Talk:Baháʼí views on science/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Foundationals and Fundamentals

How the Truth behind the Baha'i Faith influences the various human disciplines will be played out over time. There are several issues that I have not seen addressed. I’m posting a comment here first while I figure out how to start the necessary discussion.

Here is a brief list (throughout, related quotes from the Writings are paraphrased, for now):

Humans have hierarchies expressed in all sorts of ways that need to be understood better (cups to pints to gallons in capability, issues of true independence, …). One way these hierarchies show themselves is in us-them dynamics. But, no matter the case, everyone is independent (not in need of fellows, …) and faces the music of one’s life individually (goes before the Creator, …). So, one thing that Baha’i will bring – IMHO – is a better way to know (see with one’s own eyes, with one’s own mind, …). I really believe that arguments pertaining to the Quasi-empirical (blackest night, deepest pit – 4th Valley) are apropos and need to be addressed in a way to where we can better balance objectivity – and its failings – and the necessary head/heart basis for knowledge.

With our hierarchies, we have partitionings. Among these are current modes, such as the University – academic – realm owning science. I would argue that this is only a temporary blimp. I think that we can use the ‘wiki’ (some quote from the Guardian here about a pervasive communication means) as the glimmer of a non-elite framework for a scientific paradigm that will truly turn things on their heads. I’m going to use metaphors from differential topology (and other maths) as I help expand what’s needed in the discussion. But, we could use things like – the earth is round, but the world is flat. Every viewpoint has associated with it a myriad of extensions which are usually linear. Compounding these do not make for non-linearity, but they can cause complications.

What we have really in the realm of our collective knowledges is a highly divisive reality (knowledge is a point that has been multiplied by the non-believers) view that cannot be integrated without some fundamental change. One aspect of the current situation is that everyone throws over the wall to an expert any query that they don’t know. Naturally, humankind will have to build a way that we can ‘axiomatically’ – quoted as it’s being used in a large than normal sense – use collective knowledge (trust, truth, …) and depend upon not having to be omniscient – except for the few events that are known to be ‘infallible’ if done right – leading to a notion that in the hierarchy of truth, the UHJ may have to provide the provisional basis – types of axioms or interpretations taken as true -- for a world of knowledge built upon proven tidbits collected via computational events, by humans, or by a wedding – borgs, essentially.

This is not a closure, but I think that the 7 and 4 Valleys are together a wonderful starting point for a productive worldview in the sense of demonstrating the Harmony of Science and Religion. jmswtlk 14:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi JMS,

I must confess that I read through this a couple of times and I'm not completely following what you're getting at.

My understanding is that you are interesting in writing a couple paragraphs about rethinking some fundamental concepts of scientific thought using the Writings as a guide.

Is this right? because if it is I think that it's a great idea that hopefully many great minds will work on, but I have to ask if this is the correct place for it.

As an encyclopedia the most that can be done here is to state that this person or these people have done research about this and this is their research and this is how it was recieved.

What you're talking about seems utterly fascinating and I would like to hear more. Have you or anyone published anything about this that you can direct me to? LambaJan 01:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi LambaJan, I’m new to ‘wiki’ editing and am actively working on learning the protocol (especially, the appropriate restraint of original thought : - ). Thanks for the comment as it was rightly timed and phrased. Before I go further, let me say that I’ve really enjoyed the Baha’i pages on ‘wiki’ and have made great use of them for reference. Even in the more troublesome areas (in several senses), I think that these pages provide a good view to the subject.

Now, I can do some clarification of my original statement. Let me propose some changes and see what ensues from that. In brief, I think that the page has to many words on 3 areas of controversy (Ether, Life on other planets, and Evolution) related to Statements in the Writings of a cosmological nature. Some of this detail ought to go to a page on differences of opinion.

The main ‘science’ page ought to lay out the notions in a more positive sense. Too, it ought to bring out the fact that the term ‘science’ has more applicability than just those so-called ‘hard’ disciplines dealing with matter. See the page on the 2 types (material and spiritual). In regard to the former, there would be even social sciences on the list. Now, the latter (spiritual) is really heavily alluded to in my diatribe above. There are other examples like this.

So, the main page could have a list from several sources, some of which are now linked to (A Compilation on Scholarship, the Warwick Leaflet, …). Of course, each item on the list would require some text plus a link to the source. Whether the text would do justice to the original is one of the challenges.

Now, that man is ‘spiritual’ and may use this attribute to be a better scientist (scholar, …) is probably the way most think about how Faith works with science. Or, one might say that spiritually motivated activities might help improve the mind or cause insight. Actually, the common view now is that Faith can interfere with the scientific mindset; has anyone shown the positive side on secular (forgive the use, but it comes to mind) pursuits of knowing the Writings?

My comment suggests another view which is that an ‘axiomatic’ framework could very well be founded on the Writings (I’m not sure that this is something original to me – as I can find plenty of quotes (actually had them organized at one point) that indicate that something like this can work). Now, would such a thing possibly work in the ‘hard’ sense? It’s one of those ‘quasi empirical’ questions.

My pointer to the ‘quasi empirical’ discussions in mathematics is because the joke is the following: the biologist talks to the chemist, the chemist talks to the physicist, the physicist talks to the mathematician, … This is the throwing-over-the-wall syndrome. Now, to who do those upon whose shoulders have been placed the mathematical cape talk? You see, none of the Writings are mathematical in this sense. But, there are concepts one sees that are very much like the underlying motivations, in many cases.

As an aside, if there were some ‘truth’ calculating entity (and, we’re going to be building such a beast through time, I think), at some point the absence of hard fact will cause the referencing mechanism to need shoring by some means. I’m talking about a type of situation where even fuzzy and Bayesian and other loose methods would not be appropriate. In a sense, some of the seemingly ‘circular reasoning’ that is latent in certain efforts causes a ‘house of cards’ that can have serious consequences of failure. It’s at some of those foundational points that an ‘infallible’ view could be activated (various methods, but essentially via the UHJ).

So, this isn’t a small task here. Do I try my hand at a restructure? I know that there are sandboxes. I don’t know if they can be shared. However, a temporary page that is eventually deleted would work. If we started such a thread, the 'wiki' phenomenon would cause the necessary convergence (or the wiki consensus), IMHO. jmswtlk 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello JMSwtlk,

I'm still a little confused, but I think I get to where you're going, and I think it's a good idea. The best is probably to start a sub-user page, that is underneath your user page with an outline, and we can work on it there, until it is in good enough shape, that we can move it here. To make a sub-suer page, just go to your own user page, and then in the location bar add a "/Science" It will then ask you if you start a new page, and of course that what you want to do. Thanks again, for contributing on these pages. -- Jeff3000 04:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonjour Jeff3000, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the pulling together of the 'encyclopedic' view of Faith and Science. See the related Faith and Science sandbox.

Thanks for setting this up, JMSwtlk. I've put the page on my watchlist, and will comment whenever you add some stuff to it. -- Jeff3000 16:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Independent Investigation of the Truth

After some work, it becomes clear that what I'm talking about is Independent Investigation of the Truth (let's call it IIOT) which might have influence on science (Foundations of Science, perhaps) but has a much broader scope (nature of truth, etc.). Once the IIOT page is developed, then how it will impact the Baha'i Faith and Science page or other pages can be determined. There might be interesting twists come about from this work. Will be fun. jmswtlk 20:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Infallibility

Took a stab at this. jmswtlk 16:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that content should go in Manifestation of God. -- Jeff3000 16:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the link is from the section on Scientific Statements by Founders - I thought that we could tie into the philosophy of science. jmswtlk 00:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for exposition on another page

Would someone who is familiar with the origin belief of Bahai make a trek over to that page and create a subsection on it? It is a glaring omission. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ice worms

The statement:

"Life, as currently known, would not survive on any world lacking liquid water."

Is untrue. See these articles [1][2] on ice worms, which cannot live at temperatures much above the freezing level of water (or they turn into goo and die). Might we want to change the wording of the article? Cuñado - Talk 17:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Given new verifiable information, as it seems above, then the statement should be fixed. Also the section on Life on other planets seems like a lot of original work. For example the statement "Taken on its face — reading creatures as living things and planets as terrestrial and/or jovian planets — this statement is contradicted by current understanding of astrobiology and planetary science." While no doubt, some or maybe most people would agree with that statement, we have to find a verifiable and reliable source for that statement. -- Jeff3000 18:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed and reworded a few parts about life on other planets. I don't want to rehash an old argument, so I just boiled it down to facts. If anyone objects, you're welcome to put things back. Cuñado - Talk 23:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Ice Worm articles don't undercut the other verifiable sources on the impossibility of life on liquid-waterless worlds: either rock-balls or ice-balls. Earth has these creatures, but they evolved on a world with liquid water, acclimatized to ice-bound conditions, and as the Nichols.edu article says, "Ice worms feed in pools and streams", these specimens do, in fact, require liquid water to live.

