, Dawkins observes the evidence, acknowledges where it leads, but then changes direction because he doesn’t like the destination. Lewontin simply says out loud the forbidden truth that this change of direction isn’t necessary according to the rules of science. Rather, it comes about because the individual persons – or persons – just don’t like the thought that the presence of design also means the presence of a Designer. So, instead of acknowledging that Designer the materialist, the scientist, adopts conventions and rules that exclude, in Lewontin’s words, “a Divine Foot in the door.” VK: Yikes. I don’t know whether that’s sad, scary, or both. RD: Probably both, but at a minimum the one thing that such an a priori commitment is not is “scientific.” And a great many scientists have recognized this. For instance Michael Denton who is a British-Australian author and biochemist wrote a book in 1985 entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis was published the year before Dawkins Blind Watchmaker. Well, those books set off a sort of chain reaction of other books where the debate about the presence of design in nature received a lot of attention. In effect, what we saw in several publications was an extended presentation of the teleological argument for the existence of God. VK: For instance, in 1991 Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson wrote a book called Darwin on Trial. Johnson’s book was so compelling that the debate about design in nature and supernatural Designer was forever changed. Johnson wrote “In brief, what makes me a ‘critic of evolution’ is that I distinguish between naturalistic philosophy and empirical science, and oppose the former when it comes cloaked in the authority of the latter.” Johnson’s critics retreated into the defensive posture of “specialized scientific knowledge” inaccessible to a legal scholar, but many of these were the same champions of evolution who had previously argued for its simplicity. Johnson answered the critics in 1995 with Reason in the Balance, subtitled “The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education.” RD: And Johnson quickly gained support from biochemist Michael Behe who wrote Darwin’s Black Box in 1996. Behe explained the intricate interactions of cellular components and molecular mechanisms, showing that biological systems are irreducibly complex. This means that systems are “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.” Behe asserted that any irreducibly complex system cannot be produced by slight, successive modifications of a precursor, because any precursor to the system would be, by definition, non-functional. VK: So, when Behe [BEE-HEE] pointed out that irreducibly complex systems could not be produced by a series of minor changes in a biological organism he was effectively pointing out that Darwin criticism of his own theory was valid. In The Origin of Species Darwin wrote a chapter entitled “Difficulties of the Theory.” It happened to be chapter 6. In that chapter Darwin offered some comments on the evolution of the eye which have been widely quoted since he wrote them. Darwin said this about his own theory. Now, remember, this is Charles Darwin talking about his own conclusion that the eye could have evolved through a Darwinian type series of steps. Darwin wrote: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” RD: Darwin went on, of course, to give an explanation of how he thought it could have happened. But Behe took Darwin’s argument apart by showing that Darwin speculated on how the eye and vision might have happened but Darwin never considered the most fundamental question, i.e., how did vision happen? Darwin looked only at the anatomy – which was all he could look at because 19th century science had no knowledge of biochemistry as we have it today. But in his book Behe, went through the dozens of biochemical changes that are involved in a photon of light striking the retina and this enabling the brain to form an image. After walking us through the very complicated biochemistry of vision Behe says this: “To Darwin, vision was a black box, but after the cumulative hard work of many biochemists, we are now approaching answers to the question of sight. . . . Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. . . . Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level. So is the fossil record. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, nor those of population biology, nor the traditional theory for rudimentary organs or species abundance. . . Until recently, however, evolutionary biologists could be unconcerned with the molecular details of life because so little was known about them. Now the black box of the cell has been opened, and the infinitesimal world that stands revealed must be explained.” VK: So, what Behe was pointing out was that the appearance of design in nature wasn’t just apparent in the anatomical structures that we can see, that Darwin could see, but in the very molecular chemistry that comprises those structures. Again, design isn’t just present in the big structures of the universe – the stars and galaxies – but in the very tiniest ones as well. And how can you have design anywhere at any level without a Designer? You can’t. RD: Right. And if vision is a dramatic example of a biological system that can’t arise in the absence of design the clotting system that is present in blood is even more dramatic. For a clot to form over a cut and stop an animal from bleeding to death even more biomolecular steps are involved than in vision. But the clotting system only works a system. Miss one step and clots never form. The blood clotting system was designed. It had to be. It could not arise in an evolutionary fashion because any animal that didn’t have the entire system would die before it could randomly pass along any of its genes. VK: Well, before we close for today let’s mention one more book that participated in the design debate. A mathematician and philosopher William Dembski published his book The Design Inference in 1998. Dembski saw a possible flaw in Behe’s work. So, he strengthened the concept of irreducible complexity to include a minimal complexity condition, stating that “this condition says that the system cannot be simplified and still retain the level of function needed for selective advantage.” Dembski defined intelligent design as the science that studies signs of design, and he notes that intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or signature – what he calls specified complexity. RD: Right. Dembski and others have looked for signs ranging from the microscopic to the telescopic. As we mentioned at the start of today’s episode, not only do biological systems show the signs of intelligent design, but also the universe in general displays the “anthropic principle” – that the cosmos is precisely designed for the emergence and sustenance of life, and especially human life, on earth. In the simplest terms, “the cosmos gives evidence of design.” VK: The irresistible conclusion from this line of reasoning is that the evidence of design is present throughout the universe. It’s present in the cosmos. It’s present in the cell. It’s present in our consciousness. You cannot have design anywhere without a Designer. And in the universe doesn’t just have design in a few places. It has it everywhere. RD: Right. Biochemist, atheist, and co-discoverer of DNA, the late Francis Crick, began studying biochemistry in the 1940’s as a way to disprove the existence of God. But, in fact, what he discovered was that there was an irreducibly complex information system at the heart of all life. Crick was a phenomenal scientist but he wrong about God. His materialistic presuppositions prevented him from acknowledging the very truth that his own work pointed out. But this shouldn’t surprise us. Romans, chapter 1, verse 20, has been pointing out this problem with human nature for 2,000 years. VK: That verse says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Crick believed there is no God, but God has the final word. Psalm 14, verse 1 says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Well, we hope everyone will join us next time as we continue this fascinating discussion about the arguments and evidence that demonstrates that there is a firm basis in logic and reason for our Christian faith. This sounds like a time to go to God I prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer for all those around the world who suffer for their faith. We should all take time to regularly pray for God’s mercy and favor to be with them. ---- PRAYER FOR PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the New Living Translation) Ecclesiastes, Chapter 12, verses 13 and 14, New Living Translation

