Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register. 2024-04-24 21:34:16 CoV Wiki Learn more about the Church of Virus News: Check out the IRC chat feature.

Church of Virus BBS   General   Evolution and Memetics   Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win « previous next » Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6]      Author  Topic: Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win  (Read 10694 times) Fox Archon Gender: Posts: 122 Reputation: 8.03 Rate Fox Never underestimate the odds. Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win « Reply #75 on: 2005-12-06 21:03:40 » Quote from: Blunderov on 2005-12-04 04:52:12    If I was intending to marry someone (other than the Politburo? Perish the thought!) I would need to have some confidence, based on my experience of her, that we might be able to get along together, not a hopeful little wish that my bride-to-be did perhaps actually exist somewhere in the universe and might even actually turn up for the ceremony. Do you see the equivocation here? We are not talking about faith in the same sense. One is based on evidence of the senses. The other one is pure speculation based on inference and no other evidence whatsoever. Mysticism, in  word. What I actually ment was, that God wants to test us before he can judge us. In the same sence that we can marry the ones we love out of faith, dose God also allows into his kingdom, through that same devotion; by the experience of what we do and what we dont. Of course we to can test one another, through experience before we can truely decide upon an outcome. In sence faith is a path and without it, through whatever means/word we use to attain it, we go nowhere, there is but left the darkness of ignorance; dispite how powerful a force is upon it, even Love....it will remain in the same place, either never moving forth, or bearing a new direction...one of hope where we may attain greater promise of faith...but this may not always be right. Quote: Yes, but why is this "faith" at all 'needed' (God is needy?!) except as an ex post facto patch for the problem that there is no evidence at all for the existence of the previously asserted god?  It seems to me that, by definition, an omnipotent god should be able to create any kind universe that it decides upon. Why not create one in which the existence of god is completely obvious to all it's denizens? The reason of why faith is needed is because of the choice of our own freewill. But then why is our freewill or choice needed? If God is so powerful why not just create us to love and worship him for his own eternal pleasure... God is the paragon of love, and love is undieing, its beauty is that it never ends, only begins once again, echoing throughout eternity. How then can God create a selfish existence when God is love and love is eternal. Also. If God had created us without our freewill, God could be have been opposed in both his truth and perfection. A good example would be the notorious Angel, Lucifer, the morning star, angel of light and chief of the cherubim. He could have opposed the will of God its-self by saying something like thus... "How is it thou speaks of thyself as that which is true, How is it thou art proclaimed a perfect God. Why dose thou force thyself upon thy own creation of man, to love thee, to hold faith in thee. Dose not thou hold faith in thyself? or maybe thou fears the true choices of men...that they would crush thee, smite thee because thou art false to thy own word. Thy seed is but a tainted lie, a cowardice of thy own hypocrisy. Thou forces thy own word upon the nature of men, with ravishment, thou seizes his will for that of thy own, but would he still as hold as true to thee, if given authority of choice, through power of his own freewill..." God would have been proven wrong, false and imperfect. We are able to love God because God resides within us all, and those around us. Quote: An omnipotent god would know in advance which of his creatures would be faithful It is true to be said that God is omniscient, but because of choice, God can only see every possibility which can occur, and come to pass, we must choose exactly which path we will walk. We make our own choices, in which every possibilty God can foresee, only if set by his will can that future be certain. Like a mouse in a maze, we can control its destination, but not the choices about which path it chooses to take to get there, lest it not get there at all, the way we would want it to. Trying to proclaim faith with words alone is like trying to proclaim a half-circle which is full-circle...actions are needed; the half-circle can indeed become a full-circle, if the action is taken by the individual to which it is proclaimed to. Faith without works is dead. As for the semantic problem, in Beatitude, the weyken of faith is that it needs none. Quote from: Hermit on 2005-12-04 06:09:00    if there were such things as gods involved in fashioning humans, then other than using a cabbage as the source for about 28% of our DNA (very obvious in the faithful) it seems to me that e.g. Mongolism, Pancreatic Cancer and other blissful delights reflect these gods as being brutal, nasty, and, or incompetent - and more deserving of erradication than "worship" no matter what their motives. Cabbage...(very obvious in the faithful)...Again, an unfair observation. Ironic and hypercritical of colloquial speech, how this statement seems to work, yet some of the most important scientific methods of today came from these men, who all had some degree of faith and belief in God, or a God. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and Copernicus was urged to publish around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled! Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, he saw his system as concerning the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted. Rene Descartes(1596-1650) Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted was to see his philosophy adopted as standard Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding from the Bible God's plan for history. He did a lot of work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." Robert Boyle (1791-1867) One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gasses, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, "for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels."... As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but has led to so much in our lifestyles today which depend on them (including computers and telephone lines and so Web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced upon him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. The Sandemanians originated from Presbyterians who had rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was the formation of the X-Club, dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science whilst, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution. Kelvin (William Thomson) (1824-1907) Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered may areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities who recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating). Max Planck (1858-1947) Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which has revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!" Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."                                 