The notation that a strictly literal reading, using narrow definitions of creature and planet, conflicts with science isn't original work. Both Baha'u'llah and `Abdul-Baha use the term sometimes very loosely (TB, pp. 187-188; FWU, p. 102; KA, p. 40-42), even interchangably when talking about people, animals, or the creation in general:

• Throughout the animal kingdom we do not find the creatures separated because of color. ('Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 34)
• Every creature hath been endowed with all the potentialities it can carry. (Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 25)
• I am He Who hath raised up all creatures through a word of My mouth, and My power is, in truth, equal to My purpose. (Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 38)

It seems very clear to me that this word is used generally very broadly and connotes, not only our impotence in the face of the Creator; but also that, as created beings, we collectively share much with the rest of creation. Neither of these ideas are innovative, but these themes recur often in these teachings. MARussellPESE 19:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On intelligibility

I've read this article, and while most of it is fairly neutral, the bits on aether and evolution particularly need a lot of help. They do not represent an adequate understanding of the science involved, and are awfully misleading and one sided: in fact the solution offered simply seems to be to quote vast tracts of Baha'i scripture. I've started fixing, but this will take time. Byrgenwulf 13:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You have to be more specific. This page is on the Baha'i Faith and science, and therefore how the Baha'i Faith understands and interprets things like evolution and ether is what it is about. It's not like these views have been stated as fact, but as Baha'i belief and understanding (and have been sourced). Also it's not like these views have been introduced in the evolution or ether pages where of course they would not be appropriates. -- Jeff3000 13:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand and respect that, and understand that matters have to work accordingly; my problem is not with the article itself, more that certain parts of it are tremendously unclear and don't really say much; moreover they are not always strictly accurate (I deleted a couple of the more troublesome sentences from the aether stuff, so that's better now). In evolution, perhaps a few provisos about how science emphatically does construe the human as "just another animal" (apart from the obvious), and that this therefore represents a difference between the two (to which could be appended a statement, if there is one in the scripture, describing how Baha'i might divide these things into matters of scriptural truth and matters of scientific truth).

Also, what's the copyright on the Baha'i scriptures and the various other sources which are quoted a chunk at a time?

Perhaps including a conclusion (I don't know enough about Baha'i to do that) which sums up all the points made in the various sections could help improve matters? Byrgenwulf 13:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with a conclusion, is that it's dangerously close to providing a POV on the beliefs presented. Summary is fine, but I'm not certain that it such is synonymous with conclusion, which draws the reader towards... er... conclusions. I think Summary at the top, description (again, in summary) of points of departure with either mainstream science or with other religions' views of the same scientific topic for compare/contrast, and then sections going into detail.

For the record, Byrgenwulf, many of the Baha'i editors are trying to migrate the Baha'i articles into a state that is more wiki-style, neutrally presented, and balanced, but we have lives and jobs and it's a lot of work, which I'm sure you can appreciate. Your help is appreciated, and many articles are lists of quotes, which amount to stubs from which a better article can be written. Keep it up, and the Baha'i editors will certainly lend a hand. Right now we're more focused on other articles.

Last point, correcting "scientific errors" isn't always appropriate, if such an "error" is in fact a part of the belief, or was the understanding of the scientific or general community at the time of the statement given. We might understand things differently now (like light not being a wave in the ether, though that's being revisited via quantum fields and other wierdness), but if we are going to correct such things then we should note the differences, but maintain historicity. Cheers. --Christian Edward Gruber 14:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Byrgenwulf I appreciate your help in making sure this page is NPOV. Could you recommend specific places in the text where you think another statement is required. I'm still a little unclear. In regards to a conclusion, I think Christian is right, and that conclusions are not usually recommended for POV reasons.

In regards to the copyright, the law allows small percentage of a work to be reproduced if it is cited. I can't find the link right now in Wikipedia that states that, but you can see it in Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.... Thus regardless of the actual copyright, which may be over since Abdu'l-Baha died in 1921, which plus 50 = 1971 (or + 70 = 1991), the quotations may be used. -- Jeff3000 15:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, I see your point about the conclusion...perhaps, then, rephrasing it in the summary at the start is better; what I was meaning was not so much "putting it in a specific place" as "putting it in at all": so a summary at the top is great. I'm glad to hear copyright isn't an issue. I removed the NPOV tag and put a "confusion" one, as I feel that's a bit appropriate. I'm thinking about how best to approach the whole matter...maybe just paraphrasing the quotes? I don't know.

I also see now the problem isn't so much factual errancy as the fact that the article is misleading (I doubt deliberately), in that on a first reading it seems to be pointing in a direction that on closer scrutiny it actually isn't...but juggling the quotes and generally aiming for a "smoother" style should remedy it. I'll be looking at it next week when I have more time to focus on it. Byrgenwulf 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra info. In rgarding to the inclusion of a summary, and the misleading parts, are you referring to the complete article, or to the evolution and ether sections specificly? -- Jeff3000 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a question... by misleading, do you mean that the article is leading the reader to a conclusion? Or that it's not accurate? It's hard to report these things, because in my opinion the points which currently differ from scientific consensus are points in which the "scientific" conclusion is weak or not mature yet. Cuñado - Talk 18:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the bigger problems is that it's easy for nonscientists to overstate the amount of uncertainty in science, and this article does that in several places. There's no chance that scientists will conclude that there may be life on literally every planet. Nor will scientists ever discover that "the present scientific point of view (of evolution) is not always correct". Those should not be described as if there's a chance scientists will change their minds tomorrow. Ken Arromdee 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I’m interested in this discussion for several reasons: I believe in Wiki, science, and Baha’i. Now, how does someone like me balance all that? To be NPOV, this page will have to use a type of indirection which might be fun to develop. However, even that won’t bridge the ontological (and other philosophical) differences between the main-stream views of science and that being purported by Baha’is trying to integrate their belief and what they know to be true via science. The latter discipline is like looking through a key hole. Or, perhaps better, science brings things into focus. But, can any viewpoint bring everything into focus? That is, what is the ratio of things in focus versus not. Which begs the question that there are things that are outside of focus (mainly, the notion that everything cannot be subsumed within one state view – we have all sorts of things to reference here, such as Heisenberg) which may come with a focal change (with others then moving out). Some times, the modern views cast doubt that anything not in the current focus isn’t there. Well, this is really, in my mind, where the approaches suggested in the Writings may come into play. There is a lot of ‘uncertainty’ in science that does not affect the day-to-day mindsets since ‘trends toward the mean’ are a stronger phenomenon. The 'uncertainties' play more to those things that are out-of-focus (a necessary step is resolving issues here in order to open up effective discussion and analysis) and to what they might mean. Discussions about this can start many places, but Quasi-empiricism in Mathematics is one that I like (notice that there is controversy on those contents, too). There’s a lot more to say, but I’ll desist. So, how to get something Wiki-pliant will be interesting to watch and help evolve. The Writings may not be axiomatic (in some contexts), however there is a facility embedded with the Writings that is somewhat analogous. Of course, Wiki is not the proper framework for this type of discovery. Now, about the need to meet NPOV ... Yahyay19 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

