Tag Archives: Clanton1934 (Blogger I follow)

Blogger’s GPS: Pets With Whom We Live. Or: Do other animals behave like us? Or: Are we (just) like other animals?

I chose to reblog this article because the blogger, my friend Charles Rogers, tells us about pets who act in a many different human-like ways.

Just some examples:

We are introduced to Oliver the Dog, who is a “social eater” who hates to eat alone and therefore always invites his stuffed animal friends (toys) to join him at the dinner “table”.

We get to know Koko, a western lowland gorilla, how has been taught ASL, the American Sign Language, and now has learnt, by her own, by using grammar, syntax and word construction, to combina different signs to form new meanings ans expressions..

We ca read about the extraordinary wolf Twenty-One, kind of the Einstein of wolves, seemingly had a ToM, Theory of MInd, thereby being able to understand how his actions and behavior would be perceived by other wolves.

I myself would like to add to this list of human-like animals also a bird, Alex the Parrot. Read about him here: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/a_little_bird_told_me/ .

What could be better for an animal behavior researcher to study than a bird talking tha same language as the scientists themselves do?

All this makes it necessary to pose this relevant question: Are there any

Are there any traits or characteristics left to be regarded as unique and special for humans?

In this article, http://www.livescience.com/15689-evolution-human-special-species.html , ten human characteristics are proposed to be typical of moderns humans. Bur is it so? It’s up to you to decide.

The ten traits are: Speech, Upright posture, Nakedness, Using hand to make tools, Using fire, Blushing, Extraordinary brain power, Clothing, Long childhood, and Having a long life after the children have grown up and moved away from home.

There are many reasons to doubt those ten listed items. And even more reasons to doubt if we humans really are created in the image of an Almighty Creator God “Person”.

BTW, I hope you remember the news that all of us, at least outside today’s Africa, have a lot of Neanderthal genes in our genome. Why did God create Adam with those genes taken from the Neanderthals? It bewilders me a lot and I feel frustrated by not being able to understand why God used kind of second-hand genes to create a completely new being “in imaginem Sui”.

Finally a bonus: Read about Mike the Rooster a.k.a. The headless chicken: http://miketheheadlesschicken.org/history .
If Mike hade lived today, I think he could have been a celebrated GOP member, a primus inter pares (the first among equals).

Charles Clanton Rogers


Oliver has three guests for dinner – see story below. [1]


My Swedish correspondent, bbnewsab,  has encouraged me to relate some anecdotes about some of our furry family members.

To you who have not lived in the home of cats or dogs, you must first accept the concept of anthropocentricity.  “Beyond Words, (Safina) will have a profound impact on many readers, for it elevates our relationships with animals to a higher plane. When your dog looks at you adoringly, even though he or she cannot say it, you can be assured that love is being expressed as you can when hearing any human declaration of eternal devotion. Most of us already knew that, but have withheld ourselves from a full surrender to its implications.”[2]

With gene mapping from genome studies of humans, dogs, and chimpanzees, all of our genetics are remarkably similar;

Our differences are quantitative; not qualitative!

When Zhai and colleagues…

View original post 936 more words


Filed under Blogs I follow, Brain, Consciousness, Essays full of knowledge and wisdom, Evolution, Humorous reading, Soul

Science vs. religion: How to evaluate evidence. Original title: What Did The Atheist Say To The Elephant?

This blog post is entitled “What Did The Atheist Say To The Elephant?”

Nevertheless this scholarly essay-like post should be tagged as belonging to the religion vs. science debate.

So the elephant (or elephant metaphor) isn’t the important thing here. Instead, it’s much more about evidence and how to interpret evidence of divine beings a.k.a. gods or Hidden Causal Agents (HCAs).

I’ve written a long comment to Charles Rogers’ blog post. And that comment I’m going to insert as an introduction and complement on my own blog.

Here is my comment almost in extenso:

In the introduction you wonder what an atheist would say after he had examined your elephant. You suggest that maybe the atheist would say: “There is no elephant.”

No, I don’t think so. If I were the atheist, I would instead say the following (fasten your safety belt because it will be a very long, and partly bumpy, ride):

Now I enter the podium to give my “TED Talk”:

Listen. folks! No one knows enough to prove – in an objective way – what this object (called, by some, an elephant) is we have in front of us.

Yet your claims of what some of you have found and concluded, by examination of the object, are of the absolute kind. You show no relativism at all in your theory buildings. That I would call a preposterous and presumptuous take on this special matter.

If your hypothesis (your theory building) can be shown to be wrong in some detail (or some details), then your hypothesis can’t be totally correct. And then it’s no longer an absolute hypothesis; It has become a relativistic one.