Fox « Last Edit: 2005-12-06 21:39:04 by Fox » Report to moderator   Logged I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. - Gatsu Blunderov Archon Gender: Posts: 3160 Reputation: 8.91 Rate Blunderov "We think in generalities, we live in details" Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win « Reply #76 on: 2005-12-10 17:11:40 » Quote from: Fox on 2005-12-06 21:03:40    It is true to be said that God is omniscient, but because of choice, God can only see every possibility which can occur, and come to pass, we must choose exactly which path we will walk. We make our own choices, in which every possibilty God can foresee, only if set by his will can that future be certain. Hello there Fox. It's possible that we have a semantic problem here. My understanding of omniscient is "all knowing". If God only knows which possibilities MAY occur and not (also) those which WILL occur then it is not omniscient; there are some things not known. If God set the parameters within which this freeness of will in humans would be exercised, I do not think he would win his bet with The Morning Star. Any parameters are intrinsically limiting. Limitations are antithetical to freedom. In order to meet Lucifer's challenge it seems to me that God would have to afford humans no less freedom than he, God, himself enjoys. Otherwise it would be cheating; God would be putting his thumb on the scale and I'm willing to bet that the Horned One would notice this. Given that we have nowhere near the freedom of will that God (presumably) enjoys, it seems to me the Satan must have won his bet on a disqualification. Getting back to first causes, I found this essay very interesting. http://atheism.about.com/b/a/220578.htm?nl=1 "God & Causation: Temporal Requirements for Causes to Exist (Book Notes: Arguing for Atheism) Agnosticism/Atheism Blog From Austin Cline, Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism. November 26, 2005 God & Causation: Temporal Requirements for Causes to Exist (Book Notes: Arguing for Atheism) It is common to argue that because everything we experience appears to have a cause for its existence, then the totality of everything (the universe) must also have a cause for its existence. It is assumed that the universe cannot be self-caused, so therefore the cause must be outside the universe - God, in other words. Is this a legitimate argument? In Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Robin Le Poidevin writes: [T]he causes which we have experience of take place in time and space, and this is not an accidental connection. We suppose things to have causes because we want to explain why those things came into existence at the times and places they did. We therefore look for the causes of those things in the conditions which obtained just before, and in the vicinity of, the thing in question. Conditions which obtained elsewhere or at other times cannot provide the relevant explanation. Causation, then, is a temporal concept. (It is perhaps also a spatial concept, but I do not want to insist on that here.) It is this aspect of causation which threatens the inference from what we experience to a conclusion about everything which begins to exist. To say that causation is a temporal concept means that causation occurs in the context of time — that causes and effects take place within time. Typically this means causes occur “before” effects, but even if the reverse could happen, cause and effect are still occurring within a temporal context. The idea of a-temporal causation is, as far as we can tell, incoherent. Of course, “time” is an aspect of our universe — but this means that we can’t speak of “causation” outside the context of our universe. This means that a “cause” of our universe is an incoherent concept. To rescue the argument, one has to develop a new conception of “causation” which is not dependent upon time. Perhaps this is possible, but it’s not immediately obvious that it is or, even if successful, that it’s a concept which refers to anything which actually exists. This places all arguments about how the universe needs a cause on very uncertain footing. It would appear that they are insisting on the necessity of something incoherent and impossible, at least according to our current understanding. At the very least, they need a new conception of causation — but if they manage that, they will no longer be able to analogize between causation within the universe to causation of the universe. The fact that events in our universe require causes cannot logically entail that the universe requires a “cause” in this new, hypothetical sense. " Best Regards. Report to moderator   Logged Hermit Archon Posts: 4287 Reputation: 8.94 Rate Hermit Prime example of a practically perfect person Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win « Reply #77 on: 2005-12-11 20:23:35 » [Hermit 1] if there were such things as gods involved in fashioning humans, then other than using a cabbage as the source for about 28% of our DNA (very obvious in the faithful) it seems to me that e.g. Mongolism, Pancreatic Cancer and other blissful delights reflect these gods as being brutal, nasty, and, or incompetent - and more deserving of erradication than "worship" no matter what their motives. [Fox 2] Cabbage...(very obvious in the faithful)...Again, an unfair observation. [Hermit 3] Why "Again"? [Hermit 3] Why "unfair"? [Fox 2] Ironic and hypercritical of colloquial speech, how this statement seems to work, yet some of the most important scientific methods of today came from these men, who all had some degree of faith and belief in God, or a God. [Hermit 3] Now I suggest that this is an unfair or incorrect characterization of many of the people you wrote about. It is important to place the pre-1700 assertions of belief into perspective. Prior to the enlightenment, people were silenced, jailed and even executed for rejecting deism. A powerful encouragement to paying it lipservice (fallacy of argumentum ad baculum). [Hermit 3] Even where the people involved did acknowledge a theistic perspective, this was in many cases (as for the founders of the US), an antichristian, and in many cases not monotheistic er even anthromorphic religious stance (fallacy of bifurcation). But this is all, I suggest, a side track. While it is true that even today, some (about 20%) scientists (those who apply the scientific method), particularly in the US, still profess some form of religious beliefs, this speaks neither for the beliefs (or lack of them) of any other scientists (fallacy of hasty generalization and possibly the converse accident fallacy) nor to the validity of such delusions (ignoratio elenchi). [Hermit 3] For a number of reasons, I take issue with your list of supposedly deist scientists: [Hermit 3.1] No matter how many scientists may or may not have professed some degree of religious belief, this cannot speak to the validity of such belief (The implied fallacy would be argumentum ad numerum). [Hermit 3.2] No matter how famous the names quoted, this would not strengthen (or weaken) any argument about some field in which they are not experts (The implied fallacy would be argumentum ad verecundiam). [Hermit 3.3] When a scientist mentions a "religious feeling", this need not imply anything about Deism or even Theism. For example, Einstein (who, from his own words was undoubtedly an atheist - of the strong persuasion) said, "I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism" (fallacy of bifurcation). [Hermit 3.4] The list leaves out many more "scientists" than it names, some of those included are less famous than those omitted (e.g. Where are Bacon, Brahe, Halley), and others are included where I would not place them in the same class as others mentioned here (e.g. Descartes and Planck). This suggests, at least to me, that these cases may have been cherry picked (cherry picking and consequent converse accident fallacies). [Hermit 3.5] The fact that I know that you are wrong about Einstein, avoid the astrological context for Copernicus and Kepler (which also lead to Galileo's discounting of Kepler, "He (Kepler) has nevertheless lent his ear and his assent to the Moon's dominion over the waters, to occult properties, and to such puerilities."), makes me suspicious that your characterizations of others as Deists may be equally faulty. [Hermit 3.6] The fact that I recognise numerous instances of errors as well as bias of accent and emphasis (e.g. Copernicus and Kepler were astrologers, not astronomers, Copernicus followed Brahe, Aristarchus of Samos developed a mathematically founded heliocentric system, Archimedes used Aristarchus' model to get a distance to the stars of about 1 light year in modern units, Kepler's astrological works were riddled with superstitious claptrap (and he wasn't very successful at getting paid for casting horoscopes either), the church attempted to eradicate modern astronomy (so successfully in Catholic territory that Jai Singh II's expedition to Europe in the 1720s didn't even hear about heliocentric astronomy), Galileo did not say that the Bible cannot err, he said that if scripture was inerrant, then his system concerned interpretation not contradiction, Descartes was a theist, not a deist and saw god as being the principles of infinity and perfection, the period 1824-1907 was high Victorian, when Christianity was far more prevalent in the UK than it is today, and Einstein deliberately corrected the attempts to portray him as religious - contrary to the carefully selected quotations below),  all go a long