BASIS

It's been addressed before, above, however to no apparent effect. One glaring oversight is lack of talk about motivations; methinks that such an addition might help temper the BASIS. My meager attempt at introducing a discussion on ‘Origins’ (besides it being a possible entry into the Origins page where the Faith is not mentioned) was a suggestion about how to, perhaps, start to fill the hole (recognition of which would be a good first start). When one looks at the ontological framing as it might be necessitated by the Existence of the Perfect Manifestation (this, from the Master) (aside: this was the main theme of the pages I’ve attempted before – not original research, rather, just trying to fill in the pieces – I ask you, where has such been done before?), then one might be more able to acknowledge that much which might be considered ‘quackery’ from the limiting worldview comes more to the fore in a very reasonable sense. The Gleanings suggests prior civilizations (we don’t have to assume that they were Earth-bound), for instance. There are many, many references to what are scientific subjects in the Writings. Why limit the exposition on the Faith and Science to only 3 (is it the public appeal?)? I’m not trying to use ‘wiki’ as a sand box any more than it already is due to its being the main representative, that I know of, for a new way to know and to keep knowledge current. So, I’m not asking for Origins to be reinstated. My question is what is sacrosanct for the 3 main topics when in actuality it could be larger. After all, the Faith covers the gamut. Yahyay19 12:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What you added read like an essay, and not like an encyclopedia. Try finding some secondary sources which state what you want, and then we can talk about adding the info into the article in an encyclopedic manner. -- Jeff3000 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The issues in the article are commonly debated topics. It appears that you want to add much more obscure information, which I personally don't agree with adding. Like Jeff said, it was also written in like an essay. Cuñado - Talk 19:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

obscure as in out of focus - in the sense of the above - coming into focus takes work - progression toward focus comes from the fringes - the mainstream mainly provides the impetus for working out issues of stability and reliability. So, those 3 topics are just a smattering of what could be in the discourse. encyclopedic has a connotation dealing with 'comprehensive' views covering an 'entire range' (of course, we know that we're dealing with a Sea - essentially unbounded). Yahyay19 11:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, finally. Who would have thunk that the 'wiki' would be the BASIS for learning? <grin> Well, that related to the akasha lead me to views of science (Club of Budapest) other than those that push us (humans) down into the mud. I've mentioned other topics that could be apropos to discussions about the Faith and Science. I'll go back to pondering those. But, there has been recent reference to a Divine Science (Khan's talk - looking for this, but from the Aqdas "The first sign of the coming of age of humanity referred to in the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh is the emergence of a science which is described as that divine philosophy which will include the discovery of a radical approach to the transmutation of elements. ...") which is partly what I'm looking to see described here (why - motivation, what - might it be, ...). Yahyay19 22:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Propositional inerrancy of 'Abdu'l-Baha

Hello... I wanted to suggest we change the beginning of the section on scientific statements of the founders. 'Abdu'l-Baha does in fact seem to be stated as having propositional inerrancy (see response point number 2 in http://bahai-library.com/uhj_infallibility_abdulbaha and http://bahai-library.com/uhj_letters_behalf_guardian#s4 ). I'd also highly suggest we incorporate some of the points from this General Comments section at http://bahai-library.com/uhj_reconciliation_apparent_contradictions#s0 as well as this paragraph from http://bahai-library.com/uhj_letters_behalf_guardian , as they are very descriptive of some of the potential Baha'i responses to perceived contradictions :

"Finally, you ask whether Bahá'ís should accept all statements in the Writings as based in fact, unless there is an explicit reference to a particular statement being conditioned on other information. It should be clear from the examples provided in the memorandum of the Research Department that there are some cases where passages from the Writings affirm specific facts and other cases where passages conform to the beliefs of particular peoples. It is, therefore, necessary for the reader to determine the meaning of statements that are not explicit by applying sound hermeneutical principles found in the Teachings. While there is often room for a range of personal interpretation on such matters, and a degree of ambiguity will invariably exist in some cases, usually a common understanding is formed, which will change over time should additional evidence come to light. Differences of personal opinion about the meaning of the Text should not be allowed to create discord or wrangling among the friends." (at http://bahai-library.com/uhj_letters_behalf_guardian )

-- Brettz9 06:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one of our tasks is to understand how to apply this 'propositional inerrancy' (an operational issue). The Master knew what He was saying (though, we only have a paraphrase) and to whom He was speaking (western view) when He said: "If we wish to deny everything that is not sensible, then we must deny the realities which unquestionably exist. For example, ethereal matter is not sensible, though it has an undoubted existence. The power of attraction is not sensible, though it certainly exists. From what do we affirm these existences? From their signs. Thus this light is the vibration of that ethereal matter, and from this vibration we infer the existence of ether." SAQ

Another task: study and describe that aspect of Creation to which He referred (as 'ether') such that our understanding can be applied and tested, perhaps even thereby establishing a much needed new thrust for science. No apologies are needed for daring to challenge the limits that have been imposed by man's mind and methods (albeit, however brilliant these may have been). Yahyay19 13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

'Abdu'l-Baha's statements in Some Answered questions seem to clearly explain that humans, although once resembling animals in form, never passed through an animal stage as the article suggests. He states very clearly that there is no missing link between humans and the great apes. According to His statements, there was never a time when humans and apes had a common ancestor. They are not biologically related. This differs from the current view of science. He also does not state that human beings were ever "potential" humans. He states that human beings have always been human beings, in whatever stage of their evolution, which resembled the development of a child in the womb. Baha'is believe that embryos in the womb have souls, and likewise, humans throughout their evolution had souls (which animals do not, according to the Baha'i Faith). In other words, in a Baha'i context, it is impossible for animals and humans to be biologically related, because otherwise all animals would have rational souls, which they do not, yet even the single-celled ancestors of humans must have had rational souls (just as a single-celled human embryo has a soul, according to the Baha'i teachings). The attempts of some Baha'i scholars to explain away 'Abdu'l-Baha's teaching on evolution to make it seem more acceptable do not address these issues. It may differ from modern scientific theories, but Baha'is simply have to believe that eventually modern science will conform to 'Abdu'l-Baha's teaching and not vice versa. This mirrors the early days of Islam, when Islamic scholars were embarassed that the Qur'an seemed to say that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa which contradicted the Ptolemaic theory. In reality, the Qur'an was right and the Ptolemaic theory was wrong. Similarly, Baha'is must have faith that 'Abdu'l-Baha is right and the current theory of evolution is wrong. The 'origin of life is one' may simply refer to the divine origin of all life, which was created by God. It doesn't necessarily indicate that all life is biologically related. There is no indication that humans passed through the various levels of the spirit, because we certainly never had a plant form. Humans have always had a human soul, not an animal spirit, and cannot change their station. NicholasJB 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, IMHO. Also, there has always been a Manifestation. But, how does one address this type of thing within science? There is a split, in the modern view, between the views that have become acceptable as science (materialistic, European, ...) and those that are a reasonable religious stance. It seems that some of the article's content is meant to not step on the toes of those who are really complaining about religion's bad influence on mankind. The press is full of references about the recent publications. Of course, Wiki, itself, may be a problem, as would it allow expansion of a 'true' view of science (assuming that this could be defined)? (NOR, etc.) There are many studies of a quasi-empirical nature that could be followed, using insights from the Writings. Right now, these things are probably only being done by individuals. At some point, they would need to be shared endeavors. Again, Wiki would not be the place, yet where are the people working at the fundamental areas who are trying to incorporate these types of ideas? I've asked that before. Is it sufficient to just be a good Baha'i and go through the paces as a scientist (meaning, work in a manner that may not gel with what is true)? Creation is here for us to study. Nothing says that our understanding of it needs to be limited by collective world views. How can this be done without crank-ness (not the presence so much as the potential labeling of one's work) is a troubling question. jmswtlk 00:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fond of this sub-section either. It mis-states some points. Much Baha'i apologia on the subject is written from perspectives that either neglect key elements of the science and/or the philosophy. This severely weakens both approaches.

The passage noted from Some Answered Questions, taken by itself, can lead down a blind alley concluding that Baha'is cannot accept Human evolution by natural selection. This conclusion is very dangerous. Baha'is must not presume that science is wrong when it appears to disagree with our reading of the teachings. We must be sure that our reading is unambiguous; and with respect to human origins and the nature of man, they are not cut-and-dried.

The fourth teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the agreement of religion and science. God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation. (`Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 240)

What `Abdu'l-Baha is criticizing by stating that "man has not evolved" is the idea of scientific materialists and social Darwinists that humanity is just another animal. That reasoning, especially in the hands of social Darwinists was, has, and is used to justify all sorts of misery, suffering, and worst of all: indifference.

To get a better grip on this one must investigate `Abdu'l-Baha's use of the term "man". He clarifies the question of the nature of man elsewhere in SAQ with this:

Know that there are two natures in man: the physical nature and the spiritual nature. The physical nature is inherited from Adam, and the spiritual nature is inherited from the Reality of the Word of God, which is the spirituality of Christ. The physical nature is born of Adam, but the spiritual nature is born from the bounty of the Holy Spirit. The first is the source of all imperfection; the second is the source of all perfection. (`Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 118)

Metaphysically speaking, "Mankind" is that unique Kingdom of Creation endowed with the capacity to know and love God. Considering this as a Platonic form is useful. As long as there has been a creation, this form, "Mankind", has always existed, and is just as eternal and unchanging. This is that first nature that Baha'is reaffirm every day with the Short Obligatory Prayer. And this is that nature of which he speaks when `Abdu'l-Baha asserts that man is unchanging.

Physically speaking however, Homo sapiens is that organism on this world that has the capacity to reflect the spiritual reality of "Mankind". This organism has most certainly undergone natural selection, and it has evolved until it possessed that capacity.