That is, for sure, not good for the credibility of a hypothesis claiming to represent the absolute TRUTH.

Therefore, if I can show you, maybe even convince you, by demonstrating in a theoretical way that some details your hypotheses rely on can’t be correct, then that in turn must mean – and the conclusion be – that I have invalidated your hypotheses and that you are obliged to elaborate more in order to face the challenges they don’t meet at the moment.

Wait, don’t leave me now. I’ve got more to tell you. Please, be seated again, don’t leave.

Let’s look at your hypotheses from yet another angle. If you agree that you are all damn sure just your interpretation of the object is the only correct one, then you also insist that only you are the one who has got the absolute TRUTH about this object we all have examined here today.

So, what does that implicate? If more than one of you insist just they have found the absolute TRUTH, of course all of you (claiming that you’ve found the absolute truth) can’t be right. N’est-ce pas (Isn’t it)?

Now I want to paraphraze Christopher Hitchens. He used to say this: Let’s suppose there are 3,000 religions in the world. If 2,999 of them are deemed false by you, would it not then be more honest if you admitted that this indicates that also the 3,000th religious faith probably is a false one?

Or why should just your religious faith be the one winning the top lottery prize?

Some of you (who claim you’ve found the absolute TRUTH) MUST, are bound to, be wrong, Only one can, by definition, win the top lottery prize. Either you win it – or you don’t. Tertium non datur (meaning there is no middle alternative in which more than one can win. But at the same time it’s possible that no one wins the top lottery prize because it’s possible the winning ticket remains in the tombola).

The conclusion must therefore be like this: Two existing religious claims of having found the absolute TRUTH can’t both be correct at the same time, i.e. either the claim X is right and claim Y is wrong – or claim X is wrong and claim Y is right. And, as said in the paragraph above, of course nothing prohibits that both claim X and claim Y are wrong at the same time.

Oh, I see that some of you seem to be ready to leave the room now. Please, don’t! Instead continue listening, folks, because I’ve got some more interesting things to say.

Have you heard of something called science – and scientific research?


Then you should know that science is not about claiming to have found any absolute TRUTH. All real science is relativistic. It conveys no absolute TRUTHS. That’s how science works.

Rather, it accumulates empirical evidence for or against various hypotheses. By doing this, science can show – even demonstrate – that some phenomena must be incompatible with the laws of physics (at least in the way we currently understand them).

And believe me, we understand those physical laws better and better.

This also shows the great advantage of science: It accumulates empirical evidence for or against various hypotheses.

So, If I can show you that religious (faith) ideas are incompatible with the laws of physics as we currently understand them today, by having accumulated empirical evidence for them during hundreds of years, then the probability is very high that they actually are correct, since they are supported by all this evidence.

Please notice I’m now talking of probabilities, not absoluteness. That’s how science works.

In fact we all rely on and have trust in probabilities.

For example. let’s say I invite you to play the lethal game of Russian roulette (just as an example, don’t try this at home) and offer you two different revolvers, one with one of its six chambers loaded with a round and the other six-shooter loaded with five rounds. Then I’m pretty sure you’ll choose to use the revolver with only one round in its six chambers. N’est-ce pas?

So probability is something we all have to deal with in our daily lives. And we rely on what probability tells us.

As a matter of fact, because scientific data are based on not only observations but also on experimental data, we should be allowed to regard science to be more reliable than religious faith, since such faith is based solely on subjective emotions and feelings, and we know today that emotion-based knowledge is very unreliable (just as memories and testimonies are).

In short, there is a constantly increasing amount of evidence supporting the view that those people who believe in gods (i.e. have a religious faith) probably have fallen prey to unreliable inner experiences/feelings, false memories, unreliable testimonies from others, different kinds of biases (like confirmation bias, wishful thinking and so on).

So religious faith and science are like two boxers in the boxing ring. In one corner you find a boxer who trusts the laws of physics (finding them very reliable because they have been tested so many times by so many different scientists and by such an enormous number of rigorous and high-precision experiments that they leave no room for religious beings driven by as yet undiscovered kinds of energy).

In in another corner of the boxing ring you find the religiously true believer, who says, “I trust my gut feelings and they tell me to believe there is a divine entity governing and/or guiding our lives.

Their boxing gloves contains arguments. These arguments are used to knock out the opponent.