way towards making me think that this list was written by somebody with more of an agenda than either a desire for accuracy or knowledge of the subject. Hermit « Last Edit: 2005-12-12 10:39:03 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999 Blunderov Archon Gender: Posts: 3160 Reputation: 8.91 Rate Blunderov "We think in generalities, we live in details" Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win « Reply #78 on: 2005-12-12 07:48:48 » [Blunderov] Meanwhile, in a galaxy far far away...a strongly worded letter to the editor: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/sfl-br10dec12,0,7328768.story?coll=sfla-news-letters "Intelligent design is scientific Jim McKinney TAMARAC Posted December 12 2005 Re "Don't fall for design baloney" (Dec. 2): Personally and collectively, I and many others in the community are getting fed up to here with the constant talk that intelligent design is not scientific. What do they think has caused the top 400 scientists in the world to take the ID stance? Science is what has exposed the flaws in evolution. It has shown the errors in carbon dating, the moon's orbit slowdown and the connection between the slow incremental loss of the size of the sun and the concept that if the universe was billions of years old, the sun originally would have been so large, it would have burned out the Earth. A renowned biochemist, one of the 400 scientists, was able to examine one-celled organisms and hypothesize that a complete organ such as the eye follows the unanimously accepted concept of "irreducible complexity" -- simply stated is: If only one part of an organ is removed, it won't work; you cannot reduce its complexity or it simply will not function. It's true at the molecular level as well. This is science and must be included in the schools' curriculums; it's only fair that all theories are propounded and taught." [Blunderov] Oh, what a giveaway. Perhaps the next incarnation of creationism will be "The Campaign for Justice in Science"? Best Regards. « Last Edit: 2005-12-12 11:39:16 by David Lucifer » Report to moderator   Logged Fox Archon Gender: Posts: 122 Reputation: 8.03 Rate Fox Never underestimate the odds. Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win « Reply #79 on: 2006-06-12 19:32:32 » Quote: [Hermit 3] Why "Again"? [Hermit 3] Why "unfair"? It is important to place the pre-1700 assertions of belief into perspective. Prior to the enlightenment, people were silenced, jailed and even executed for rejecting deism. A powerful encouragement to paying it lipservice (fallacy of argumentum ad baculum). [Hermit 3] Even where the people involved did acknowledge a theistic perspective, this was in many cases (as for the founders of the US), an antichristian, and in many cases not monotheistic er even anthromorphic religious stance (fallacy of bifurcation). But this is all, I suggest, a side track. While it is true that even today, some (about 20%) scientists (those who apply the scientific method), particularly in the US, still profess some form of religious beliefs, this speaks neither for the beliefs (or lack of them) of any other scientists (fallacy of hasty generalization and possibly the converse accident fallacy) nor to the validity of such delusions (ignoratio elenchi). [Hermit 3] For a number of reasons, I take issue with your list of supposedly deist scientists: [Hermit 3.1] No matter how many scientists may or may not have professed some degree of religious belief, this cannot speak to the validity of such belief (The implied fallacy would be argumentum ad numerum). [Hermit 3.2] No matter how famous the names quoted, this would not strengthen (or weaken) any argument about some field in which they are not experts (The implied fallacy would be argumentum ad verecundiam). Hermit. You are quoted with insinuating and relating a percentage of cabbage, in human context (genetically inextricable) as 'very obvious'  within the faithful. Now a cabbage is a vegetable and a vegetable, when used in human context, is quite insultive, especially to those of interlect and equally insultive to those who are disabled and classed as such - yet not in such a crude and insultive manner which you have chosen to use. For the sake of those who dont know what a vegetable is when used in human, or even animal context, simply put it is one who is severely impaired mentally and physically, as by brain injury or disease. Hence your quote was not only deeply unfair, (due prehaps to the fact that not everyone agrees with your own personal views, and that you cannot accept this) but that it was also deeply offensive. As to 'why again' I suggest you read some of my previous posts. As for fame playing apart in my list, lol. My list is based upon acceptance or belief in God, not fame. But I will agree to one point made, people in the past were indeed persecuted based on their Anti-God beliefs and opinions due to Theocractic dogma and tyranny which should never again come to power. But even this did not stop people from freely exspressing themselves in ways of science, which was not required or demanded by the Christian goverment at the time, and can still be seen today. If scientists of the past were truely oppressed by theocracy then I very much doubt that we would have any (or at lest much fewer then we have) of the great scientific works which went on to evolve and inspire the scientific field of man, of which come from passion, a passion which these scientists had for the greater truth and the fundermental force that drove it - which many accepted as God, not through an oppressive state, but through a passionate state which is, to all evidence and fact in record, truth; which we can still see today...  Apropos, my point is not established purely on scientists alone...as what may have been suggested. I conclude what I started here. The fact is that there are great people of interlect past and present who have either belief in or acceptance of God, on some level... much as you may not like it... This fact can be established either from anecdote or from statistical data. Sigma Xi, the scientific honorary society, ran a large poll a few years ago which showed that, on any given Sunday, around 46 percent of all Ph.D. scientists are in church; for the general population the figure is 47 percent. So, whatever influences people in their beliefs about God, it doesn't appear to have much to do with having a Ph.D. in science. Charlie Townes won the Nobel Prize for discovering the maser. One statement he made differs greatly from Hawking's view; he said, "In my view, the question of origin seems to be left unanswered if we explore from a scientific view alone. Thus, I believe there is a need for some religious or metaphysical explanation. I believe in the concept of God and in His existence." Arthur Schawlow is another Nobel Prize winner, a professor at Stanford who identifies himself as a Christian. He states, "We are fortunate to have the Bible and especially the New Testament which tells us so much about God in widely accessible human terms." The other Cambridge professor of theoretical physics for much of Hawking's career was John Polkinghorn, a nuclear physicist. He left his chair of theoretical physics at Cambridge in 1979 and went to seminary to become a minister. Upon completing that, he had a parish church for awhile and now has recently come back to be the President of Queen's College at Cambridge. He states, "I take God very seriously indeed. I am a Christian believer and I believe that God exists and has made Himself known in human terms in Jesus Christ." Dr. Henry Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991. Probably the world's greatest observational cosmologist is Allan Sandage. Sandage works in Pasadena, California at the Carnegie Observatories. In 1991, he received a prize given by the Swedish academy that is given every six years in physics for cosmology and is worth the same amount of money as the Nobel prize (there is not a Nobel Prize given for cosmology). Sandage has even been called "the grand old man of cosmology" by the New York Times. At the age of 50, Sandage became a Christian. He states in Lightman's book, Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists, "The nature of God is not to be found within any part of the findings of science. For that, one must turn to the Scriptures." When asked the famous question regarding whether it's possible to be a scientist and a Christian, Sandage