Possession of a soul is not a physical attribute passed down the generations. It is a gift from God. Having a soul implies having central nervous system complex enough to handle one. And that takes time for life to evolve one.

From the Baha'i teachings, it is not a stretch to deduce the necessity for a complex brain and nervous system for there to be the presence of a soul. Where else can that "intelligence and reason" ""God has endowed man with" see the light of day? `Abdu'l-Baha alludes to the relationship between physical and spiritual:

The powers of the sympathetic nerve are neither entirely physical nor spiritual, but are between the two (systems).[1] The nerve is connected with both. Its phenomena shall be perfect when its spiritual and physical relations are normal. (`Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v2, p. 309)

And Baha'u'llah just about says so in so many words. The Passage (LXXXIII) from Gleanings is far too long to reproduce here, but this is the link. He answers the question of whether our brains and soul (rational faculty) are bound. (Yes, they are.) But, the question of how the brain and soul are bound is beyond our understanding.

In that light, sharing common physical traits with the animal kingdom is not at all troubling — or contrary to Baha'i teachings. Recognizing that shared heritage reinforces my ties the the rest of Creation. But that's not what makes me Human — knowing and loving, and being loved by, God does. ("I bear witness, O my God …") Recognizing that reinforces my ties to each of you. And that can be a lot of fun. MARussellPESE 04:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but, ... Actually, that was a wonderful response. However, one thing skirted around is the whole 'blind watchmaker' issue. I would think that a proper view would allow teleology (why else - or should I say how else -- would we have a Manifestation?). Frankly, it gets me that the staunch scientists are now relying greatly on the computational (a gift from God which we have only begun to explore) yet miss the whole issue of the quasi-empirical. So, 'what is science and how ought it to work' has not been resolved; that current 'science' tramples the soul makes it very suspect to me. By the way, Lamark took a bunch of grief. Yet, his concept has some credence in some evolutionary computational schemes (essentially, using the computer to expand generations while evaluating members according to stated criteria). This is one of many examples. One step would be to get an agreement on Creation (that statement opens me up to ridicule unbounded). jmswtlk 14:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to the following: "Possession of a soul is not a physical attribute passed down the generations. It is a gift from God. Having a soul implies having central nervous system complex enough to handle one. And that takes time for life to evolve one" I would like to point out that there is nothing in the Writings to indicate that a central nervous system is necessary in order to have a soul. Baha'is believe that the soul is in a relationship with a body from the moment of conception, when a human being is a single-celled organism. 'Abdu'l-Baha wrote that "in the protoplasm, man is man" (Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 359) The ability to have a soul is passed down through human beings as a species, not any other. But of course, it is a gift from God. In other words, in every stage of evolution, man has had a soul and animals have not. It is a very strange idea to imagine that one day there was an animal who was just close enough to modern man that he was born with a soul, while his parents were brutish animals with no eternal existence. That is impossible and illogical. Furthermore, 'Abdu'l-Baha makes it clear that human evolution is similar to the development of a child within the womb. At no stage in that process does one derive from another species. A human embryo does not pass through the stage of being an animal, though it resembles other animal embryos. The references to the futility of finding a missing link seem to clearly indicate that we, as human beings, have no common ancestor with the great apes. He wrote: "The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not an animal. How is it possible to have all the links present and that important link absent? Its absence is an indication that man has never been an animal. It will never be found." (Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 359) He is not simply trying to emphasise humanity's spiritual station here. He is clearly stating that the idea of humans and apes having a common ancestor is wrong and will never be proven. I believe that 'Abdu'l-Baha makes it quite clear that man was not "raised from the animal world to the human world" (p. 192) as some scholars seem to believe and much of the relevant chapters in Some Answered Questions are devoted to disproving the prevailing theory of science, not to approve it. It is not an objection to terms or emphasis, but to the idea the very idea of humans deriving from animal species. Human beings evolved, but apart from all other species.NicholasJB 01:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted NicholasJB because while I agree with most of them, they are original work in terms of interpretation. Using primary works to make your own interpretation and adding them to the article is not the way to go. We need reliable secondary sources to do so. Thus much of the discussion above is not admissible in this page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the article as it stands is that it presents the view of several scholars as "the" Baha'i view. It actually states that the Baha'i teachings accept that humans derived from animals biologically. I find that offensive, especially because this is something which I do not believe, and I believe many/most Baha'is who have read 'Abdu'l-Baha's writings do not believe it either. What I wrote was not intended as original interpretation. If someone would like to edit the article in a way which presents what 'Abdu'l-Baha actually argues in Some Answered Questions, I would appreciate it. But certainly, this one-sided view that is presented on the article should not be allowed to continue.NicholasJB 00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jeff: Nick's edits are WP:OR, and we need to meet that for inclusion. Disagree with Jeff in that I disagree with the statements on the whole.

Nick, I think you are misinformed in the science. Many Baha'is, sadly, are as well. Also, you have not read thoroughly my, albeit long, treatise above.

The statement "in the protoplasm, man is man" does not make the point that Humanity has always existed as a distinct form of life for several reasons.

First: Promulgation of Universal Peace is not necessarily authoritative text. It is very unwise to base interpretations on such.

Second: That talk is a presented as a Socratic-style dialogue between opposing Western/Materialistic and Eastern/Spiritual points of view. A rhetorical technique he uses a lot in his talks. The specific phrase you cite is in his presentation of the Eastern view and not necessarily his own. That statement is out-of-context.

Third: the statemtent "in the protoplasm, man is man" merely states firmly that the proposition that a Human being is uniquely human from the moment of conception — a position the Faith holds. It does not make the sweeping generalization that Humanity was Humanity from an"Age of Algae".

The proposition that Humanity has always existed physically as a separate form of life from the begining raises some sticky and/or disproven issues:

• "Humanity has existed from the beginning" — of what? Time? The formation of the Earth? The arrival of liquid water on Earth? The first strand of DNA? Forcing man's spiritual nature to necessarily have a contemperaneous physicial counterpart is very tricky, and not something `Abdul-Baha is doing.
• If Man was "created to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization", then there should be evidence of civilizations going back to primordial times. Unfortunately, there aren't. Not only is is difficult to conceive of an Algal Civilization, there's no evidence of civilization among the extant higher vertebrates. (Some argue that apes, cetaceans, etc. possess culture, but I'd counter that these social systems are static and therefore don't rise to the level of civilization.)
• If Man is not physically related to any other animals then we should share no physical characteristics with any of them. The evidence refuting this position is overwhelming.

You're not convinced that a complex central nervous system is required for a lifeform to manifest a soul. Consider the plethora of Baha'u'llah's and `Abdul-Baha's discussions and extollings of reason, logic, argument, and rational thought in human beings. The entire Second Valley is devoted to this. Then ask: "How is reason possible to manifest without a complex CNS?"

Frankly, Man has the capacity to reflect all the name and attributes of God. These feelings and emotions are very sophisticated. When one looks at the Animal Kingdom one finds complex emotion only in higher vertebrates. And only in Homo sapiens does one find their expression to the extent that one finds them all expressed in such exquisite range and complexity.

Again, `Abdul-Baha is refuting the then quite fashionable thinking of Western Materialists that considers Man to be yet another animal. Therefore — of course — he'll state emphatically that man was not "raised" from the animal. Yet neither is `Abdul-Baha making the kinds of cut-and-dried scientific statements that he is sometimes accused of. Consider:

The first answer to this argument is the fact that the animal having preceded man is not a proof of the evolution, change and alteration of the species, nor that man was raised from the animal world to the human world. For while the individual appearance of these different beings is certain, it is possible that man came into existence after the animal. So when we examine the vegetable kingdom, we see that the fruits of the different trees do not arrive at maturity at one time; on the contrary, some come first and others afterward. This priority does not prove that the later fruit of one tree was produced from the earlier fruit of another tree. [Emphasis mine] (`Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 192)

That jibes directly with the thesis I've stated above, comes from an authentic source, and clearly states that `Abdul-Baha does not cast the origin of our physical forms back to primordial times. MARussellPESE 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Far from being original interpretation, I was trying to correct the article to actually represent some of 'Abdu'l-Baha's own teachings on evolution. You wrote that "many Baha'is" are "misinformed in the science". I doubt that most Baha'is have a grounding in evolutionary theory, but that is beside the point. The point is that 'Abdu'l-Baha's writings refute the currently established theory of evolution. The quote from Promulgation of Universal Peace serves to illustrate a point, which is confirmed in Some Answered Questions and other authoritative writings. I was not relying upon it as a sole source for what I wrote. If human beings passed through a single-celled stage, according to 'Abdu'l-Baha's teachings in Some Answered Questions, they would be human beings and thus separate from other species. This is clear from the Writings. At every stage, He points out proofs that human beings did not evolve from other species. In particular, He makes the point that humans are unrelated to the great apes.