The scientific boxer is supported by a coach who tells him: IF there still are undetected forms of energy “out there”, that must mean those new kinds of energy have to interact with the already known energy forms. But this – as you have seen – does not happen. Take the GPS as an example. Thanks to the GPS we can find out pretty exactly where we happen to be on the surface of Earth. If there were still undetected energy forms, they should interact with the GPS. But we can’t find any traces of such interactions.

And the coach continues: Spoon-bending is another good example. Spoons are made of atoms (exactly as all other objects are). Today’s physicists know exactly how much energy is available in a spoon. They also know the masses of the atoms (forming a spoon). They also know the kinetic energy of thermal motions within the metal the spoon is made of.

In short, and taken together, we can say without hesitating the least, that any new particles, or hidden energies, that might exist within a spoon would have been detected long ago in experiments made by physicists all over the world. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

The scientific boxer becomes dull of confidence that he’s going to win the boxing match.

The coach of the religiously true believer tells his client. Just believe in God. And if you also pray to God between the rounds, you can’t lose. God never desert His believers. And if He does, and you lose the boxing fight, then there is a meaning behind that godly decision, maybe to make you a humbler man or something like that.

Now I reach the end of my lecture.

Therefore I decide turn to KK, the medicine man of this RWT community/group, directly.

Dear, KK, My answer to your question how an atheist would describe the elephant-like object can be summarized in the follopwing way:

I believe the four well-known natural physical laws are correct. They have been validated in millions of experiments over the years.

These four natural physical laws leave no room for beliefs in divine entities.

So either the physical laws are correct (using that adjective in the scientific way). and the belief that we are surrounded or at least influenced by divine entities is wrong.

Or else all the accumulated knowledge that physics has gained and validated so far (during many centuries) must be thrown in the dust-bin and be considered more or less worthless.

It this were the case, then today’s physicists would advise us not to rely on the GPS. And the physicists should admit that, of course, spoons can be bended spontaneously, by themselves, and that, also of course, a broken window can be whole again (by reversing the time arrow) etc.

I myself find it much easier to believe in Santa Claus than to believe that all accumulated and validated data in the field of physics should be thrown in the dust-bin.

Concerning your elephant metaphor, KK, i tell you this: I didn’t get the opportunity to examine the whole elephant-liek object, neither did the other examinators get that opportunity. So I avoid expressing my thoughts of what constitutes the elephant-like object. And I find it impossible to make a complete and all-encompassing statement about your elephant-like object. No absolute TRUTHS can be said of that object.

Therefore I choose to criticize all the other examinators for trying to launch absolute explanations of what the object really is. By doing that, they are not honest people. Cf. the saying “Lying for Jesus”, Even the church fathers had a long tradition of lying for Jesus. See for example:https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A7x9UnwBIBVWwgIAURU_Ogx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByaGwzcXNvBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOARjb2xvA2lyMgR2dGlkAw–?qid=20090125072821AA3Fv7m

I hope you are satisfied with my answer, KK.

BTW, I recommend you to read this article: http://www.livescience.com/52364-origins-supernatural-relgious-beliefs.html. It’s about the plausible origins of supernatural/magical and religious beliefs. A very interesting article, also summarizing today’s knowledge of the matter.

Please, tell me your thoughts of what can be read in that article.

Charles Clanton Rogers



Six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant’s body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. At the risk of offending someone, I suggest That Moses, Jesus, and other iconic giants describe a part of the elephant.[1]  What did the Atheist say after his examination? “There is no elephant”?

I wrote, “The Individual, the Family, the Tribe.”(2)


My friend and sparring…

View original post 1,788 more words


Filed under Atheism, Blogs I follow, Brain, Cosmology, Debate, Essays full of knowledge and wisdom, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Physics, Religion, Science, Science vs. pseudoscience, Theological bullshit

The Individual, Family, and Tribe: An Essay about the Evolutionary Origin of Homo Sapiens.

This is a quite impressive – yes, I would call it an excellent – blog post about the evolutionary origin of our own species, Homo Sapiens.

The blogger, Charles Rogers, ponders, above all, the question: Who are we? But he is also interested in this question: Why are we like we are?

Related to that second question is this one: Why are we constantly striving to trying to find the “Holy Grail”, i.e. the meaning of our lives? (The answers can probably be found inside ourselves, in our brains, how they are wired. And that wiring is, in turn, best explained by looking back at our evolutionary origin/history.)

Charles Rogers is constantly looking for the answers of such questions by reading a lot of books, both fiction and non-fiction ones. He is obviously eager to come across what others have found in their quest of explanations.

Among his references can be found – just to mention only a few of them – a philosopher (Friedrich Nietzsche), a neurologist and psychiatrist/psychologist (Viktor Frankl), a professor of chemistry (Addy Pross), and, above all, the world famous neuroendocrinologist, professor of biology, neuroscience, and neurosurgery, Robert Sapolsky.