replies, "Yes. The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together." One of the persons closest to Stephen Hawking, whom you know if you've seen the movie about A Brief History of Time, is Donald Page. Page has had an excellent physics career in his own right, but he started to become famous as a post-doctoral fellow with Stephen Hawking. The Hawkings were not financially well-off in the years prior to his book and needed some help to keep going. So the post-doctoral fellows would come to live with the Hawkings. Donald Page did this for three years. Page described these years in the book (the book about the film about the book!). He said, "I would usually get up around 7:15 or 7:30, take a shower, read in my Bible and pray. Then I would go down and get Stephen up. After breakfast, I would often tell him what I'd been reading in the Bible, hoping that this would eventually have some influence. I remember telling Stephen one story about how Jesus had seen the deranged man and how this man had these demons and the demons had been sent into a herd of swine. The swine then plunged over the edge of the cliff and into the sea. Stephen piped up and said, 'Well, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would not like that story, would they?'" Page stated, "I am a conservative Christian in the sense of pretty much taking the Bible seriously for what it says. Of course I know that certain parts are not intended to be read literally, so I am not precisely a literalist but I try to believe in the meaning, I think, it is intended to have." Quote: Hermit 3.4] The list leaves out many more "scientists" than it names, some of those included are less famous than those omitted (e.g. Where are Bacon, Brahe, Halley), and others are included where I would not place them in the same class as others mentioned here (e.g. Descartes and Planck). This suggests, at least to me, that these cases may have been cherry picked (cherry picking and consequent converse accident fallacies). Cherry picking? Interesting sighting and point of view, but never the less wrong. I am not infinate in mind and do not know everyone or everything, and there are still agreat many things to which I am learning. Since more information was prefered, I now conclude from my previous facts here in hope they will suffice Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627 Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." Also Lord Chancellor of England and the one founder of the formation of the scientist, which stressed the experimentation and induction rather than philosophical deduction. Founder of the Royal Society of London and did great work in a variety of scientist fields. In addition he was a man of great faith in the living God and His Word. Beliefs of study included two primary areas: The Scriptures, which reveal the will of God and His Creatures, which express His Power. Tycho Brahe (1546 - 1601)                                                                                                     Brahe was a brilliant Danish astronomer and a devout Protestant Christian. In 1576, King Frederick II of Denmark granted him the island of Hven, between Denmark and Sweden, where he built an astronomical observatory. A nobleman  as well as an astrologer and alchemist, he built large astronomical instruments and took many careful measurements. As an astronomer, Tycho worked to combine what he saw as the geometrical benefits of the Copernican system with the philosophical benefits of the Ptolemaic system into his own model of the universe, the Tychonic system. From 1600 until his death in 1601, he was assisted by Johannes Kepler, who would later use Tycho's astronomical information to develop his own theories of astronomy. He is credited with the most accurate astronomical observations of his time, and the data were used by his assistant Kepler to derive the laws of planetary motion. No one before Tycho had attempted to make so many redundant observations, and the mathematical tools to take advantage of them had not yet been developed. He did what others before him were unable or unwilling to do - to catalogue the planets and stars with enough accuracy so as to determine whether the Ptolemaic or Copernican system was more valid in describing the heavens. He is quoted with saying “Those who study the stars have God for a teacher.” Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)                                                                                                        A French  mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher. Pascal was a child prodigy, who was educated by his father. Pascal's earliest work was in the natural and applied sciences, where he made important contributions to the construction of mechanical calculators and the study of fluids, and clarified the concepts of pressure and vacuum by expanding the work of Evangelista Torricelli. Pascal also wrote powerfully in defense of the scientific method. He was a mathematician of the first order. Pascal helped create two major new areas of research. He wrote a significant treatise on the subject of projective geometry at the age of sixteen and corresponded with Pierre de Fermat from 1654 on probability theory, strongly influencing the development of modern economics and social science. Pascal was a Jensenist, Catholics who believed in much of Calvinism and incurred the displeasure of the Jesuits. They especially would not like Pascal, as he gave some witty answers. He knew at least some of the Bible, and much of the early church fathers, including Augustine, Prosper of Aquitaine, Chrysostom, Hilary, and Tertullian. He also knew of Maimonides, Josephus, and Philo. Unfortunately, like many Catholic scholars, he focused more on tradition and the early church fathers than on the Bible.Like other Catholics, Pascal believed in purgatory, the apocrypha, transubstantiation, and that the Pope is the head of the church, though he acknowledged that many popes were biased. Here are a few quotes from his main work, the Pensees."Christianity is strange. It bids man recognize that he is vile, even abominable, and bids him desire to be like God. Without such a counterpoise, this dignity would make him horribly vain, or this humiliation would make him terribly abject." Pensees 7.537. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716)                                        A German polymath of Sorbian origin. Leibnitz and Newton independently invented calculus. Leibnitz first used the term "function". Educated in law and philosophy, and serving as factotum to two major German noble houses (one becoming the British royal family while he served it), Leibniz played a major role in the European politics and diplomacy of his day. He occupies an equally large place in both the history of philosophy and the history of mathematics. He invented calculus independently of Newton , and his notation is the one in general use since. In philosophy, he is most remembered for optimism, i.e., his conclusion that our universe is, in a restricted sense, the best possible one God could have made. He was, along with René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza , one of the three great 17th century rationalists, but his philosophy also both looks back to the Scholastic tradition and anticipates logic and analysis. Leibniz also made major contributions to physics and technology, and anticipated notions that surfaced much later in biology, medicine, geology, psychology, knowledge engineering, and information science. Key figures in their fields submit that his writings contain anticipations of relativity, fractal geometry, and even quantum mechanics. He also wrote on politics, law, ethics, theology, history, and philology, even occasional verse. His contributions to this vast array of subjects are scattered in journals and in tens of thousands of letters and unpublished manuscripts. To date, there is no complete edition of Leibniz's writings, and a complete account of his accomplishments is not yet possible. Leibnitz knew both Latin and German at 8. His father was a professor of moral philosophy at Leipzig, and died when Gottfried was 8. After that, Leibnitz was for the most part self-taught, and had begun learning Greek by age 12. Between 12 and 15 he studied logic and Protestant theology. At 15 he went to the University of Leipzig to study law, which started with a two year study of Neo-Aristotelian philosophy. He wrote a number of brilliant essays on law, philosophy "what is an individual", and mathematics before he was 21. Leibnitz thought the Cartesian philosophy was only the ante-room of truth. He wrote a chapter by chapter critique of Locke’s Essay. He thought a newborn soul is not a blank tablet, but rather an unworked block of marble, with hidden veins that affect its ultimate form. Apart from calculus, Leibnitz was concerned with answering why God allowed evil. Leibnitz wrote at great lengths to explain why this was the best of all possible worlds God could have created. Unfortunately Leibnitz was off-base here. As Christians we do not need to defend this fallen place as the best of all possible worlds, for it is not. The best of all possible worlds is Heaven, and as Norm Geisler said, this is the best of all possible paths to the best of all possible worlds. Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882)                                      Even Charles Darwin freely and expressively accepted God, and even, once upon a time, believed in him. Though several members of his family were Freethinkers, openly lacking conventional religious beliefs, he did not initially doubt the literal truth of the Bible. He attended a Church of England school, then at Cambridge studied Anglican theology to become a clergyman and was fully convinced by William Paley's teleological argument that design in nature proved the existence of God. However, his beliefs began to shift during his time on board HMS Beagle. He questioned what he saw—wondering, for example, at beautiful deep-ocean creatures created where no one could see them, and shuddering at the sight of a wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs; he saw the latter as contradicting Paley's vision of beneficent design. While on the Beagle Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality, but had come to see the history in the Old Testament as being false and untrustworthy. Upon his return, he investigated transmutation of species. He knew that his clerical naturalist friends thought this a bestial heresy undermining miraculous justifications for the social order and knew that such revolutionary ideas were especially unwelcome at a time when the Church of England's established position was under attack from radical Dissenters and atheists. While secretly developing his theory of natural selection, Darwin even wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, though he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver. His belief continued to dwindle over the time, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church. In later life, when asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." Oh, As for Stephen Hawking... When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions. Hawking pokes fun at Albert Einstein for not believing in quantum mechanics. When asked why he didn't believe in quantum mechanics, Einstein would say things like, "Well, God doesn't play dice with human beings". Hawking's response is that God not only plays with dice, He sometimes throws them where they can't be seen. He also writes, "These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it". The grounds on which Hawking claims "it appears" are unstated and what happens is that a straw God is set up that is certainly not the God of Biblical history. What follows is a curious mixture of deism and the ubiquitous God of the gaps. Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism. Quite clear that, (although prehaps not a believer in 'said' God) Hawking is a man who can accept the existence of God; 'I still believe the universe has a beginning in real time, at the big bang. But there's another kind of time, imaginary time, at right angles to real time, in which the universe has no beginning or end. This would mean that the way the universe began would be determined by the laws of physics. One wouldn't have to say that God chose to set the universe going in some arbitrary way that we couldn't understand. It says nothing about whether or not God exists - just that He isn't arbitrary.' - Stephen Hawking. Also, when asking Hawking if he believed in God, he replied - 'Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe.' - Which is pretty accurate. Plus at the end of his book he states, "However, if we do discover a complete theory. . . then we would know the mind of God". Quote: [Hermit 3.6] The fact that I recognise numerous instances of errors as well as bias of accent and emphasis (e.g. Copernicus and Kepler were astrologers, not astronomers, Copernicus followed Brahe, Aristarchus of Samos developed a mathematically founded heliocentric system, Archimedes used Aristarchus' model to get a distance to the stars of about 1 light year in modern units, Kepler's astrological works were riddled with superstitious claptrap (and he wasn't very successful at getting paid for casting horoscopes either), the church attempted to eradicate modern astronomy (so successfully in Catholic territory that Jai Singh II's expedition to Europe in the 1720s didn't even hear about heliocentric astronomy), Galileo did not say that the Bible cannot err, he said that if scripture was inerrant, then his system concerned interpretation not contradiction, Descartes was a theist, not a deist and saw god as being the principles of infinity and perfection, the period 1824-1907 was high Victorian, when Christianity was far more prevalent in the UK than it is today, and Einstein deliberately corrected the attempts to portray him as religious - contrary to the carefully selected quotations below),  all go a long way towards making me think that this list was written by somebody with more of an agenda than either a desire for accuracy or knowledge of the subject. Actually Hermit, Johannes Kepler and Nicolaus Copernicus were both astronomers and astrologers, Galileo Galilei has expressed the phrase 'the bible cannot err' the quote you state 'if scripture was inerrant, then his/my system concerned interpretation not contradiction' was later expressed and included more by church officles then by himself...prehaps due to intimidation, I cant accurately remember that far back. Oh and I never said that Rene Descartes was a deist, this, as well as the rest was just your rather poor interpretation of it all...or lack of knowledge...either way. Quote: [Hermit 3.3] When a scientist mentions a "religious feeling", this need not imply anything about Deism or even Theism. For example, Einstein (who, from his own words was undoubtedly an atheist - of the strong persuasion) said, "I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism" (fallacy of bifurcation). [Hermit 3.5] The fact that I know that you are wrong about Einstein, avoid the astrological context for Copernicus and Kepler (which also lead to Galileo's discounting of Kepler, "He (Kepler) has nevertheless lent his ear and his assent to the Moon's dominion over the waters, to occult properties, and to such puerilities."), makes me suspicious that your characterizations of others as Deists may be equally faulty. I have said all I need to say for both Copernicus and Kelper, but Wrong about Einstein??? please. The quote which you stated was for those who used his name in religious circles to strenghten their influence, it says no where that he does not accept or disbelieve in God, or that he was an athiest; at the very lest, (based on evidence by quotation) Einstein was a deist. It is not I who is wrong about Einstein, for based on the facts included below I would not say that you are wrong about Einstein, just erroneously misjudging of his views, in favour of your own, which is just a pityful attempt for justification. If Einstein really was an atheist (to which there is no supporting evidence) then he is subject to quite alot of contradiction in his life-time, to this day. The quotations listed below are not subject to manipulation, but historical fact from Einstein himself, which pretty much speaks for it's self, accept maybe for those who want only to deny it, which is but futile ignorance. Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but in a God who orders the cosmos. He wrote, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."  - Albert Einstein Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.  - Albert Einstein. This next quote Hermit, I think would imply a great deal unto you. In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.  - Albert Einstein Evil is the absence of God.  - Albert Einstein What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world. - Albert Einstein Variant: I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.  - Albert Einstein My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.  - Albert Einstein God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically. - Albert Einstein Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.  - Albert Einstein There remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. - Albert Einstein The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism. - Albert Einstein This one I include just for fun... I like quoting Einstein. Know why? Because nobody dares contradict you. - Studs Terkel. Even though you do make some good points Hermit, I dont buy your jargon when something you dont agree with (from a personal perspective) comes up and you try to manipulate it to your own point of view; this would be an example in your own words 'somebody with more of an agenda than either a desire for accuracy or knowledge of the subject' - as you have already clearly demonstrated. Quote from: Blunderov on 2005-12-10 17:11:40    It's possible that we have a semantic problem here. My understanding of omniscient is "all knowing". If God only knows which possibilities MAY occur and not (also) those which WILL occur then it is not omniscient; there are some things not known. If God set the parameters within which this freeness of will in humans would be exercised, I do not think he would win his bet with The Morning Star. Any parameters are intrinsically limiting. Limitations are antithetical to freedom. In order to meet Lucifer's challenge it seems to me that God would have to afford humans no less freedom than he, God, himself enjoys. Otherwise it would be cheating; God would be putting his thumb on the scale and I'm willing to bet that the Horned One would notice this. Given that we have nowhere near the freedom of will that God (presumably) enjoys, it seems to me the Satan must have won his bet on a disqualification. Greetings, Blunderov. Yes, I did mean omniscience in the same sence as you describe. If a choice has yet to be made then it cannot technically exist, only in probability. If something does not yet 'exist' with the present then only the possibility of choice can be know. Therefor how can something be known that doesnt exist, but in probability - this is freewill from which choice is derived. The only limits to our own choices are those that we impose upon them - faith in my opinion is the ultimate liberation, and beyond the logic of mother nature. Also, I would not confuse Lucifer with Satan... As for the piece you kindly included with your post, I would, from a theistic, deistic and atheistic point of view disagree on all fronts, because time will never be truely known to us on the scales being spoken of and implied. Thankfully, Me. « Last Edit: 2006-06-12 20:19:20 by White Fox » Report to moderator   Logged I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. - Gatsu Hermit Archon Posts: 4287 Reputation: 8.94 Rate Hermit Prime example of a practically perfect person Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win « Reply #80 on: 2006-06-13 00:11:14 » Fox, As you see, I don't address you as "my little cabbage" (a term of endearment). That is because, and I did it, it wouldn't be true. Neither did I (previously) call you a vegetable, as (previously) I had no significant evidence in the matter. Today, I still don't address you as such, as it now begins to appear as if that might well be overly complimentary. Cabbages, which in my experience have never proven themselves sufficiently stupid to prove their stupidity through their own words, might conceivably be smarter than you. Perhaps you have less than the average number of cabbage genes. From your post it is clear that you are not "of the intellect" while the fact that you didn't clutch your breast claiming to be disabled leads me to conclude that your disability lies exclusively in the fact that you cannot perceive the mental inferiority you are lumbered with, although it seems fairly blatant to me.  In any case, having excluded present company, your complaint about my observing the fact of DNA ratios being "more obvious in the faithful" appears to have sustained it. Unless you are asserting that you are not faithful? In which case I would point out that I did not say that this phenomena may only be observed within that body. I suggest that we can, for example, identify it from your words. Words which appear to have left their point far behind. What, if anything, were you trying to convey with this putative reply of yours? As my previous careful response appears to have left you merely repeating and enlarging on your original errors, I am not about to waste much time engaging in a lengthy dissection of the babblings of somebody who it seems is unable to support his original deeply flawed assertions, and is stupid – or unscrupulous - enough to imagine that adding to and repeating them, louder and longer, is somehow persuasive. I again highlight an example. Einstein. Einstein whom you grotesquely abuse through quotation that is so selective as to be transparently dishonest, in a fashion he himself responded to with: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from "Albert Einstein the Human Side", Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton University Press, 1981, pp 43.] Placing him in context, which we can do through recourse to his autobiography, we see this: "As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came — though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents — to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment-an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the ‘merely personal,’ from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it." [Albert Einstein, "Autobiographical Notes", Open Court Publishing Company, 1979, pp 3-5.] If by atheist, we mean "non-believer," then Einstein was repeatedly a self declared atheist. In those very words: "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.… This is a somewhat new kind of religion." [Albert Einstein, in a letter to Hans Muehsam, March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434; from Alice Calaprice, ed., "The Expanded Quotable Einstein",  Princeton University Press, 2000, pp 218.] I wouldn't normally discuss the idea of popular support  or antipathy to "belief" among scientists (ancient or modern) as indicating anything, for a "believing scientist"  is self-evidently an oxymoron, while as I pointed out before, the assertion that such claims are meaningful in the absence of data and analysis is a fallacy from a number of perspectives. Nonetheless, you give the appearance of thinking (or do I flatter you?) that there is some significance to your assertions (else why repeat and expand on them?) while desperately clewing to what seem to me to be deeply suspect sources (hint: If you want to sound knowledgeable, rather than unreferenced "Sigma Xi" sources, quote peer reviewed journals - (like Nature) - to find meaningful data [e.g. Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998-06-23; pp 394, 313.]). Larson and Witham (supra) asked members of the National (U.S.) Academy of Sciences (i.e. scientists recognized by their peers as being scientists) about their beliefs and summarized the results as follows: BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998 Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0 Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2 Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8 AND: BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998 Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9 Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7 Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3 (The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high.) Given that superstition, religious delusion and religious fanaticism is far more prevalent in America than in the industrialized world, this suggests that America is far closer to the superstitions of the third world than most Americans realize (53% of Americans consider religion to be very important in their lives. This compares with 16% in Britain, 14% in France and 13% in Germany, World Values Survey 1998),  and also that we can anticipate that the degree of "belief" (which the World Values Survey shows does not correlate to "church attendance") shown by recognized scientists from the rest