| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dan Wood" |
| Date: |
31 Jan 2005 09:26:57 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Doubting Darwin |
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1107163264.038125.290110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
The ID'ers posit the existence of an intelligent designer who
intervenes in a completely unpredictable manner
Really, evolution which is based upon *random* mutations is
predictable, while _intelligent_ design is unpredictable? Give me
a break! This sounds like role reversal. One would certainy
expect an _intelligent_ designer, an engineer comes to mind, to
design using reason in a logical, orderly, and a highly efficent
manner, while _random_ occurances would be irrational,
illogical, mindlessly wondering about and highly unpredictable.
with the
physical world and the processes and principles which
govern its operation.
So if I were to put a beaker of water over the flame of a bunsen
burner, anything might happen: it might warm up; it might cool down; it
might turn into a blue whale and a bunch of petunias; it might cause
the end of the Universe; it might turn into an abstract concept of
deity.
What this describes is the functions of an illogical, irrational and
wholy random, blind force, not the workings of an _intelligent_
designer. Why would anyone assume intelligence is illogical, irrational
incapable of reason? This by defination is the workings of aimless,
unreasoned and mindless forces. Not intelligent designers such as
engineers.
This may make the study of physics a rather interesting. It wouldn't
make it very useful.
Einstein saw the universe as orderly with laws which are
understandable to man. *God does not play dice with
the universe*. This was Einstein's idea of God.
Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he saw
the order and logic of the Universe as evidence of God.
Dan Wood, DDS
RF
.
|
|
| User: "C.J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 10:00:32 AM |
|
|
Dan Wood wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1107163264.038125.290110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
This may make the study of physics a rather interesting. It wouldn't
make it very useful.
Einstein saw the universe as orderly with laws which are
understandable to man. *God does not play dice with
the universe*. This was Einstein's idea of God.
Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he saw
the order and logic of the Universe as evidence of God.
According to this quote, as books invariably have a writer there must be an
ultimate Writer.
"In my view we need to get back to the attitude of Einstein
who, though he himself did not believe in an anthropomorphic
deity; had a deep awe for the harmony of the universe.
There was a humility in his brilliant scientific career
which led to the discovery of the theory of
special relativity and the consequent realization
of the equivalence of energy and mass (through
the famous equation E=mc .This was followed
by the momentous discovery of the theory
of general relativity which showed for the
first time the connection between gravity
and time, and led to the demonstration of
the curvature of the space-time continuum in
the universe. He said in an interview in 1929:
'We are in the position of a little child entering
a huge library filled with books in many different
languages. The child knows someone must
have written those books. It does not know
how. It does not understand the languages
in which they are written. The child dimly
suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement
of the books but doesn’t know what it is.
That it seems to me, is the attitude of even
the most intelligent being toward God.
We see a universe marvelously arranged
and obeying certain laws, but only dimly
understand those laws. Our limited
minds cannot grasp the mysterious force
that moves the constellations.'
Such humility has been all but lost in our scientific
world today. Many hold tenaciously to a strange
view that theism is by definition excluded by
science. Such a position is not logical...."
(In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
Edited by John Ashton Phd :156)
Thomas Jefferson, on theism and intelligent design,
"And when the atheist descanted on the unceasing
motion and circulation of matter thro' the animal
vegetable and mineral kingdoms, never resting,
never annihilated, always changing form, and
under all forms gifted with the power of
reproduction; the Theist pointing `to the
heavens above, and to the earth beneath,
and to the waters under the earth,' asked if
these did not proclaim a first cause, possessing
intelligence and power; power in the
production, and intelligence in the design
and constant preservation of the system;
urged the palpable existence of final causes,
that the eye was made to see, and the ear
to hear, and not that we see because we
have eyes, and hear because we have
ears; an answer obvious to the senses,
as that of walking across the room was
to the philosopher demonstrating the
nonexistence of motion."
Letter to John Adams.
http://right2leftists.blogspot.com/2005/01/thomas-jefferson-on-intelligent-design.html
Thomas Jefferson edited the Bible with respect to miracles but what he is
saying there matches an oft repeated biblical phrase that matches intelligent
design, "Those who have eyes, let them see."
