Creationism/Intelligent Design/Evolution

Elwyn - You mentioned the Frankenstein stuff in the labs. My next work is about cloning and stem cell research. I have about a month of work on that ms before it is ready to submit. Again, if the proper opportunity presents itself I will go the same route with it too. Timing is everything when you cover the subjects I do. If it's not hot they won't buy.

Epicman

Reply

Neurofizz - As you might have noted the title of my work you certainly noted that it is an attempt to join Creation with Evolution. This would entail some serious examination of the Bible. That is not material for a scientific review for a peer journal. In fact I go into great detail about some certain observations:

Here is just one: There are gross misconceptions amongst the vast majority because scientists have only been concerned with how their peers receive their work. This allows for the technical jargon to be the means of delivery leaving the media, who scan these scientific peer journals, to translate. These translations are not made by qualified people. At least not qualified to translate the language of science. They are, however, qualified to create sensationalism because that is what the public demands. This is how you end up where we are today with a web so tangled and the division so deep. My answer to all this is to create a means by which science can be translated for the general public and deny the media the opportunity to sensationalize it first.

Why do you think that people in general think that Darwin said that humans are descended from apes? Not a single allusion to that is found in Darwin's writings. Why do you think that we are debating cloning, stem cell research, and all the similar issues? It is all entirely based upon misconception exactly because science has only been concerned with peer review. The peer review can come by reading the translation provided to the general public. If science is forced to do this in an easily understandable public forum then we do away with the sensationalized translation of the media and are held accountable.

On the issue of money... Sure, just like any other author here I would like to profit from my work. I have invested a great deal of time and money gaining my credentials in higher education. I have also invested years of careful research and study into the subjects I write about. I agree with you folks on most of the points you make. My History of Science and History of Biology works will be published through a university or textbook publisher. Until I gain connections into the agent/publishing world my time-sesitive works will continue to go the pod route.
1) My contracts with them contain the ability for me to cancel by simply sending an email and they are non-exclusive.
2) I have total control over my work and its design.
3) I can send review copies to whomever I wish - which will include peer groups, the media, etc.
4) I make my investment back - just the setup fees - by selling 26 copies at retail which is, by the way, priced several dollars lower than comparable titles.
5) For every 200 author copies I buy (I'm not required to buy any) I recover my costs for those upon selling 70 copies.
6) I have direct channels from which to sell at least 400-500 copies without setting foot off my university's campus.
7) I will also be listed on all the amazons globally, all the book stores online sites, Ingram's catalog that goes to 20,000 bookstores in the US, have a CIP record for the benefit of univerities, schools, and libraries, and on and on.

I'll stop for now. But I truly do appreciate constructive criticism. One benefit is that it helps me to focus my delivery and another is that it aids in the development of an advertising campaign.

Thanks,
Epicman

thank you Mac

I did have some staunch Creationists review my ideas and the point of contention does surround the literal translation - TRANSLATION. But the Noah account and the fact that God created just one man and one woman - just as God required only one male and one female of each species in the ark to repopulate the earth. Add to that the fact that God directed each of His creations: sea animals, land creatures, and fowl to "be fruitful and multiply to fill the earth is direct evidence that there is a strong possibility that God created only a breeding pair of each species and directed THEM to multiply and fill the earth. This is just a teaser - there is much more to it than this. Read the book (shameless plug) I have had not a single Creationist be able to use scripture alone to support any other possibilities. It is always inferred translations of what people 'think' they mean. They did admit that my ideas on this were supported directly by scripture AS IT IS WRITTEN. Only those who absolutely refuse to crack my pages will maintaina firm stance. I say to them what harm is there in reading words? there conclusion is always to admit that it caused them to think. I challenged anyone to prove otherwise based solely upon scripture exactly as it is written - ive kept constant contact - even the ministers say they thus far have been unsuccessful in meeting my challenge - and some continue to search.

Best regards,
Glenn

sorry Mac - I missed a point

No, not a Creationist magazine - but well over 2 dozen very devout Creationists.
Remember - I am a creationist also AND a scientist too. There is merit to both sides and it centers around misconceptions due to sensationalist translation of technical science - another teaser - read the book.

Epicman

Average Joe on the street

It is the average Joes on the street that are right in the middle of the controversy. Everybody has pondered where they came from and why there are different races. The book is written in terms that an average high school student can understand - so I have covered a lot of the population. What you just said proves my point: the other works on the subjecs daling with the topic are way too technical for the average Joe on the street to understand. Someone mentioned all the races being descended by a 'Mother Eve' in Africa. They were on the right track but a little off and missing a lot of details. I go into a theory of human evolution and it has nothing to do with monkeys or apes. My theories throughout the book are based upon Biblical support tests and scientific soundness with every one supports the other and is supported by the other.

Heck I dont want to give it all away. If I put the whole thing up here you guys wont buy it. (JOKE - but I hope you do) I am submitting my materials tomorrow and I have the package ready to go to the Library of Congress Monday. That means I'll have my first order around 3-4 weeks and around the end of September or the first of October it will be up on the sites available.

James I will be around sooner than a year. I will have my proof book in about 2 weeks and my order in about 3-4 weeks from tomorrow. They said that it would take about 2-3 weeks from the time I approve the book for it to be on Amazon and the others. I will hang around and keep anyone interested informed - maybe some will learn how to do and what not to do based upon my experience. If I dissapear from the boards but you guys hear about me a lot then I am on some south Pacific island tipping some cold Dr. Peppers and banging out the next book. (I wish).

Epicman

Thanks

Thank you Elwyn, Neurofizz, and James.