The article as it stands states bluntly that the Baha'i teaching accepts an animal origin for human beings, which it does not. I certainly don't believe that and I'm sure many Baha'is do not accept that "Baha'i" teaching. Why should one interpretation by several Baha'i scholars be represented as the view of all Baha'is, especially when that interpretation contradicts the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha?

'Abdu'l-Baha does not state that we as physical humans on earth have always existed physically, but he does state that as long as we have existed on earth, we have remained a separate species. The eternal existence of man means that humans have always existed somewhere in the universe. Human beings in their earliest stages, when, according to 'Abdu'l-Baha, we resembled animals, did not have spiritual civilization. The Baha'i teachings confirm that embryos have souls and they do not possess a central nervous system. That is clear enough. The coming of man into existence after animals does not mean that humans derived from animals biologically.NicholasJB 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible for the evolution section of "Bahá'í Faith and science" to be revised in such a way as to avoid presenting the view that humans derived from animals as the Baha'i viewpoint? For example, here is one quote I find particularly objectionable:

"Thus in Bahá'í view, humans are anatomically connected with the animals as in scientific thought".

This quote makes it appear that all Baha'is accept that humans are anatomically connected with animals. I do not believe this reflects what 'Abdu'l-Baha has said in Some Answered Questions at all. If 'Abdu'l-Baha believed that, He would not have spent so much effort presenting what He calls 'proofs' that the current theory of evolution is flawed.

Here are some other problem quotes:

"The Bahá’í perspective that religion must be in accordance with science seems to suggest that religion must accept current scientific knowledge as authoritative."

The teachings on harmony between science and religion do not state that scientific knowledge must be accepted as authoritative. Where does it say that??? Actually, on the issue of evolution, Shoghi Effendi wrote:

"You see our whole approach to each matter is based on the belief that God sends us divinely inspired Educators; what they tell us is fundamentally true, what science tells us today is true; tomorrow may be entirely changed to better explain a new set of facts." (Shoghi Effendi, Arohanui - Letters to New Zealand, p. 85)

Religion is always true, whereas science can change from time to time. It seems that current scientific knowledge ISN'T authoritative.

No mention is made of the fact that 'Abdu'l-Baha denied the possibility that a missing link between man and the great apes would ever be found. Instead, the attempt by several Baha'i scholars to explain away what 'Abdu'l-Baha was saying is mentioned. This can be mentioned, but the article makes it appear that this is the accepted Baha'i understanding, which is wrong.

Another problem quote is the following:

"`Abdu'l-Bahá rejected the interpretation that the common ancestry of humans with other animals implies that humans are animals."

This is making it appear that he accepted the common ancestry of animals and humans in the first place. This is not mentioned in the Writings.

I think the quotes about the common origin of life should be removed entirely, as they do not appear to be relevant, in my opinion. One quote says for instance "Verily, the origin of all material life is one and its termination likewise one." (Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 350) When I quoted the Promulgation, I was informed that it is not reliable as a source, was I not? Well, it may not be, but why does this quote make its way into the article? However, only the first part is mentioned, because "its termination likewise one" doesn't really make any sense, if He is saying that animals, plants and humans came from one biological origin. The Origin referred to is probably God. The other quote mentioned is from Paris Talks. Is that more reliable than the Promulgation of Universal Peace? Not really.

I hope that someone will rectify these problems with the article. I am not suggesting that my own views be represented. I am suggesting that the one-sided view that is presented is unjustifiable and offensive to some Baha'is. I am afraid that if I alter it, my alterations will be seen as "original interpretation", which it is not.NicholasJB 00:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything stated in the article is cited. What you believe is what Abdu'l-Baha means by his statements through his talks is your interpretation and not allowable. What you feel is offensive, is not at all offensive to me, and that is why reliable sources are needed. Using the primary sources is not recommended per WP:V as people can interpret them differently. Find some other secondary sources, and then we can add those to the article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found a Baha'i article which explains that, although the teachings do not accept that forms can evolve between kingdoms (e.g. animal to human), evolution can occur "within" Kingdoms, which is basically what Abdu'l-Baha says in Some Answered Questions. Some attempt should be made to incorporate the views of this article, as it represents a more mainstream Baha'i view point and one that is more accurate in any case: http://bahai-library.com/nadimi_evolution_within_kingdomNicholasJB 04:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nick, the section on Evolution is scrupulously cited from a peer-reviewed paper presented in one of the most respected academic journals available to the Baha'i community. It would seem that you would do well to read and digest it.

One point they make, repeatedly, is the same point I've been hammering on here. That is that the spiritual and physical natures of Man are distinct. In our physical nature we most certainly do share several characteristics with all animals. Our physical form is descended from primates and apes, and we are hominids. The genetic evidence alone is overwhelming. However, this makes us no less spiritually Human. Man is of two natures.

You have stated: "Religion is always true, whereas science can change from time to time. It seems that current scientific knowledge ISN'T authoritative." I think `Abdul-Baha might disagree with you:

"Furthermore He proclaims that religion must be in harmony with science and reason. If it does not conform to science and reconcile with reason it is superstition. Down to the present day it has been customary for man to accept a religious teaching even though it were not in accord with human reason and judgment. The harmony of religious belief with reason is a new vista which Bahá'u'lláh has opened for the soul of man." (Compilations, Baha'i World Faith, p. 247)

Scientific understanding does evolve, but those fields of endeavour that have robust grounding should not be treated as cavalierly as one could treat a newly developing one. Those clear scientific understandings that are not directly contradicted by an unambiguous reading of the writings are to be given great credence, even to be treated as authoritative. (I do believe in the Big Bang. I do. I do.) This is one reason why we are enjoined to see a competent physician, as well as pray, when we are ill.

Social Darwinism, which was and is treated as "scientific" and was quite de rigeur in `Abdul-Baha's time, is a great evil and one that our teachings unequivocally contradict. (We are indeed our brother's keeper.) `Abdul-Baha would have failed in his duty to not challenge it so strongly on its home-court in Europe. The faith's teachings on homosexuality are likewise unambiguous — and likewise not subject to "re-interpretation" to conform to the latest DSM.

But where the teachings are not necessarily clear on scientific matters, Baha'is must understand, and rely upon, both religion and science to effectively investigate the truth of things. This is Friberg's, von Kitzing's, and Mehanian and Friberg's approaches as noted by the breadth of their notes.

That there are Baha'is who are uniformed in science, or rely primarily on readings of the writings as a scientific authority, is indeed unfortunate and suggests a certain fundamentalist mind-set seemingly contrary to the religion's teachings:

It [the religion], moreover, enjoins upon its followers the primary duty of an unfettered search after truth, condemns all manner of prejudice and superstition, declares the purpose of religion to be the promotion of amity and concord, proclaims its essential harmony with science, and recognizes it as the foremost agency for the pacification and the orderly progress of human society. (Shoghi Effendi, Summary Statement - 1947, Special UN Committee on Palestine)

This is, unfortunately the approach that Nadimi takes in his article as evidenced from very narrow sources in his notes — making his article fatally flawed in my opinion. von Kritzing dissects and dismantles the "parallel evolution" tack Nadimi takes. (Nadimi is also not a published source, so not really usable for WP.)

An over-reliance even on Baha'i teachings themselves is itself, in my opinion, one of these "fetters" which Baha'u'llah, himself, warns against:

Schools must first train the children in the principles of religion, so that the Promise and the Threat recorded in the Books of God may prevent them from the things forbidden and adorn them with the mantle of the commandments; but this in such a measure that it may not injure the children by resulting in ignorant fanaticism and bigotry. (Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 68)

As an aside, I have Brown's and von Kitzing's book, and while Brown treats the historical and philisophical grounding of `Abdul-Baha's statments quite well, his treatment of the science is considerably weaker. Not to be unexpected from a then-PhD candidate in Near Eastern languages and cultures at UCLA[3]. However, I'll rely on von Kritzing's doctorate in biochemical evolution at the Max-Planck-Institut für Biophysikalische Chemie in Göttingen[4] in preference when it comes to reconciling the science with the teachings. His essay is much the stronger of the two with respect to the science. The book is an excellent example in itself of the need to take a broad view before coming to, even temporary, conclusions about what the faith "teaches". Brown's philisophical approach blends neatly with von Kritzing's biological — something neither would have likely developed on their own. No doubt they both learned something from the experience.