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 12:48:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:00:32 -0500, "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
(In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
Edited by John Ashton Phd :156)
seems CJW thinks scientists USED to be humble. why? because they
believed in god.
what makes him think many scientists dont believe today?
nothing...nothing in particular except they dont agree with his view
of magic.
Thomas Jefferson, on theism and intelligent design,
jefferson knew nothing of evolution.
Thomas Jefferson edited the Bible with respect to miracles but what he is
saying there matches an oft repeated biblical phrase that matches intelligent
design, "Those who have eyes, let them see."
--
who cares what jefferson thought on that? he was wrong on quite a few
things. he thought americans should be farmers. he owned slaves. he
was a genius..a great man. but he could be, and was wrong on many
issues.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "August Pamplona" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
01 Feb 2005 01:58:10 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:00:32 -0500, "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
(In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
Edited by John Ashton Phd :156)
seems CJW thinks scientists USED to be humble. why? because they
believed in god.
what makes him think many scientists dont believe today?
nothing...nothing in particular except they dont agree with his view
of magic.
There's nothing more arrogant than god belief.
[snip]
August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
Proud member of the reality-based community.
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "C.J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 01:59:23 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:00:32 -0500, "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
(In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
Edited by John Ashton Phd :156)
seems CJW thinks scientists USED to be humble. why? because they
believed in god.
No I don't. They've always had an elitist tendency too. Yet there were a lot
that were humble. It seems to be either, or because of civilization. As some of
the leaders of civilization they are either humble about it or elitist about it.
But there is not much middle ground, because they are leaders.
what makes him think many scientists dont believe today?
Example,
"A recent survey published in the leading science
journal Nature conclusively showed that the
National Academy of Science is anti-God to
the core. A survey of all 517 NAS members in
biological and physical sciences resulted in just
over half responding. Of those, 72.2 percent were
overtly atheistic, 20.8 percent were agnostic,
and only 7.0 per cent believed in a personal
God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest
among biologists.The unbelief is far higher than
the percentage among scientists in general, or
in the whole US population. Commenting
on the self-professed religious neutrality of
Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of
Science and the NAS the surveyors commented:
'NAS President Bruce Alberts said: “There
are many outstanding members of this
academy who are very religious people, people
who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.”
Our research suggests otherwise.'
This atheistic bias is ironic, because the whole basis
for modern science depends on the assumption that the
universe was made by a rational Creator. Dr. Stanley
Jaki has documented how the scientific method was
stillborn in all cultures apart from the Judeo-Christian
culture of Europe. An orderly universe makes perfect
sense if it was made by an orderly Creator. But if
there is no Creator, or if Zeus and his gang were in
charge, why should there be any order at all? No
wonder that most branches of modern science
were founded by believers in creation.
The list of creationist scientists is impressive."
(In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to
Believe in Creation Edited by John Ashton Phd :77)
On the culture,
" Given the (unexplained) existence of rational mind,
the existence of a rationally ordered universe
containing rational conscious beings is then
no surprise."
(Paul Davies, "The Intelligibility of Nature,"
Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature,
ed. Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy,
and C.J. Isham
(Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory
Publications, 1996) :155)
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/12/cracking-cosmic-code.html
nothing...nothing in particular except they dont agree with his view
of magic.
No, it's something alright. Magic has nothing to do with it. Those who believe
in magic seem to want something for nothing. Who is trying to get something out
of nothing?
Thomas Jefferson, on theism and intelligent design,
jefferson knew nothing of evolution.
False.
Of course, that depends on what you mean by one of the most polluted words in
language, "evolution." It seems that some would purposefully try to pollute the
language. As those who have the urge to merge, must do so.
<snip>
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 02:26:17 PM |
|
|
It seems to be either, or because of civilization. As some of
the leaders of civilization they are either humble about it or
elitist about it.
But there is not much middle ground, because they are leaders.
Additional applesauce deleted.
It seems that some would purposefully try to pollute the
language. As those who have the urge to merge, must do so.
Polluting the language? I'll say. It seems to be either, or because of
something. Those who have the urge to babble, must do so.
There is a certain transcendent incoherency about your work reminiscent
of the great Engrish babble-poet Nishigaki:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595094724/103-4691262-5957418
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 04:41:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:59:23 -0500, "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
Bob wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:00:32 -0500, "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
(In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
Edited by John Ashton Phd :156)
seems CJW thinks scientists USED to be humble. why? because they
believed in god.