So it should go without saying that this blog post is very interesting to read and mull. It’s not only concerned with the question: From where do we, Homo Sapiens, originate?

Another important question is this one: What is the meaning of our lives?

Charles Rogers’ own take on this seems to be: “It is clear to me that the basic ‘Why’ is our family and our tribe.”

That is, we are strongly connected/related to each other. (That’s why Mr. Rogers himself, a professor emeritus, uses his own blog in order to build (symbolic) bridges thereby trying to make it easier for people all over the world to connect with each other.

So I’m not at all surprised to find this quote among his “mantras”: “We think we are separate, but we are one.”

Unfortunately I miss at least ONE important aspect of the human evolutionary history in this blog post. I want more facts and opinions of the evolution of religion, man’s perpetual companion.

But maybe Mr. Rogers will discuss that matter in another blog post later on? Let’s hope that will be the case.

Suffice it to say, in this comment of mine, that evolution seemingly has wired the human brain to look for, and easily find, a more or less strong correlation between teleological thinking and preference for religious motives.

In short, our human brains intuitively perceive purpose-driven design in the world around us.

The stronger this quest for (finding a) purpose is, the stronger our pro-theist preferences become.

If we can’t see whose purpose/intention it is that/when something happens, we are extremely prone to invent Hidden Causal Agents (HCAs) to find the reason behind all that happens to us and in our environments.

If you are interested, you can read more about these ideas here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking . And/Or here: https://bbnewsblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/the-two-information-processing-systems-ipss-in-your-brain-one-is-woo-ish-the-other-is-rational/ .

Charles Clanton Rogers



“We think we are separate, but we are one.”  

 “He who has a Why to live can bear almost any How” (1)

It is clear to me that the basic “Why” is our family and our tribe.

I. Kazuo Ishiguro, Never Let Me Go (2) : You can live without someone who says: you are mine; You can not live without someone who says: ‘I am yours”  May you be blessed with at least one such person in life!”  The family and tribe is at its best when several individuals feel this ownership to one another. Ishiguro on platonic love is reviewed in the two links:



II. Addy Pross, What is Life, (3)  How Chemistry Becomes Biology.   


In the beginning, non-living carbon-based chemicals joined to become “living” nucleic acids (DNA) manifesting a new force.This effect is characterized by an irrepressible self-replication…

View original post 543 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Blogs I follow, Brain, Essays full of knowledge and wisdom, Evolution, Genetics, Gods, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Psychology, Religion, Science, Words of wisdom

REBLOGGED: Additional notes on Never Let Me Go. Or: Why so many of us seek comfort from Hidden Causal Agents.

My friend Charles Rogers is, as always, full of both knowledge and wisdom. On his blog he likes to review books that have touched his heart and/or brain.

At the moment he and I are discussing a rather dystopian novel, “Never let me go”, written by Kazuo Ishiguro.

The message of that book is that life is not a rose garden. Instead life can be seen as a bumpy pathway full of disappointments and broken expectations. But at the same time, as Charles Rogers puts it, even a blind hog can sometimes find an acorn to eat; i.e. life contains both tricks and treats.

One of the many important messages from both Kazuo Ishiguro and Charles Rogers is that childhood matters – all life long.

Life is about how to endure living. How to survive in an a world loaded with atrocities and trying to do the best out of what is happening and evolving before your eyes.

Such questions and topics tend to lead to religion, or rather religious beliefs. In fact, eschatology can be defined as a part of theology, physics, and futurology, concerned with what are believed to be the final events of history, the ultimate destiny of humanity.

And that’s why I want to reblog this blog post.

To make it clearer for my own followers, I now add a comment that I wrote in the comment field of Mr. Rogers’ blog post. So now I quote myself (not only to inflate my own ego:

Now, after reading both the original review and this “supplement”, I come to think of what Schopenhauer once said/wrote: “In our early youth we sit before the life that lies ahead of us like children sitting before the curtain in a theater, in happy and tense anticipation of whatever is going to appear. Luckily we do not know what really will appear.”

Or in my own, more banal, words: The goal (of our lives) is, of course, of big interest, but what really matters is what happens during our life’s journey towards that goal.

Harshly speaking, the end station of our lives is always DEATH.
We will all arrive at that end station some day in our lives.
So why focus on that gloomy and dreadful “goal”?

IMHO it’s much better to try to live NOW – and try to do the best you can while living.

There is no second try for you (unless you are a true believer in religious bullshit dogmas).