Lastly, and off-topic, I must retract my earlier comments on the section. Closer reading of it disabuses me of my attitude. It doesn't flow as well as I'd like; but it is well thought out. Apologies to the author. MARussellPESE 04:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I respect your well thought-out comments. I do see why *you* accept current scientific teachings on evolution. I understand that you think I have "a certain fundamentalist mind-set seemingly contrary to the religion's teachings". I disagree very strongly, however. I do understand the points that you are "hammering". I do see the point that you are trying to make. But I believe that it is contrary to the Baha'i teachings. You wrote that 'Abdu'l-Baha might not agree with what I said. Well, that statement was based on a quote from Shoghi Effendi, who seems to indicate that the Baha'i teachings do contradict current scientific theories. You're free to make your own mind up on what it means. I have read 'Abdu'l-Baha's writings on evolution and they are clear and unambiguous, and clearly and unambiguously contradict the current scientific teachings on evolution. Even if we take the issue of common origin with animals aside, one thing remains clear from 'Abdu'l-Baha's writings: humans did NOT descend from primates and have NO missing link with the great apes. My fear is that this article gives the false impression that the Baha'i teachings accept current evolutionary theory. I don't think there's anything I can do about that at the moment. I can only hope that God will make the truth evident in the future.NicholasJB 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas, you did get quite a discussion going. So, let me thank you. Irrespective of whether the section on evolution gets changed or not, you're bringing up good points to which I, for the most part, agree. Yet, there is the current umbrella (wiki) with rules about NOR, NPOV, etc. Hence, an emphasis on citing sources will keep some of what you are bringing up out of scope. Too, as you see from the press, anyone who ventures to argue improvements to evolution gets jumped on as a fundamentalist which one could argue is preferable to scientism. There may be other forums to continue this discussion. Science is how we know God (and Creation) which is not just limited to this particular life experience. How is that large of a scope brought into the discussion?

Let me just say that there are ontological means to put the Writings to use in establishing a better framework for science than what we've seen so far. Consider this, who in the Faith thinks that we've seen anything but a glimmer of what the future portends? Yet, certain aspects of the scientific method allow (or seem to allow) grand closures on questions using major extrapolations from a very small observational set.

Okay. That's not the way it's supposed to be, say the really good minds; most closures in science are conditional as it needs to be open to new knowledge (you see, the Faith even says that there'll be more Manifestations). Part of the problem is that humans know that there is more than is admitted by science; we learn to ignore things (especially those that grate against success in applying science); intuition was thrown out of science long ago (yet, there are needs to be creative - what a quandry!).

A lot of science seems to play hierarchies and disciplines off each other (who said that competition is bad) which get then addressed as relative merits (institution, degree, etc. - this is just part of our nature, I suppose). If science is a way for us to know God, then it's open to anyone, not just the brilliant. Hence, my opinion is that we'll see non-elitist views come to fore. I'm too old to see this, but you may very well see some of this.

Consider, evolution, as it really is in terms of Creation (and man's place), ought to be amenable to explanation to any one upon whose heart God has thrown a light (paraphrase, as you know). Too, that insight would cover both natures (physical and spiritual). Now, one question would be whether such a grasp (knowing one's self and one's evolution - nuanced fully) would offer creative impulses so as to demonstrate something of value in the world.

This may not be the forum, but we could ask: what Baha'i scientist is there who has actually applied her/his Writings-based insights to solve a problem suitable to the non-private and shared space of science and wrote about it? Why? Well, has any of this work been in areas that could relate to explaining evolution, and our place in or out of it, better? jmswtlk 00:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Related quote (one of many): "Whosoever entereth this city will comprehend every science before probing into its mysteries and will acquire from the leaves of its trees a knowledge and wisdom encompassing such mysteries of divine lordship as are enshrined within the treasuries of creation." jmswtlk 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Creature"

Sorry, but stating the definition of "creature" is not OR: it's stating the definition of the word. Shoghi Effendi's translations are considered authoritative and there are a variety of English words he could have used if the Persian intent was "living thing". MARussellPESE (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Shoghi Effendi translated a Persian word into an English word that has an ambiguity does not mean that he intended to maintain that ambiguity, nor does it mean that the original Persian word had an ambiguity. This is original research on your part. If you can cite a scholarly work that adopts your interpretation, I will allow it. Until that time, it is your own original interpretation, and I am keeping it off the page. (Incidentally, if your interpretation was correct, it would have meant that Bahá'u'lláh meant that there are things created by God on every planet, which would have been the stupidest possible thing for Bahá'u'lláh to claim since everything is created by God. That's not the reason why I'm keeping the interpretation off the site, but just think about that...) Regards, Mavaddat (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with Mavaddat on this one. This is basically the same argument I mentioned long ago (it would have meant that Bahá'u'lláh meant that there are things created by God on every planet, an inconsequential statement). Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's only "stupid" if you don't know what Baha'u'llah is talking about.

Ptolemaic Geocentrism was considered state-of-the-art cosmology in the nineteenth century Islamic world. Islamic astonomy had developed observation to a level of sophistication it would take Europeans centuries to match. Islamic astronomers made some very intuitive leaps, but hit a brick wall in the fifteenth century without settling on any of a number of heliocentric models. They never put geocentrism to bed with any kind of finality, so Ptolmey's system lived on.

By the nineteenth century the Islamic World, in its scientific nadir, had no interest in European science. So the fact that Copernicus had finally put a stake in the heart of geocentrism passed ignored.

Among it many oddities, Aristotelian/Ptolmaic astronomy postulated that the stars and planets were, themselves, nothing more than point of light on these rotating celestial spheres.[5]

The fatal flaw with geocentricms is that, at its core, it's a philosopher's answer to a scientific question. Not bad if you don't have much in the way of observations; but clinging to it in the face of direct observation to the contrary reduces it to superstition.

Reading the passage in its entirety:

Thou hast, moreover, asked Me concerning the nature of the celestial spheres. To comprehend their nature, it would be necessary to inquire into the meaning of the allusions that have been made in the Books of old to the celestial spheres and the heavens, and to discover the character of their relationship to this physical world, and the influence which they exert upon it. Every heart is filled with wonder at so bewildering a theme, and every mind is perplexed by its mystery. God, alone, can fathom its import. The learned men, that have fixed at several thousand years the life of this earth, have failed, throughout the long period of their observation, to consider either the number or the age of the other planets. Consider, moreover, the manifold divergencies that have resulted from the theories propounded by these men. Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute.

(Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 162-163)

it is quite clear that Bahá'u'lláh is specifically addressing the notion of geocentrism, as well as the backwardness of clerics clinging to it trying to shoehorn their preconceived notions onto science. See this provisional translation of a tablet from `Abdul-Bahá for an rather extended treatment of the subject. In fact, he repeats practically verbatim "every star its planets and every planet its creatures":

With regard to that which hath been mentioned concerning the seven spheres and the seven heavens referred to in the Books revealed by the Dawning-places of Light and Repositories of Secrets in previous ages, such references were dictated by the conventional wisdom prevailing in those times, for every cycle hath its own characteristics which are determined by the capacities of the people and their readiness to accept fresh revelations of the truth from behind the veil. All things are ordained by God according to a given measure. When the Prophets spoke of the celestial spheres what they intended was no more than the orbits of the planets falling within that greater world that embraces the sun and its attendant planetary system. For the planets circling this sun are in seven degrees in respect to mass, volume, visibility and brilliancy. The orbit of the first of these is one of the spheres of this solar world and one of the heavens of finite extent that falls within the circumference of this all-encompassing circle. The same pattern is true for all the brilliant stars shining in the face of the heavens, every one of which is a sun with its own solar world containing planets and satellites. When thou gazeth at the planets with the naked eye, without the interposition of magnifying mirrors, they will appear to be in seven degrees. The orbit or circuit of each of these degrees is an upraised heaven and an encircling sphere in the world of existence. [Emphasis mine]

So, clearly both Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdul-Bahá are ratifying Copernicus and modern astronomy.

While we're considering WP:OR, this paragraph is problematic as it relies on no Baha'i sources at all:

Bahá'ís could point to the possibility of continued future discoveries that would vindicate a more literal interpretation of the passage, supported by modern evidence and theories of durable and widespread life forms or based on an alternative biochemistry.

I'd like to see a really good argument justifying its retention.

However, citing the dictionary and citing what are considered authoritative corroborating text is not WP:OR — it's thorough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MARussellPESE (talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If citing the dictionary and corroborating text will pass here, then so should the changes I've just made. I've changed “They also could point to the possibility of continued future discoveries that would vindicate a more literal interpretation of the passage, supported by modern evidence and theories of durable and widespread life forms” to “There is also the possibility of continued future discoveries that could vindicate a more literal interpretation of the passage, supported by theories of durable and widespread life forms...”. Before this edit, "They" was not referring to anyone.