The controversy and debate surrounding Creation, Evolution, and Intellegent Design is a very public one indeed. One of my main contentions is that Science (academics) only looks to their peers reception of their work. What this causes is for science to keep everything riddled with technical jargon that laypersons cannot understand. Who acts as translators? The media of course. And these unqualified translators for science add their sensationalistic slant to their erroneous translations and cause the debate and controversy in the first place.

How many people have seen the commercial where the Asian guy clones himself and has all these guys (clones) that are duplicates doing his work for him?
What is sad is the number of people out there who actually believe it is possible to produce same age clones and lead a charge to stop cloning now.
How many people think Adolf Hitler can be cloned and we'd have a bunch of fanatics running around screaming for Jewish blood?

How many people think that Darwin proposed man came from apes?

All the above are misconceptions that have fueled PUBLIC debate, controversy, and political action based upon misconception. The academic world - the scientists - only are concerned with their peers - not the public.

My book and the others that I am working on are formatted on the concept of a "Universal Understanding in Plain English" an idea that needs to be utilized by scientists to avoid the controversy and debate surrounding theories and ideas. There will be no mistake - even from a high school student who reads my book - as to the translation of my theories - I have translated them myself.

And to purport that my ideas have a diminished meaning only because many minds and great minds before me have pondered the same thoughts is akin to saying that human progress has come to a halt. There can be no more Einsteins, Newtons, Aristotles, Platos, Shakespears, Steven Kings, Flemings, Bells, or Fords because every great idea has been thought of, every great story has been written, every great invention invented.

Somebody needs to take a good look because if that is all true we may as well stop and wither and die - there is nothing left to accomplish. I don't think any of us would be here on this board if that were so.

As for curricular adaptation of my theories (someone mentioned it as doubtful). What would we give to have textbooks from Einstein, Fleming, Darwin, etc.? In today's world of PC publishing that is now possible - maybe it was not in the past. Many great minds were not recognized until after death.

I'm not bragging but the possibility still remains: what if? Whatever it is you other folks write - what if you were the next King, Sheldon, or Shakespeare?

Something has to motivate you to keep trying or you wouldn't be here now would you?

Go to the thread listing and see the number of viewers of this thread - is it substantial? Something interesting is going on here and I promise you that the vast majority are not scientific academics. They are people with their own specialties writing about their ideas. I can promise one thing: Every single one of them has pondered, participated in, or maybe even has an interest in Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design.

It is not an academic issue - it is one for the masses. The beauty of it all is that it is a Universal idea.

Every single one of the forty plus people that helped edit my book have said "Why didn't I think of that?"

And when I hand an edited manuscript with my subject matter to a 14 year old and they say "WOW" and I get the same response from a PhD then I know I have done my job.

Epicman
Glenn S. Hamilton
http://www.cometogetherbooks.com

Well now

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I doubt that. I read this thread because it's in the Bewares and Background Check forum, and I like to keep up with the forum. I do not have an interest in ID. I read it for its connection to publishing, not ID, and I doubt I'm unique in that.

I stated that:

"I can promise one thing: Every single one of them has pondered, participated in, or maybe even has an interest in Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design."

Meaning that everone here, at one point or another, has at least pondered these ideas. While you may have never pondered ID I'm sure that some sort of thought or opinion exists or has existed presently or at some point in time within your mind.

As for the viewers - I understand that they count you and I and James and Elwyn and Neurofizz and Hopisopi everytime we view - The count has increased 85 views since I posted at 2 pm today -

Which of us is hopping in and out of here repeatedly to raise the count?

Epicman
Glenn S. Hamilton
http://www.cometogetherbooks.com

This is the exact reason that I wrote the book. You have someone come along, ignore the entire point:

"On Sept. 16th 38 Nobel Prize winners sent a letter to the Kansas State Board of Ed. asking that they abandon a proposal that says students should be more critical of the theory of evolution. How can a scientist suggest an abandonment of critique when critique is a cornerstone of scientific inquiry?"
and attempt to discredit someone by burying them with technical jargon. Go visit the link in the above post to see an illustration of this. Anyhow it is way off topic but I could list those who have challenged long-held beliefs utilizing the scientific method and PROGRESSED because of it. Fleming, Einstein, The Wrights, and yes - even Darwin.

So back to the point that you failed to answer Mac, Why would a 'scientist' encourage the abandonment of critical challenge to ANY theory?

Or are you going to come back with another Santa Claus story relating to Fleming, Einstein, the Wrights, or even Darwin?

From MSNBC AP Story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9368495/
" Updated: 5:39 p.m. ET Sept. 20, 2005

LAWRENCE, Kan. - Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked Kansas state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory, calling it instead the "indispensable" foundation of biology.

The proposed standards, which could come up for final Board of Education approval later this year, are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution but state in an introduction that they do not endorse intelligent design.
Nobel winners urge educators to back evolution

Kansas school board weighing proposal to give more time to critics "

Read these articles carefully people - this is EXACTLY how misconceptions get started which in turn creates controversy...

"Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked Kansas state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory..."
-and-
"The proposed standards, which could come up for final Board of Education approval later this year, are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution but state in an introduction that they do not endorse intelligent design."

In the first quote above it states in the letter "38...laureates asked...to reject proposed science standards..."
Those standards, defined in the second quote "are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution...they do not endorse intelligent design."

Where Greer does it state anything about "religious-based propaganda" in the letter as you state? (Go to the link above for the full article)

Anyone reading the article can clearly see that these 'scientists' are trying to dicourage the board from adopting standards that would "expose students to more criticism of evolution." Criticism of evolution... Criticism of a theory.

Again Why would a scientist discourage the criticism of any theory? Let alone 38 of them who won a Nobel Prize?