Then the conclusion must be: Why not, like Kazuo Ishiguro (and now also Charles Rogers), instead, move the attention to our childhood. where it all starts?

Much of our lives revolves around that period of life – even later on, after entering adulthood.

Being a child means being malleable – and full of expectations. You have your whole (at least almost) in front of you.

Some of us are lucky to be born into a – put in your words, Mr. Rogers – “loving environment in which [to be] reared and educated”.

Others, like me, drew a blank.

I think most of us draw blanks.

That is, we grow up—if we are lucky—in security and wonder, and afterwards we are delivered to the grotesque goals of life, that usually are not chosen by us.

Therefore it’s not hard for me to agree with you, Charles, that “it can’t be insignificant that [Kazuo Ishiguro] was born in Nagasaki only fifteen years after an atomic bomb leveled it”.

Vestigia terrent! (The footprints are frightening!)

You can’t avoid being influenced, both consciously and unconsciously, of your heritage.

In fact, it’s impossible to evade your sociocultural and genetic heritage.

That’s why I, the atheist, “believe” that folks, in order to survive their perceived Weltschmerz – find it easier to start believing in Hidden Causal Agents (HCAs) a.k.a. gods.

It’s so easy, and sometimes also comforting, to close down one’s critical thinking and instead become a true believer.

In short, many people prefer to enter into a kind of cocooned version of reality, hoping that such a choice (I doubt it is of “free will”) will provide some psychological comfort.

I now want to pose this question to you, KK: Have you seen – or heard of – the movie “Brazil” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film) ?

I myself imagine that there are some simlilarities between Kazuo Ishiguro (or his dystopian novel) and that movie.

The protagonist enters his own little fantasy world and feels at peace living there, obviously oblivious to the grim reality that is taking place outside his own little comfortable “bubble”.

The message is clear: You can’t evade your past. But, and this is important, you ARE able to influence the one you are today and, maybe, at least partly, the one you’re going to be tomorrow.

As far as I understand it, Kazuo Ishiguro is a dystopian author. But, if I have understood your book review correctly, Charles, life is still – and will always be – about never to surrender too easily to setbacks and misfortune.

We all have to understand, and accept, that life contains both tricks and treats.

And that the choice is partly yours. Cf. the controversial view that depression is a learnt “behavior”.

Charles Clanton Rogers


Although bbnewsab conceded that my review of Never Let Me Go was my best effort thus far, my Swedish critic  required some “more blood out of the stone”.     ; o)>

[An aside: Although I don’t recall that Ishiguro has mentioned it, it can’t be insignificant that he was born in Nagasaki only fifteen years after an atomic bomb leveled it.]

The following is an attempt to placate PV (bbnewsab). The “rest of you may talk amongst yourselves” while he and I sort out the lack of my first attempt at a review.(ha ha not seriously)

bbnewsab:  “But I don’t quite understand what emotions or feelings this book woke up in your brain and your heart, KK.
I can easily understand the anger and disgust you must have felt by reading about, for example, Joseph Mengele’s twin experiments and other horrible Holocaust memories brought up to the surface by Kazuo Ishiguro.

View original post 748 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Atheism, Blogs I follow, Debate, Delusions, Essays full of knowledge and wisdom, Genetics, Psychology, Religion, Soul

REBLOGGED: You Could Be Immortal! Words of wisdom from a wise man.

My cyber friend clanton1934 is a man full of both knowledge and wisdom.

If you don’t believe me, then have a(nother) look at this post (the one I’m now going to reblog), published yesterday on clanton1934’s blog.

His text generates lots of “feeling good” emotions. It’s full of positive, hopeful and inspiring “vibrations”, and maybe best of all, clanton1934 doesn’t fall victim to the urge so many bloggers have for dressing the message in religious clothing, i.e. using words full of religious connotations.

That’s why I consider clanton1934 to be a both honorable and honest man. His message to the world can be summarized as “You yourself, not God, are the architect of your fortunes”.

That’s why I now want to spread his words to my own readers.

Charles Clanton Rogers


If you are a good teacher/ mentor, you will live in your students.

Lessons for Writing and Life:  I write something every day. I make many decisions every day.

Every sentence that I write is influenced by my grandmother, my parents and a regiment of teachers/ mentors.  “We stand on the shoulders of giants.” (1)  Every word, sentence and paragraph that I write, is “in-my-ear-edited” by numerous teachers who still tell me to “pay meticulous attention to detail”.  ” Check for spelling errors and clarity of meaning.; does this sentence say what you mean?” “Check the accuracy of, and the certainty of, if checked, that the reference is where you have indicated.”