No I don't. They've always had an elitist tendency too.
hey CJW....what group of people DIDNT have elitist tendencies?
artists? poets? preachers? priests? why single out scientists?
oh. because they dont believe what you do. it's the
anti-intellectualism of the far right.
what makes him think many scientists dont believe today?
Example,
"A recent survey published in the leading science
journal Nature conclusively showed that the
National Academy of Science is anti-God to
the core.
that is true. it's also irrelevant. the members of the NAS, while the
most distinguished group of american scientists, is very small
compared to the large number of scientists in the US population
so, again, you have NO data to back up your claim that scientists are
atheists.
A survey of all 517 NAS members in
biological and physical sciences
517 scientists is an insignifcant number. there are over 480,000
biological and geological scientists alone.
so, again, you have no data.
'
.The unbelief is far higher than
the percentage among scientists in general
so YOUR OWN REFERENCE proves you WRONG.
thanks. i already knew that.
, or
This atheistic bias is ironic, because the whole basis
for modern science depends on the assumption that the
universe was made by a rational Creator.
no, it doesn't. it rests on the assumption that the universe is
orderly. certainly xtianity was a driving force behind science. but
that was 500 years ago.
The list of creationist scientists is impressive."
(In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to
Believe in Creation Edited by John Ashton Phd :77)
the list of creation scientists includes virtually ONLY those who DIED
before darwin was born. it's almost devoid of any living scientists or
those who were born after 1859.
nothing...nothing in particular except they dont agree with his view
of magic.
No, it's something alright. Magic has nothing to do with it. Those who believe
in magic seem to want something for nothing. Who is trying to get something out
of nothing?
you are. creationists say that the universe was created via magic...no
natural laws involved.
Thomas Jefferson, on theism and intelligent design,
jefferson knew nothing of evolution.
False.
Of course, that depends on what you mean by one of the most polluted words in
language, "evolution."
ah. so jefferson knew darwin?? dont know when jefferson died but
'origin of species' was published in 1859. jefferson would have been
something like 150 years old.
so tell me how jefferson knew about evolution.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 06:23:29 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:41feb262.74769278@usenet.ptd.net...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:59:23 -0500, "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
Bob wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:00:32 -0500, "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
(In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
Edited by John Ashton Phd :156)
seems CJW thinks scientists USED to be humble. why? because they
believed in god.
No I don't. They've always had an elitist tendency too.
hey CJW....what group of people DIDNT have elitist tendencies?
artists? poets? preachers? priests? why single out scientists?
oh. because they dont believe what you do. it's the
anti-intellectualism of the far right.
what makes him think many scientists dont believe today?
Example,
"A recent survey published in the leading science
journal Nature conclusively showed that the
National Academy of Science is anti-God to
the core.
that is true. it's also irrelevant. the members of the NAS, while the
most distinguished group of american scientists, is very small
compared to the large number of scientists in the US population
so, again, you have NO data to back up your claim that scientists are
atheists.
A survey of all 517 NAS members in
biological and physical sciences
517 scientists is an insignifcant number. there are over 480,000
biological and geological scientists alone.
so, again, you have no data.
'
.The unbelief is far higher than
the percentage among scientists in general
so YOUR OWN REFERENCE proves you WRONG.
thanks. i already knew that.
, or
This atheistic bias is ironic, because the whole basis
for modern science depends on the assumption that the
universe was made by a rational Creator.
no, it doesn't. it rests on the assumption that the universe is
orderly. certainly xtianity was a driving force behind science. but
that was 500 years ago.
The list of creationist scientists is impressive."
(In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to
Believe in Creation Edited by John Ashton Phd :77)
the list of creation scientists includes virtually ONLY those who DIED
before darwin was born. it's almost devoid of any living scientists or
those who were born after 1859.
nothing...nothing in particular except they dont agree with his view
of magic.
No, it's something alright. Magic has nothing to do with it. Those who
believe
in magic seem to want something for nothing. Who is trying to get
something out
of nothing?
you are. creationists say that the universe was created via magic...no
natural laws involved.
Thomas Jefferson, on theism and intelligent design,
jefferson knew nothing of evolution.
