| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
11 Nov 2005 04:02:05 PM |
| Object: |
What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell |
What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1126751,00.html
By ERIC CORNELL
Scientists, this is a call to action. But also one to inaction. Why am
I the messenger? Because my years of scientific research have made me a
renowned expert on my topic: God. Just kidding. You'll soon see what I
mean. Let me pose you a question, not about God but about the heavens:
"Why is the sky blue?" I offer two answers: 1) The sky is blue because
of the wavelength dependence of Rayleigh scattering; 2) The sky is blue
because blue is the color God wants it to be.
My scientific research has been in areas connected to optical
phenomena, and I can tell you a lot about the Rayleigh-scattering
answer. Neither I nor any other scientist, however, has anything
scientific to say about answer No. 2, the God answer. Not to say that
the God answer is unscientific, just that the methods of science don't
speak to that answer.
.
|
|
| User: "Richard Dawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell |
11 Nov 2005 05:57:13 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131746397.018709.7240@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1126751,00.html
By ERIC CORNELL
Scientists, this is a call to action. But also one to inaction. Why am
I the messenger? Because my years of scientific research have made me a
renowned expert on my topic: God. Just kidding. You'll soon see what I
mean. Let me pose you a question, not about God but about the heavens:
"Why is the sky blue?" I offer two answers: 1) The sky is blue because
of the wavelength dependence of Rayleigh scattering; 2) The sky is blue
because blue is the color God wants it to be.
My scientific research has been in areas connected to optical
phenomena, and I can tell you a lot about the Rayleigh-scattering
answer. Neither I nor any other scientist, however, has anything
scientific to say about answer No. 2, the God answer. Not to say that
the God answer is unscientific, just that the methods of science don't
speak to that answer.
1. # "Science tells us what we have reason to believe. Not what we have a
duty to believe. Not what experts, in their pontificating wisdom, instruct
us to believe . science tells us what there is good reason to believe ."
First, who is making the statement 'science tells us what we have reason to
believe'? There are at least two views: there is inevitably the view of the
orthodox scientists and the view of the 'new scientists' - (those who
canvass any phenomenon where non-physical energy gives more likely than not
reasons for its existence and occurrence). The 'new science' empiricists and
those into psychic phenomena state that all psychic activities have to do
with non physical energy. Non physical energy has to do with quantum
physics. A number of scientists including physicists, e.g. Prof Alan Wolf
include quantum physics in their explanation of paranormal activities.
The orthodox scientist, as R Dawkins is will interpret phenomena
consistently with his own bias- and will ignore any possibility there could
be a psi (all psychic and afterlife phenomena) explanation. The 'new
scientist' will state that whereas in some instances orthodox science cannot
explain some psi phenomena - (but the evidence for its occurrence is
absolute) it does not mean the phenomena did not take place. Just because a
phenomenon cannot be reproduced in a scientific laboratory it doesn't mean
it wasn't experienced. For example, most of us experienced the phenomenon of
love. Just because reductionist science cannot reduce the phenomenon of love
in the laboratory, does it mean love does not exist?
Further, I have met people who did not experience love, were not loved, do
not love and cannot express love. At least one of them stated 'there is no
such thing as love - it's all the mind.'
I totally agree, we should not allow irrelevant 'experts' to pontificate
about what wisdom we should and should not accept.
2.# "History shows lots of examples where the best science of the day was
wrong, superseded by later centuries. There's much that science still doesn't
know."
Absolutely! Totally agree with the first statement. This in fact is what is
going on to-day. Notwithstanding the objective, empirical psi evidence by
the new science to-day, orthodox science just cannot or does not want to
explain empirical paranormal activities. Why not? First, if the empirically
elicited psi evidence is accepted, then the whole spectrum of reductionist
orthodox science would inevitably have to be reviewed - in fact, it would
become redundant overnight. The war between orthodoxy and the
empirical-paranormal accordingly, is a fierce one. The existence of
non-physical energy will explain all psi activities. That is being resisted
by orthodox scientists - such as R Dawkins. As to the second statement, that
too I agree with, because with absolute certainty, there is much to-day
orthodox science still doesn't know about.