My mentors are far more than some vague accumulated habit-patterns. As I write, my mentors come to mind, and I see their face, and each face has a name; they advise me…

View original post 985 more words


Filed under Blogs I follow, Essays full of knowledge and wisdom

Blogger’s GPS – 22 Writing Sages. Reading/Writing as a way to share thoughts and emotions and pass them on to future generations.

This blog is so full of knowledge and wisdom.

If you want to enrichen your own life, then Charles Roger’s blog is a must-read.

If you liked this one, then I’m sure you’ll also appreciate what can be found here: http://therogerspost.com/2015/05/28/english-language/ .

Charles Rogers (a.k.a. the blogger clanton1934) at his best!

He is scientifically well educated (today a professor emeritus), but also a great defender of human values and especially interested in what makes humans human. I’m so glad I found him and his blog on the web.

Charles Clanton Rogers


I think I might have been born in a library or a bookstore!  From the first moment I can remember, I was surrounded by books. Dead tree, hardcover decorated books. My security blanket was a book. Decades before Sesame Street, my”Swiss-Army-knife” of a teacher was my grandmother.  I was her project for six years. Grandmother read to me, as many times as I wished (shamelessly I was indulged!). At about four years, she would have me point to the words and say them out loud. She had me “reading” the books. (It was not reading for real – I knew the stories by heart, and there were as many pictures as text )  She would show me a page, and I would speak the story from memory. It was my fun, and a positive experience to say the least. Seven decades later and in spite of the electronic age, I love to…

View original post 1,092 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Blogs I follow, Essays full of knowledge and wisdom

Life Is Even More Inexplicable – New findings about orphan genes and promiscuous proteins.

My highly valued cyber friend Charles Rogers is a very interesting blogger. He combines both knowledge and wisdom.

In this specific blog he and I discuss/debate questions about (the genetic and evolutionary aspects of) life, especially its still unknown, at least partly, origin.

I hope our debate will be of great interest for my blog followers, too.

The topics discussed and penetrated also show that religion and science will never meet and probably can’t be reconciled with each other.

For safety’s sake I feel a need to clarify that Charles Rogers -a.k.a. the blogger clanton1934 – is NOT a creationist. We both belong to the scientific “team”. So, please, don’t jump to any premature conclusions.

Instead, start your own quest for the “truth” by reading and pondering – BOTH the blog post AND the comments.

Charles Clanton Rogers


On August 5, 2015, I published a blog post, “Life Is Inexplicable”, reviewing contrasting views on the origin of life (Addy Proos and Richard Dawson).   I received a lot of interest in that post. The link to that post is:


My discussions in “Life Is A Journey” further discussed these questions; see this link


My opinion remains contrary to the random-mechanism scientists, (Dawkins and Hoffman), (9, 12) who believe life rose by only random, physical encounters of, first, organic chemicals, then “living molecules”. These scientist believe that living DNA replicates itself,  and all life by random mistakes without a purpose. I concluded that in spite of remarkable findings in nano technology, I believe a mystery remains. This mystery is: from where does Dr. Proos’ “engine” came?  What continues to drive “the engine in the car” (the living cell) uphill against Newton’s  Second Law of Motion. Furthermore what has sustained this…

View original post 815 more words

1 Comment

Filed under Blogs I follow, Debate, Essays full of knowledge and wisdom, Evolution, Genetics, Religion, Science, Science vs. pseudoscience

“I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep.”

My blog is normally not a blog for lovers of the fine arts (a.k.a. les beaux arts, les belles arts).

But my cyber friend clanton1934 has written an essay so full of both knowledge and wisdom, that I simply have to reblog it on my own blog.

Dont forget to also have a look at my comment to clanton1934’s blog post.

Why? Because I think my comment summarizes the content of clanton1934’s essay pretty well.

So instead of quoting from the essay I here copy what i wrote in my own comment:

Dear clanton1934!
Thank you so much for sharing your memories!
This blog post of yours was really worth reading – and rereading. Not to say pondering – and repondering.
A friend of mine teaches History at a pre-universuty level here in Sweden, and I’m going to send him copy of this eminent and sagacious blog post.
At the same time I’ll enclose four Wikipedia articles for my teacher friend:
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-ration ;
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter ;
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(food); and
4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill .

Those four bits of information, mentioned by you en passant, were totally new to me. Of course we Europeans had our own equivalences or analogies of those things you bring up in your essay, but never before have I heard or read anything about how such things were dealt with in the U.S.
Historical events usually seem to be treated with a narrowness that is almost frightening. We know, at best, what happened, but then only from our own narrow outlook and close-minded perspective(s).
Your wonderful article, clanton1934, also makes me remember and interesting detail from my own history books here in Sweden.
Sweden was, for centuries, often at war with its neighbor Denmark, and one of the Danish kings from those war times was called Christian “the Tyrant” in the Swedish history books. But in Danish history books that same king had the epithet “the Good and Caretaking”.
So don’t try to tell that perspective(s) and open-mindedness doesn’t matter, clanton 1934. :o)

As a matter of fact, I believe that we need to look at the course of (historical) events from more than one possible perspective.
I also think – or at least hope – that the web, the internet, allows us to do just that. Thereby hopefully leading to a better understanding of each other, i.e. less tendency to begin throwing stones or even more dangerous things at each other, and more acceptance of each other’s needs and wants.
Conclusion (if I may call it so): If you want a more peaceful world, invest in education. Better educated people means better understanding of each other’s traditions, caprices and intellectual vices – which hopefully may lead to more forgiveness and considerateness (i.e. morality coming from within ourselves, NOT from a punishing or rewarding imaginary divine entity friend called God or so).
BTW, You quote the Persian poet, astronomer and mathematician Omar Khayyám (read more about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayy%C3%A1m ). Do you remember our conversation the last weekend, clanton1934? We discussed the the topic why so many pshysicians and mathematicians are fond of – and often also good at – music, poetry, painting and other “beaux arts” (fine arts).
In this beautifully written essay you’ve demonstrated, clanton1934, that you yourself are an artist practicing different aspects of “les belles arts” in a highly enjoyable way, both for yourself and your readers/followers.
In short, clanton1934, your aesthetic intelligence is extremely high. Maybe I’m the first one here on your blog to admit and applaud that fact. But I’m sure that you’ve must have heard that same kind of praise many times IRL. Otherwise I suspect you happen to live in a town inhabited only by uneducated morons.

AND FINALLY: Even if you don’t like my “summary” of clanton1934’s beautiful essay, please don’t care a fig for my own brief “résumé”. Read the original essay! Clanton 1934 is a man of extremely high aesthetic intelligence. So just relax and enjoy what he’s got to tell his blog readers/blog followers.

Charles Clanton Rogers


My peer group, too young to be considered “The Greatest Generation” and born before the “Baby Boomers”, we entered adulthood with only modest bruises from The Great Depression and The Second World War. I have vivid memories of both, but I was still in elementary school when The Japanese General surrendered his sword to General Douglas MacArthur on the decks of th USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945. It is estimated that fifty to sixty million human beings were killed in that war which was two and a half per cent of the world’s population. My Uncle, Bourley Clanton, the crown jewel of my grandmother’s life was precisely the U.S. Army’s most desirable age in 1941 and he served in The Pacific through out the entire war, My grandmother had a “blue star” flag permanently in her front window and she had a military regulation size American…

View original post 2,783 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays full of knowledge and wisdom

Life is Still Inexplicable – Subjective Versus Objective Characterizations

I just reblogged ONE of clanton1934’s many interesting and intriguing blog post about life and its meaning (if there is any at all).

Now it’s time for me to reblog another of clanton1934’s blog articles. I choose this one because the two fit so well together.

Here’s a quote from this second (by me) reblogged article:

In my view, these objective observations and descriptions do not, however, explain: what is the source and nature of the force which drives the biochemistry and biological systems forward in spite of the natural characteristics of disorder and chaos. Lacking objective answers to this question, we are in the subjective arena. Some scientists believe these replicative forces toward complex structure and function, are the products of an enormous number of random encounters of non-living chemicals over extremely long periods of time.


Several prominent scientist insist that “evolution” does not mean “improvement”. Dawkins proposes that Darwin’s “descent with modification” is explained by random errors in DNA replication with some products having greater survivability than others. In this explanation, we humans are not an improving, higher form of life, just different from our deep ancestors, with, perhaps greater, on average, better survivability . These scientists deny a teleonomic character.

Pross disagrees and believes that both the structure and the behavior of all living things lead to an unambiguous and unavoidable conclusion— living things have an ‘agenda’ (Pross’ word). Living things act on their own behalf. The Pross “agenda”, I believe is an idea which should be in the subjective arena and not in Pross’ objective analysis..

Pross uses an analogy of an automobile without an engine (pre-life) and a car with an engine (life) to describe the replicating entity. “The entity with an energy-gathering capability is now like a car with an engine— it can go uphill too. That means that a replicating system with an energy-gathering capability would appear to have an agenda. It would seem to be acting purposefully, as it would no longer need to be confined to the downhill thermodynamic path, which we interpret as objective behaviour, but rather the path toward systems of greater organization and function, which could involve the equivalent of rolling some way uphill.”