of the world will be far, far lower than that reflected in America. And indeed, in my experience, this appears to be the case. Further, this trend is more pronounced as the scientists interviewed are more recognized for their leadership. So for example, the only data relating to your claim of which I am aware determined that there is a far greater degree of irreligiosity amongst Nobel Laureates of Science and Literature than even in their relatively irreligious source populations (Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, co-author of M Argyle and B Beit-Hallahmi, "The Psychology of Religious Behaviour, Belief and Experience", Routledge, 1997. ISBN: 0-415-12330-5). Aside from the fact that your assertions are unsustainable because they are simply incorrect, more significantly, when you assert that what other people, taken out of field (no matter how important their pronouncements may be in their fields), have to say on this topic is relevant to what we should think about it, I think that it is clear to anyone with a grain of wit, that you lose any hope of being worthy of notice, let alone persuasive. At the end of the day,  if you want to discuss this (or any other subject) with rational people and expect them to pay any attention to you (beyond dissing you that is), you need to be able to make a valid argument based on valid premise leading to a valid conclusion. In this case you have apparently not succeeded in any of these steps; which leads me to think that you cannot. If I were to summarize, what all of your inane (i.e. not relevant to anything being said here) quotation (and when extensive quotation is done without reference to your sources - as you have done here - it is more accurate to call it plagiarism) is seen to be, is an example of "missing the point",  and if not motivated by stupidity is recognizable as not infrequently being an attempt to "swamp the discourse" as well as a probable attempt to use "smoke and mirrors" to avoid substantive debate. Such tactics persuade me that either you don't know what an argument - or a debate - or even evidence – is, or that knowing, you prefer, like the founders of Christianity to engage in prevarication. Chew on it. Hermit PS I think you need to look up the meanings of the words you use. For example, agnostic probably doesn't mean what you think it does. Atheist probably doesn't either. PPS Without careful research and speaking only from my own knowledge, I can tell you for certain that your unnamed source(s) are horribly wrong about many of the easily checked assertions they make. I therefore would not trust them on any subject, particularly those less easily checked. PPPS Before making asinine assertions about belief, science and what the church did or did not do, I suggest you do some research. You could start by reading up on Giordano Bruno and the 50 or so pages of names apologized to by John Paul II in March 2000. Then research the Franks and the Moors. Then study up on Luther and witchcraft - and Jews. Consider why half the population of what is today Germany was lost in one generation. Think on the primitive and vicious "covenanters" who ultimately fathered the American Pentecostal movement and whose anti-intellectual bias remains a pillar of Protestant bigotry in America today. When you know something on these matters, come back and perhaps we can have a discussion instead of you trying to throw out challenges marked more by ignorance than style - challenges which have in any case been repeatedly debunked. PPPPS Qua your assertion about me, I am not so stupid as to say “there is no 'god'." I say that there is no need for, or indeed any shred of evidence, suggesting any 'gods' at all. Further, while there may be god-monsters with attributes that allow them to exist in theory (unlike those postulated by the major religions of Earth), the nature of all the gods I have heard suggestions about, have seemed grotesquely inferior to the ethics possessed by most modern men (including myself). Meanwhile the provably massively harmful effect on mankind that belief in gods has had in the last 8,000 years or so suggests that if we ever discovered that gods of some form did exist, we should attempt to destroy them in order to make the Universe a better place. « Last Edit: 2006-06-13 22:03:35 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999 Fox Archon Gender: Posts: 122 Reputation: 8.03 Rate Fox Never underestimate the odds. Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win « Reply #81 on: 2006-06-15 16:49:28 » Thank you Hermit, you have been eruditely insightful (no acrimony intended). Albeit I myself am not severely impaired, mentally or physically there are those I know who are and who still stand to believe, my reasons are thus. Prehaps I can evolve from this. You raised an interesting intellection for the destruction of God or God's in order to make the Universe a better place. But (hypothetically speaking) how would one go in order to achieve this, if mankind came to such a point; especially if such a beings life was intrinsically conjoined and inherent with that of both our life and the universe's. Or prehaps some small, but vital part of it...? Report to moderator   Logged I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. - Gatsu Hermit Archon Posts: 4287 Reputation: 8.94 Rate Hermit Prime example of a practically perfect person Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win « Reply #82 on: 2006-06-15 20:02:59 » Quote from: White Fox on 2006-06-15 16:49:28    You raised an interesting intellection for the destruction of God or God's in order to make the Universe a better place. But (hypothetically speaking) how would one go in order to achieve this, if mankind came to such a point; especially if such a beings life was intrinsically conjoined and inherent with that of both our life and the universe's. Or prehaps some small, but vital part of it...? I am unaware of even a theoretical possibility that any entity could exist in our baryonic Universe that I might refer to as a god. So for now the question does not arise. If such a creature were to arise, rather than indulging in ungrounded speculation, we would examine the creatures' attributes - and if possible, establish an appropriate pesticide. Note that for every thing which can exist, there is some force which can disassociate it. In our experience, disassociation terminates processes. Note that while the idea of an "intrinsically conjoined and inherent with that of both our life and the universe's" may be a stable of a certain sort of science fiction, we have not encountered anything like this, and the things we are sure about (matter, energy and general relativity) mitigate strongly against us ever discovering anything like this. So don't worry about it until you have to :-) Hermit PS To "believe" is to accept something as being likely true either in the absense of evidence or through ignoring evidence suggesting that the thing is likely not true. If you seek rationality, belief is always a handicap. « Last Edit: 2006-06-15 20:06:31 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999 Hermit Archon Posts: 4287 Reputation: 8.94 Rate Hermit Prime example of a practically perfect person Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win « Reply #83 on: 2007-10-19 13:05:09 » Sexy corals keep 'eye' on moon, scientists say [ Hermit : In case anyone wonders why this article is on this thread, it is because it responds very thoroughly to the so-called  "irreducible complexity of the eye." I'd say, "Poor Behe," only he vastly deserves everything that has happened to his anti-intellectual apologetica. ] Source: International Herald Tribune Authors: William J. Broad Dated: 2007-10-18 Birds do it. Bees do it. Even lowly corals do it — but infrequently, forgoing sex for as long as a year. Then, at night, just after the full moon, under warm tropic breezes, the corals dissolve in an orgy of reproduction, sowing waters with trillions of eggs and sperm that swirl and dance and merge to form new life. The frenzy can leave pink flotsam. Scientists discovered the mysterious rite of procreation in 1981 and ever since have puzzled over its details. The moon clearly rules the synchronized mass spawning, which happens during different months in different parts of the globe, but usually in the summer. But how do corals monitor the moon's phases and know when to start mingling? Today, seven scientists from Australia, Israel and the United