In this episode of the Legal Zeidgeist podcast, the focus is on a fund's marketing communications. Kunal Grover, Head of Business Development, is joined by Robert Boyle, Head of Legal Ireland to discuss the fast-approaching European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) marketing communication guidelines.With the guidelines coming into force on 2 February 2022, Robert answers the most frequently asked questions that he and his team receive relating to the marketing guidelines. 

For those who have heard of Sir Robert Boyle, his name may invoke the image of a bewigged gentleman with curly locks falling far past his shoulders, or perhaps his contribution to the PV=nRT ideal gas equation that is a staple of chemistry courses. However, many do not know that this early Father of Modern Chemistry was a supremely devoted follower of Jesus who essentially blazed a scientific trail to defend his faith. Episode 3 of Season 2 is one you won't want to miss, as we delve into the incredible, but virtually unknown, story of Sir Robert Boyle. We'll be back soon with another inspiring story, but in the meantime, check out the incredible artwork, custom-created for today's episode on Boyle, at thegreatpodcast.org!

The scientists affiliated with the early Royal Society of London have long been regarded as forerunners of modern empiricism, rejecting the symbolic and moral goals of Renaissance natural history in favor of plainly representing the world as it really was. In Aesthetic Science, Alexander Wragge-Morley challenges this interpretation by arguing that key figures such as John Ray, Robert Boyle, Nehemiah Grew, Robert Hooke, and Thomas Willis saw the study of nature as an aesthetic project. To show how early modern naturalists conceived of the interplay between sensory experience and the production of knowledge, Aesthetic Science: Representing Nature in the Royal Society of London, 1650-1720 (U Chicago Press, 2020) explores natural-historical and anatomical works of the Royal Society through the lens of the aesthetic. By underscoring the importance of subjective experience to the communication of knowledge about nature, Wragge-Morley offers a groundbreaking reconsideration of scientific representation in the early modern period and brings to light the hitherto overlooked role of aesthetic experience in the history of the empirical sciences. Alexander Wragge-Morley is a lecturer in the history of science and medicine at the University of Lancaster. His research seeks to understand how people in the past obtained knowledge through sensory experience. In doing so, he brings together histories of science, medicine, the body, the neurosciences, art, literature, and religion. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The scientists affiliated with the early Royal Society of London have long been regarded as forerunners of modern empiricism, rejecting the symbolic and moral goals of Renaissance natural history in favor of plainly representing the world as it really was. In Aesthetic Science, Alexander Wragge-Morley challenges this interpretation by arguing that key figures such as John Ray, Robert Boyle, Nehemiah Grew, Robert Hooke, and Thomas Willis saw the study of nature as an aesthetic project. To show how early modern naturalists conceived of the interplay between sensory experience and the production of knowledge, Aesthetic Science: Representing Nature in the Royal Society of London, 1650-1720 (U Chicago Press, 2020) explores natural-historical and anatomical works of the Royal Society through the lens of the aesthetic. By underscoring the importance of subjective experience to the communication of knowledge about nature, Wragge-Morley offers a groundbreaking reconsideration of scientific representation in the early modern period and brings to light the hitherto overlooked role of aesthetic experience in the history of the empirical sciences. Alexander Wragge-Morley is a lecturer in the history of science and medicine at the University of Lancaster. His research seeks to understand how people in the past obtained knowledge through sensory experience. In doing so, he brings together histories of science, medicine, the body, the neurosciences, art, literature, and religion. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What if YOU re-membered? Re-membered how amazing you are! Re-membered how powerful you are! Robert Boyle said, “It is highly dishonorable for a reasonable soul to live in so divinely built a mansion as the body she resides in altogether unacquainted with the exquisite structure of it.” We'll also cover: Fear of germs, Let us learn from the history of previous media-driven pandemics, and more. Get your FREE video training "Operators Manual for YOUR Vehicle"

In this episode of the Legal Zeidgeist podcast, Kunal Grover,  Zeidler's Director of Business Development is joined by Robert Boyle, Head of Legal Ireland to discuss the ongoing post Brexit challenges the investment industry is facing.Examining the different approaches and solutions asset management firms took to prepare for Brexit, Robert and Kunal analyse the post-Brexit impact firms are now facing and discuss how firms can continue to mitigate risk and ensure their legal and compliance departments continue to operate as usual. 

In this episode of the Legal Zeidgeist podcast, Aoife Maguire, Head of Fund Registration at Zeidler Group is joined by Robert Boyle, Head of Dublin Office, to provide a comprehensive overview of National Private Placement Regimes (NPPR). Discussing when investment firms may use these regimes, Aoife and Robert share their legal and regulatory insights on the differences in each country, gold plating requirements and the  difficulties firms may encounter when choosing to deregister. 

Move over Robert Boyle, nature is the best chemist. In this episode we cover a variety of plant medicine experiences from cacao to the psychedelic variety. Jo explains the different states of brain activity and how they relate to consciousness, its science bitch!We refer to the documentary "Fantastic Fungi".Find us on facebook:www.facebook.com/groups/thewokeakashichttps://linktr.ee/thewokeakashichttps://thegreenlatina.com/connect-with-me/

Move over Robert Boyle, nature is the best chemist. In this episode we cover a variety of plant medicine experiences from cacao to the psychedelic variety. Jo explains the different states of brain activity and how they relate to consciousness, its science bitch!We refer to the documentary "Fantastic Fungi".Find us on facebook:www.facebook.com/groups/thewokeakashichttps://linktr.ee/thewokeakashichttps://thegreenlatina.com/connect-with-me/

Jan-Erik Jones is a professor and the department chair of philosophy at Southern Virginia University. He received his B.A. from Brigham Young University, his M.A. from Arizona State University, and his Ph.D. from UC Irvine. Jones has published many academic papers; those of which include publications on John Locke, Robert Boyle, and Gottfried Leibniz. Tune in for our thought-provoking discussion on the fundamentals of philosophical thinking, all the different philosophical topics, how religion relates to philosophy, and everything you need to start looking at the world more philosophically.