I also added: While such a view is not accepted by the scientific community, a passage which gives an authoritative interpretation of this subject from within the Bahá'í writings points to a literal meaning of the above passage by Bahá'u'lláh:

"Regarding the passage on p. 163 of the 'Gleanings'; the creatures which Bahá'u'lláh states to be found in every planet cannot be considered to be necessarily similar or different from human beings on this earth. Bahá'u'lláh does not specifically state whether such creatures are like or unlike us. He simply refers to the fact that there are creatures in every planet. It remains for science to discover one day the exact nature of these creatures."

(From a letter dated 9 February 1937 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer)

The continued use of the term "creature" by Shoghi Effendi in order to explain the relevant passage by Baha'u'llah seems to confirm a meaning of the term that is more common (i.e. biological life) than a meaning which implies or includes 'mineral life'.71.128.204.156 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote by Shoghi Effendi states nothing about living or not-living, just stating that it could be similar or different. I've thus changed the wording to avoid leading the reader. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me... I would say that it is misleading to the reader to suggest that "creatures" (even in English as used by Shoghi Effendi) could refer to minerals. Oh, the wisdom: 'Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own [minerals and/or living things], whose number no man can compute.' Let whoever is willing to believe that such an inconsequential statement befits a Manifestation of God believe it. As long as the authoritative quote I added stays... 71.128.204.156 (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this so difficult? The original research page clearly states: "Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses." No matter how plausible your interpretation may be to you, you are in violation of that rule. Again, unless you are able to provide a reliable source that backs up your interpretation, it is not going on the page, as per the rules of Wikipedia. I would ask you to please be respectful of the standards of this online community. Mavaddat (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

MARussellPESE, you have to understand that neither the dictionary nor the text itself supports your interpretation. That's why it is an interpretation. The passage you are quoting from 'Abdu'l-Baha does not suggest that minerals are also "creatures". You are reading that into it. Again, unless you can provide an academic source for your interpretation, it is wholly your own personal interpretation, it is original research, and I will continue to remove it. Regards, Mavaddat (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read WP:OR. I've been editing here for a couple of years, so please don't quote policy to me. The dictionary is a verifiable source. So is `Abdul-Baha's usage of the term. I'm not presenting "interpretation"; I'm citing specific points that address the point. Presenting interpretation would be to say something like: "Baha'u'llah meant that extra-solar planets will be discovered to be abundant in the universe."

This is "so hard" because you are appear to be trying to twist this section to say that science and Baha'i contradict, when they don't. Unfortunately, I'm better informed.

I'm not sure how "it is by the will and wish of God that some creatures are chosen for the highest degree, … and some are left in the lowest degree, like the mineral" does not state unequivocally that `Abdu'l-Bahá considers the mineral kingdom to be among God's creatures.

So, to drive the point home that "creature" as used in Baha'i scripture does not necessarily mean "living thing" as biologists would define it, but as philosophers would, `Abdu'l-Bahá refers to the mineral kingdom as having "life", in its fashion, on several occasions.

"Each creature is the recipient of some portion of that power, and man, who contains the perfection of the mineral, the vegetable and animal, as well as his own distinctive qualities, has become the noblest of created beings."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, `Abdu'l-Bahá in London, p. 23)

"The power of the understanding differs in degree in the various kingdoms of creation. The mineral, vegetable, and animal realms are each incapable of understanding any creation beyond their own."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 24)

"But although the reality of Divinity is sanctified beyond the comprehension of its creatures, it has bestowed its bounties upon all kingdoms of the phenomenal world, and evidences of spiritual manifestation are witnessed throughout the realms of contingent existence."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 173)

"In the mineral world the spirit shows itself, but limited to that mineral condition. It is proved through science that the mineral has the power of attraction, the vegetable has the power of growth; life is according to capacity."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, Divine Philosophy, p. 117)

"The stars and suns swinging through infinite space, all earthly forms of life and existence whether mineral, vegetable or animal come under the dominion and control of natural law."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, Foundations of World Unity, p. 61 and `Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 50)

"In the differentiation of life in the world of existence, there are four degrees or kingdoms, -- the mineral, vegetable, animal, and human."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, Foundations of World Unity, p. 90 and `Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 258)

"This world is full of seeming contradictions; in each of these kingdoms (mineral, vegetable and animal) life exists in its degree; though when compared to the life in a man, the earth appears to be dead, yet she, too, lives and has a life of her own." [Does this mean that the Earth, herself, possessing a "life of her own" is in fact the very "creature" Baha'u'llah refers too?]

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 66)

"For example, the mineral life occupieth its own plane, but a mineral entity is without any awareness at all of the vegetable kingdom, and indeed, with its inner tongue denieth that there is any such kingdom."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 193)

"Yet the mineral and vegetable, the animal and man, are all living here together in this world of existence."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 194)

"As to the existence of spirit in the mineral: it is indubitable that minerals are endowed with a spirit and life according to the requirements of that stage."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, Tablet to August Forel, p. 9)

"For instance: No matter how much the mineral has an existence and life, yet in comparison to man, it is entirely non-existent and deprived of life."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, Tablets of `Abdu'l-Bahá v3, p. 550)

Clearly, to `Abdu'l-Bahá minerals are not only "creatures" of God's, but "living" in their own way. This is not original — just a plain reading of plain statements.

So the question is not whether to state whether Baha'u'llah's statements agree with a biological definition of "life", but document their context as the a metaphysical one as repeatedly used by `Abdu'l-Bahá.

There is no evidence that Shoghi Effendi departed metaphysically from `Abdu'l-Bahá on this point. His doing so would strain credulity. So, the letter noted from LOG does not, in my opinion, necessarily suggest that a "vindicat[ion of] a more literal interpretation" is to be expected. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best summed up here by Shoghi EFfendi: "It remains for science to discover one day the exact nature of these creatures." So for you, MARussellPESE, to say that the 'creature' used here isn't cellular or biological, or for me to say that it definitely is, is wrong. And who cares that current scientific understanding can't confirm the possibility of non-liquid-water-based life. A few decades ago people thought life couldn't survive at the bottom of the ocean. Astrobiology is not even in its infancy yet, it hasn't even cut the umbilical cord.

I'm going to try a rework of this section, and if you don't like the proposal, then change it back. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I find your modification completely fair. It does not put forward an interpretation, but merely cites the relevant text and says that 'Abdu'l-Bahá classified minerals as creatures. That is factual, not interpretative. That is why I think it is fair. Regards, Mavaddat (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to MARussellPESE: I agree that the dictionary is a verifiable source about the meaning of words. But unless you would have us adding qualifications for every ambiguous word on Wikipedia on authority of the dictionary, then it seems you will have to do better than merely cite the dictionary. There is nothing in 'Abdu'l-Bahá's usage of the term that suggests that he meant by "creature" anything other than living organism. The fact that he includes minerals under the heading "creatures" only begs the question of whether he meant what you take him to mean, since it's remains possible that he thought that minerals were fundamentally alive. After all, he suggests elsewhere that every created thing has a spirit (not to mention the fact that he was almost completely untrained in biology and so would not have understood what was technically living or dead).

Regarding your suggestion that I am trying to show that the Bahá'í Faith and science conflict, I could make the opposite accusation to you. The fact is that there is no independent truth about whether the Bahá'í Faith conflicts with science, so you aren't actually informed about anything, per se. You are merely full of conviction. Whether that conviction is warranted or not stands to reason...Mavaddat (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuñado, I think you've missed my point. I've never said "that the 'creature' used here isn't cellular or biological". I've only said that the 'creature' used here is not necessarily biological. I've never shut the door on extremophiles or astrobiology. I've just insisted that the article not state that Baha'is are waiting for it "vindicate" Baha'u'llah, when we don't have to.

FYI, Mavaddat, my parents, both Baha'is for nearly fifty years, each hold two degrees in the biological sciences. Mom's a molecular biologist, and Dad was a zoologist before he shifted gears and took a PhD in psychology. Science and the Baha'i writings have been dinner-table topics for my forty-plus years. We covered these in surprising depth. For example, the entire presentation in the article's subsection on "Evolution", whose sources are c. '97 - '03, was something we'd hammered out thirty years ago.

I also spent more than a few classes out of the engineering school and took, and have read since, enough philosophy to recognize a metaphysical statement when it's made; and to recognize the difference between it and a scientific one. I am indeed rather informed on this subject.