States report in the journal Science that corals have primitive photoreceptors, if not true eyes. In experiments, they found that the photosensitive chemicals respond to moonlight as admirably as, well, human lovers. "This looks to be the smoking gun," Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a team member at the University of Queensland, said in an interview. "It triggers the largest spawning event on the planet." Margaret Miller, a coral specialist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, called the finding by the group of scientists "a big step forward. It's always been a mystery as to how these animals manage to synchronize themselves." In recent years, the undersea love-fests have become tourist attractions for divers in the Caribbean, in Australia on the Great Barrier Reef, and other coral havens. Al Giddings, a famous ocean photographer, made a PBS documentary that showed reefs around the Pacific islands of Palau exploding in blizzards of rising sperm and eggs. Though the scientists involved say more work is needed to determine how the photoreceptor works, the finding is significant because it addresses the spawning's main riddle, marine biologists say. "When I talk about thousands of reefs in the Caribbean releasing their spawn within minutes of each other during a specific phase of the moon, people marvel and ask, 'How do they do it?'" said Alina Szmant, a coral expert at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington. "My answer is always, 'It's a mystery.'" Now, she said, the discovery provides clues to the puzzle and opens up "a new direction to explore." Biologists say the finding sheds light on hidden aspects not only of coral reproduction but of evolution, suggesting that light receptors arose surprisingly early in the development of animals. Corals emerged more than 500 million years ago, near the dawn of complex life. "Our discovery," the scientists write in Science, suggests that the basic mechanisms for responding to light "were in place at the origins of multicellularity in animals." People have known about the moon's romantic possibilities for a long time. Shakespeare in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" relies on moonlight to set the mood. The 1987 movie "Moonstruck" features a love story centered on "La Bella Luna." [color=yellow]Corals are actually colonies of individual organisms called polyps, which create the skeletal structure that binds them together. For centuries, scientists held that corals were primitive creatures with no brain or eyes that knew nothing of moonlight or other environmental nuances and reproduced mainly by brooding offspring and bringing forth live young. In 1981, that dogma began to collapse when graduate students at James Cook University in Australia followed a trail of clues to a nighttime mass spawn on the Great Barrier Reef. Their discovery made the cover of Science in 1984, and a chapter of the 1998 book "The Enchanted Braid" (John Wiley), which called the startling find "a coup for a group of graduate students."[/color] Investigation showed that the swirling eggs and sperm would merge and float away, forming embryonic corals that would sink to the ocean floor and, if conditions were right, found new colonies. Scientists speculated that the moon's phase was important in the ritual because it controlled the tides. But in some places the tides were low and in others high, and scientists now say the moon may simply act as a clock to choreograph sex among more than 100 species of corals. The photoreceptor discovery is the brainchild of Oren Levy, a young Israeli scientist who traveled to Australia in 2004 to study in Hoegh-Guldberg's laboratory at the University of Queensland. Levy was fascinated by a class of photoreceptors known as cryptochromes. Originally found in plants, they had been tracked to insects and mammals, too. Levy wondered if corals might possess them. In an interview, he said one clue was that cryptochromes responded to blue light. That frequency can easily penetrate seawater, so much so that reef areas are sometimes known as "blue deserts." Levy and his colleagues studied Acropora millepora, a coral that can grow a foot across or wider and contain thousands of the individual polyps. They found two kinds of cryptochrome arrayed on the coral's outer edges, one of which responded to the light and dark phases of the moon. "This is the start of the story, not the end," Levy said in an interview. "It will take five more years at least" to uncover the light sensor's full story. The paper's other authors work at Stanford University, Tel Aviv University, the Australian National University and James Cook University. Peter Vize, a coral specialist at the University of Calgary, called the team's work "big in implications." The discovery, he added, "is opening up a whole pile of questions." Report to moderator   Logged With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999 David Lucifer Archon Posts: 2642 Reputation: 8.94 Rate David Lucifer Enlighten me. Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win « Reply #84 on: 2007-11-24 23:10:50 » I highly recommend the PBS Nova documentary Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial. Quote: One of the latest battles in the war over evolution took place in a tiny town of Dover in eastern Pennsylvania. In 2004, the local school board ordered science teachers to read to their high school biology students a statement that suggested there is an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. Called Intelligent Design, the idea is that that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and therefore had to have been designed by an intelligent agent. The science teachers refused to comply with the order; alarmed parents filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the school board of violating the separation of church and state. Suddenly, the small town of Dover was torn apart by controversy, pitting neighbor against neighbor. NOVA captures the emotional conflict in interviews with the townspeople, scientists and lawyers who participated in the historic six-week trial, Kitzmiller, et. al. v. Dover School District, et. al. , which was closely watched by the world's media. With re-creations based on court transcripts, NOVA presents the arguments by lawyers and expert witnesses in riveting detail and provides an eye-opening crash course on questions such as "What is evolution?" and "Does Intelligent Design qualify as science?" For years to come, the lessons from Dover will continue to have a profound impact on how science is viewed in our society and how it's taught it in the classroom. One of the topics covered was an internal memo from the Discovery Institute called The Wedge Document. The wikipedia article has an interesting note under the heading of Origins: Quote: Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999 by Tim Rhodes,[15] having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss If you follow the footnote you will end up here! Report to moderator   Logged Stringy Adept Gender: Posts: 15 Reputation: 7.15 Rate Stringy Life is a trip...and we got tickets Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win « Reply #85 on: 2007-12-12 18:46:21 » I would take a course in intelligent design if the designer was teaching it. Report to moderator   Logged I'm neither a scientist nor a scholar. I'm, primarily, an entertainer. That does not invalidate my ideas...but it does make them suspect. the.bricoleur Archon Posts: 341 Reputation: 8.45 Rate the.bricoleur making sense of change    Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win « Reply #86 on: 2008-01-05 04:26:23 »   ... mind if I quote that? - iolo Report to moderator   Logged Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6]   Jump to:Please select a destination: ----------------------------- General ----------------------------- =>Announcements =>Evolution and Memetics =>FAQ =>Church Doctrine =>Science & Technology =>Society & Culture =>Arts & Entertainment =>Philosophy & Religion =>Humor & Satire =>Creative Endeavors =>Serious Business =>Virian Book Club =>Second Life =>Free For All =>Infections =>Suggestion Box =>Test Area ----------------------------- Mailing List ----------------------------- =>Virus 2006 =>Virus 2005 =>Virus 2004 =>Virus 2003

Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE © 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved. Please support the CoV. RSS feed