This analogy does not answer the question: where did the “engine” come from and what makes the engine run?

Charles Clanton Rogers


Review: Addy Pross, What is Life (1)

“TV’s  Talking-heads” frequently start their position statement: “I’m not a scientist but….” Then they proceed to inform you, in the manner of a peddler, that he is “right” and you are “wrong”. This is the ageless Zero-Sum Game:(2)  “I win – you lose!” 

Unlike those  sellers, this author is  a scientist and a physician.  What is  unfortunate in this “pseudo-debate”,  looking at both sides of the biological controversy –those from the faith-based discussants  and those employing observations  and reasoning, – each is playing the tired and ancient game: Zero-Sum.  

In my view, neither side needs to defeat the other in order to win, with what they are defending. My view is that just as oxygen and nitrogen can occupy the same space, the subjective (faith-based) and theobjective (science-based) are not mutually exclusive. In my view, an intelligent…

View original post 1,737 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Blogs I follow, Consciousness, Evolution, Mind, Philosophy, Religion, Science, Words of wisdom

Life is a Journey

Some people sport what I’d prefer to call encyclopedic knowledge. They remind me of polymaths.

And yet they are so humble, so non-egotistic.. They really lack inflated ideas of their own importance and “omnipotence”.

The fact is these polymaths usually know so much that they are able to explore and investigate Nature (and its “sibling” Life) on their own.

During their explorations they strive to build bridges between all the different branches of knowledge that, in a holistic view, constitute Nature and Life.

Knowledge used in that way leads to – and causes – wisdom.

I want do define that word/concept as “the quality of having enough knowledge and life experiences to make good and empathetic judgments, and to give coherent and sensible good advice to people in need of a helping hand.

The other day I came into contact with a blogger called Charles Rogers (a.k.a. clanton1934). His knowledge is of the encyclopedic kind. And his blog is full of both knowledge and wisdom.

That’s why I’m going to reblog two of his blog posts here on my own blog. He definitely is worth following and, of course, being read. He is absolutely worth being listened to.

Here’s a quote from his blog post: Clanton1934 calls it a “Conclusion”. Personally i’d prefer to call it Clanton1934’s credo or statement of belief(s). Anyhow, it’s very nice and inspiring to read:


A parting question: Consider this: the greatest scientists who share Dawkin’s and Hoffman’s solely mechanistic, random-chaos view of the origin of life, have manifested in their encyclopedic study and meticulous manuscript authoring, an enormous motivative force driving their work. This force is not objective. Is not this the inexplicable subjective force of life which science can not explain (but some deny)?

Addy Pross’ conclusion serves to give us sound attitude: “Each individual is part of a nuclear family, which, in turn, is part of an extended family, which is part of a local community, which is part of larger groups of the human organization. The survival of the community requires far more than the individual. Reproductively speaking, individuals are incomplete. Biologically speaking, our individuality is actually non-existent.” That’s why a new pregnancy catches our attention. That powerful and compulsive news resonates with our fundamental selves.

“Just as importantly, we are also emotionally incomplete. Various psychological elements also connect us to the network. We obsessively need to be with others. We think of ourselves as individuals, but we are really just components of a network. Our “lifeboat” is not just many individuals, but an ever-expanding living network. The irrepressible force of life leaves no stone unturned in seeking ways to extend the invaluable larger life of which we are the stewards. We obsessively need to be with others. We think we are separate, but we are one. We think of ourselves as individuals, but we are really just components of a network.”

Life has a purpose; the purpose is the process; the process is the product.

Charles Clanton Rogers

Freedom_train_in_ga7THE FREEDOM TRAIN 1947  “Life is a journey, not a destination” (1)

Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted.” (2)

I have had an epiphany about Life. Now I see Life is a Process. The purpose is the process; the process is the product.

Here is a true story which has given me an analogy to this epiphany:  In 1947, a very special train was assembled to contain the nation’s greatest treasures and wisdom, among which was the originals of  The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States.  (3)  The Freedom Train traveled to cities across the country carrying this wisdom-treasure. The train passed through the small towns without stopping. A teacher from such a community, upon learning that these jewels of wisdom would not stop, persuaded the conductor to at least go slowly through their station in order…

View original post 1,445 more words

1 Comment

Filed under Blogs I follow, Consciousness, Evolution, Mind, Philosophy, Religion, Science, Words of wisdom