You appear to be missing `Abdu'l-Bahá's point. What He considers the properties of "living" things are quite different that what Linus Pauling would. He's not even trying to use a biological definition. He's using an ontological one. The fundamental premise of the Baha'i Faith is God's love is the source and purpose for the entire creation. So, "to exist" is "to live" — in the metaphysical sense.

"As to the existence of spirit in the mineral: it is indubitable that minerals are endowed with a spirit and life according to the requirements of that stage."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, Baha'i World Faith - `Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 338)

"I can have no doubt that should the holy breaths of Thy loving-kindness and the breeze of Thy bountiful favor cease, for less than the twinkling of an eye, to breathe over all created things, the entire creation would perish, and all that are in heaven and on earth would be reduced to utter nothingness."

(Bahá'u'lláh, Prayers and Meditations by Bahá'u'lláh, p. 90)

`Abdu'l-Bahá was also clear that on the distinction between existence and being an organism:

"In the mineral realm there was a spirit of existence; in the world of plant life and organisms it reappeared as the vegetative spirit; thence it attained the animal spirit and finally aspired to the human spirit."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 88)

I don't know how to argue "There is nothing in 'Abdu'l-Bahá's usage of the term that suggests that he meant by "creature" anything other than living organism." when you state yourself that the passage "cites the relevant text and says that 'Abdu'l-Bahá classified minerals as creatures." No passage from the Baha'i Writings asserts that minerals are "living organisms", in fact quite the opposite, so those statments are mutually exclusive. Seems argumentative.

The current form isn't bad. Can anybody find any passage of `Abdu'l-Bahá's where he states that minerals are not "creatures"; or discusses plant, animal, and human "creatures" but pointedly omitting minerals? If not, that last sentence should read: "The term 'creature' is consistently used elsewhere …" MARussellPESE (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Two final points have been nagging me. One, the statement "… unless you would have us adding qualifications for every ambiguous word on Wikipedia on authority of the dictionary, then it seems you will have to do better than merely cite the dictionary." seems almost anti-intellectual. To what source would one turn for clarity on ambiguous words except a good dictionary. Not adding these to WP would leave ambiguity un-addressed and lead the reader.

Second, the statement that `Abdu'l-Bahá "was almost completely untrained in biology and so would not have understood what was technically living or dead" is, at best, argumentative. `Abdu'l-Bahá, seriously, couldn't tell the difference? The "technical" understanding of being living or dead is not operationally that much different than what most five-year-olds can distinguish. The most likely conclusion is that `Abdu'l-Bahá's applying characteristics of "life" to minerals means He's using "life" differently than a biologist would. Perhaps metaphysically? MARussellPESE (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the question of MARussellPESE, here are two, of many, sections that deal with minerals and/or physical life. In SAQ #62, we see that minerals (of course, they are creatures in Creation) cannot "attain to life" (yet, elsewhere it's said that minerals (the larger connotation of element, is it not?) can progress through the kingdoms in the sense of providing the physical support (paraphrase)); in SAQ #36, we see the 'spirits' (two levels associated with what we would call a life form (vegetable and animal)) described (of course, there are more levels of spirit). Would not the use of 'creature' in relation to the planets imply 'life' as we see in the SAQ no matter how any particular 'creature' may be founded molecular-ly (both an ontological and an operational issue)? Yahyay19 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Transmissibility of Cancer

Does anyone want to include this particular gem?

... just as the bodily diseases, like consumption and cancer are contagious, likewise the spiritual diseases are also infectious. -'Abdu'l-Baha (somewhere in Lights of Guidance)

To my knowledge, cancer was, for a very long time, not believed to be contagious. However, we now understand that Human Papilloma Virus and Epstein-Barr Virus are both communicable and can cause cancer. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010301072749.htm

Carsonc (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of that one before. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Gary Matthews discusses it, and there is a Google Books excerpt of it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=EGbZMLCmE1IC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=consumption+and+cancer+are+contagious&source=web&ots=oU3EB3bclK&sig=1RWLiK_tp9lNt7KARMJ1hN_AruE&hl=en

Carsonc (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of contagious causes for some cancers but for reference with Abdu'l-Baha I'd like to know more about how the word was used in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Like "consumption" the word used may have been a very general or other meaning than current definitions. But it may apply. Smkolins (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

is Seti@Home participation notable?

See Bahá'í SETI - it's been up for years. Nothing formal about the organization but there are still active members. Smkolins (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No definitely not, read notability. For something to be notable it needs multiple secondary sources to note its importance in reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nadimi as a Source on Evolution

I'm striking Nadimi's unfortunate essay on Abdul-Baha and evolution because:

• The essay itself is unpublished (WP:RS)
• The author is attempting interpretation here without any discernable standing. (Quite unlike Friberg [a philosopher] and von Kitzing [a molecular biologist].)
• The essay takes a well-intentioned, but literal, read of Abdul-Baha and becomese thereby an attempt at apologia for an unfortunately scientifically illiterate position (Argues that Abdul-Baha meant parallel evolution between humans and the other great apes, when the DNA and phisiological evidence is indisputable that these genera are divergent.)

MARussellPESE (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Turing and the upper Valleys

I've mentioned before that the list shown here is too small, however I'll also applaud that it has expanded the past few years. Thank you to the authors. Now, given that we're celebrating Alan M. Turing's 100th this year, perhaps we ought to venture into another area. In short, the Valleys suggest these issues as much as they did those related to energy/matter (see article, Nuclear Power bullet). Some of the wording, no doubt, would address the issue of infallibility (see above, Propositional ...). jmswtlk (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Before I get skewered, let me add one thing. The role of the Writings, in Science, will (ought to?) be to foster 'symmetry' between polar views, for one thing. What? Science (especially those that are 'hard') love (and make great use of) the idea of symmetry (two wings, in a sense). jmswtlk (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The main thing is to find scholarly publications about such topics - blogs aren't going to be useful. Care to find some sources? Smkolins (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation

I am a Jew from Texas. But I also believe in prophecy. I have my own interpretations of Baha'i prophecies on science. I believe that what this page says about creation and nuclear power is true. My interpretation of Abdul Baha's ideas on evolution is that this parallel evolution of man was an evolution of consciousness. Hence, I also believe that consciousness is quantum information which means it is part of the fabric of the cosmos. As for ether, I believe that Abdul Baha was referring to the Higgs boson. Transmutation of elements? I believe that refers to picotechnology and femtotechnology which are orders of magnitude smaller than nanotechnology. When it comes to life on other planets. I am pretty sure that bacteria can live in non-Earth-like conditions. I also believe that organisms can evolve without water. They could use liquid methane. Anonymous71.164.209.8 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice and audacious. Like that. Thanks. jmswtlk (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Life on other planets

Just a little comment. Discussion about this topic ought to, perhaps, include forums to allow data to come forward with regard to 'unidentified aerial phenomena' from around the constraints of the extremely skeptical mindsets. Evidently, some are brave enough now to talk publicly about their experience (Larry King show (CNN - 11/07/07) announced a briefing to occur in Washington, DC at the National Press Club (11/12/07) - participants from several countries). Also, a re-look at the underlying ontological issues needs to occur, hopefully without claims of quackery being thrown at those who attempt the feat. An example may be Firmage's work. One question is how might we lift ourselves out of the elitist views that seem to want to smother all but a chosen few viewpoints. jmswtlk 03:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Three words: no original research!! There are no reliable sources connecting those press releases or videos to anything about the Baha'i view on science. Wikipedia is not a forum for original thought, or discussions thereof. Find another venue for discussing these things. Regards, -- Jeff3000 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Worlds would include planets. Creatures being sent a message implies cognition. "Through His potency the Trees of Divine Revelation have yielded their fruits, every one of which hath been sent down in the form of a Prophet, bearing a Message to God’s creatures in each of the worlds whose number God, alone, in His all-encompassing Knowledge, can reckon." Gleanings - LI jmswtlk (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bahá'í Faith and science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718214816/http://www.bahai-studies.ca/journal/files/jbs/2.4%20Loehle.pdf to http://www.bahai-studies.ca/journal/files/jbs/2.4%20Loehle.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718214506/http://www.bahai-studies.ca/journal/files/jbs/13.14%20Mehanian%20%26%20Friberg.pdf to http://www.bahai-studies.ca/journal/files/jbs/13.14%20Mehanian%20%26%20Friberg.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718214506/http://www.bahai-studies.ca/journal/files/jbs/13.14%20Mehanian%20%26%20Friberg.pdf to http://www.bahai-studies.ca/journal/files/jbs/13.14%20Mehanian%20%26%20Friberg.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)