False.
Of course, that depends on what you mean by one of the most polluted
words in
language, "evolution."
ah. so jefferson knew darwin?? dont know when jefferson died but
'origin of species' was published in 1859. jefferson would have been
something like 150 years old.
Jeffereson died July 4, 1826 - fifty years after the signing of the
Declaration on Indepedence. (John Adams died the same day.
Very strange.) I think he was 83. Jefferson knew nothing about
evolution, since the word probably didn't even exist at that time.
But, Jefferson was fascinated by fossils and had a small collection
of them. He was also interested in geology and even owned the
Natural Bridge in Virginia for a time. I'm certain that Jefferson
would have loved Darwin's books. After all, he was a deist, not
a fundamentalist Christian. And, yes, there were fundy Christians
in the 1820's. They weren't quite as sad as the ones we have today,
but close enough.
so tell me how jefferson knew about evolution.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 07:12:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:23:29 -0500, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Jeffereson died July 4, 1826 - fifty years after the signing of the
Declaration on Indepedence. (John Adams died the same day.
Very strange.) I think he was 83. Jefferson knew nothing about
evolution, since the word probably didn't even exist at that time.
But, Jefferson was fascinated by fossils and had a small collection
of them. He was also interested in geology and even owned the
Natural Bridge in Virginia for a time. I'm certain that Jefferson
would have loved Darwin's books. After all, he was a deist, not
a fundamentalist Christian. And, yes, there were fundy Christians
in the 1820's. They weren't quite as sad as the ones we have today,
but close enough.
i always liked the creationist argument that scientists who died
before darwin was born didn't approve of his theory.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 11:32:46 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:41fed73c.84194940@usenet.ptd.net...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:23:29 -0500, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Jeffereson died July 4, 1826 - fifty years after the signing of the
Declaration on Indepedence. (John Adams died the same day.
Very strange.) I think he was 83. Jefferson knew nothing about
evolution, since the word probably didn't even exist at that time.
But, Jefferson was fascinated by fossils and had a small collection
of them. He was also interested in geology and even owned the
Natural Bridge in Virginia for a time. I'm certain that Jefferson
would have loved Darwin's books. After all, he was a deist, not
a fundamentalist Christian. And, yes, there were fundy Christians
in the 1820's. They weren't quite as sad as the ones we have today,
but close enough.
i always liked the creationist argument that scientists who died
before darwin was born didn't approve of his theory.
I've studied Jefferson for over 25 years and can pull any one of 50+
books I have about him off my shelves at any time. So, I feel that I
have enough knowledge of him and how he thought to make an
educated guess as to his reaction to the idea of evolution. I doubt
that the creationists can do the same when they blithely mention
all those scientists that they probably know nothing about.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list name collector
BAAWA Knight & EAC Bible thumper thumper
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
01 Feb 2005 03:00:46 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:59:23 -0500, "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
< snip >
A survey of all 517 NAS members in
biological and physical sciences.
517 scientists is an insignifcant number. there are over 480,000
biological and geological scientists alone.
so, again, you have no data.
The unbelief is far higher than
the percentage among scientists in general
so YOUR OWN REFERENCE proves you WRONG.
ROTFL! Oh, I *love* it when that happens!
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 10:28:09 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:26:57 -0500, "Dan Wood" <woody@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1107163264.038125.290110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
with the
physical world and the processes and principles which
govern its operation.
So if I were to put a beaker of water over the flame of a bunsen
burner, anything might happen: it might warm up; it might cool down; it
might turn into a blue whale and a bunch of petunias; it might cause
the end of the Universe; it might turn into an abstract concept of
deity.
What this describes is the functions of an illogical, irrational and
wholy random, blind force, not the workings of an _intelligent_
designer. Why would anyone assume intelligence is illogical, irrational
incapable of reason? This by defination is the workings of aimless,
unreasoned and mindless forces. Not intelligent designers such as
engineers.
nonsense. designers are not deterministic nor are there limits to
design. the laws of nature, by their very nature, set limits to the
possible. rich's point is exactly right.
in addition, we've never seen a designer operate without the use of
natural laws. building a mousetrap takes metal working, wood and saws.
ID says that intelligence is both necessary and sufficient to cause
events in nature.
and that is wrong.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