Dawkins' mind deletes the times when orthodox scientists and materialists
made fools of themselves initially rejecting unorthodox discoveries - just a
couple of examples courtesy of Richard Milton:
... Sir William Preece former chief engineer of Britain's Post Office will be
remembered for making one of the most 'idiotic' comments in history about
Edison's inventions. Sir William stated that Edison's lamp (parallel
circuit) was a 'completely idiotic idea'!
... Professors, including Professor Henry Morton who knew Edison stated,
immediately before Edison demonstrated the electric light globe: 'On behalf
of science ... Edison's experiments are a ... fraud upon the public.'
... The Scientific American, The New York Times, The New York Herald, the U.S.
Army, academics - including Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy Simon
Newcomb from John Hopkins University- and many other American scientists all
heaped derision, ridicule and denigration onto the Wright brothers claiming
that it was: 'scientifically impossible for machines to fly'!
... One of the leading scientists from the French Academy of Sciences stated
that hypnosis is a fraud and stated after seeing a hypnotized subject with a
four inch needle in the top of his arm: 'This subject has been paid for not
showing he's in pain'.
... Another scientist from the French Academy of Sciences, after listening to
a record made by Edison, stated: '... clearly that is a case of
ventriloquism'!
... John Logie Baird, the inventor of television, was attacked by
closed-minded skeptics who stated it was: 'absolute rubbish that television
waves could produce a picture!
... The highly prestigious (U.K.), Astronomer Royal announced that talk of
space flight was 'utter bilge'. This was just 18 months before Russia's
Sputnik I roared into orbit." Adrian Berry, Science Correspondent, Daily
Telegraph.
GALVANI, the discoverer of electricity, "I am attacked by two very opposite
sects - the scientists and the know-nothings. Both laugh at me, calling me
'the frogs' dancing master'. Yet I know I have discovered the one of the
greatest forces of nature."
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/dawkins.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell |
11 Nov 2005 06:10:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:57:13 -0700, "Richard Dawkins"
<Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:
First, who is making the statement 'science tells us what we have reason to
believe'? There are at least two views: there is inevitably the view of the
orthodox scientists and the view of the 'new scientists' - (those who
canvass any phenomenon where non-physical energy gives more likely than not
reasons for its existence and occurrence).
whatever the hell this means. the 'new scientists' are called
fundamentalist xtians it seems. they don't do research...they publish
no papers, they have no laboratories. they have churches.
The 'new science' empiricists and
those into psychic phenomena state that all psychic activities have to do
with non physical energy. Non physical energy has to do with quantum
physics. A number of scientists including physicists, e.g. Prof Alan Wolf
include quantum physics in their explanation of paranormal activities.
funny that those of us who have studied quantum physics view it as
describing physical energy. QM obeys the laws of thermodynamics, for
example.
but creationists have to resort to a desperate re-invention of science
to support their theology.
For example, most of us experienced the phenomenon of
love. Just because reductionist science cannot reduce the phenomenon of love
in the laboratory, does it mean love does not exist?
ridiculous question. scientists, unlike creationists, know science has
limits. it can not describe truth, beauty or love.
creationists think it can.
what he's saying is that creationism is the theory of the future...and
always will be.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell |
12 Nov 2005 07:53:26 AM |
|
|
Richard "I'm a complete fake" Dawkins wrote:
Dawkins' mind deletes the times when orthodox scientists and materialists
made fools of themselves initially rejecting unorthodox discoveries - just a
couple of examples courtesy of Richard Milton:
Richard Milton, clueless author of "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism"
is academically unqualified to comment on the Theory of evolution in
any professional way. His opinion, therefore, is just that: an opinion
of no greater value than someone picked from the street at random.
Neither Milton nor any other creationist has published even one
peer-reviewed paper in any refereed science journal either calling the
Theory of Evolution into question or establishing an alternative that
better explains the fact of evolution.
The Theory of Evolution on the other hand, has 150 years of solid
scientific support from people of all faiths and all nationalities.
The creationist position is so fundamentally bankrupt that all they
*can* do is published fiction like this, whining about evolution and
their whine is made from 100% sour-grapes.
Milton appears, from what I've read so far, to have nothing but
argument from incredulity, and everything he has is cribbed from other
writers! This means it has already been soundly refuted by science -
real science - long before Milton's book was ever committed to paper.
He's apparently so intellectually impoverished that he can offer
nothing new and he apparently cannot find a shred of scientific support
for his claims.
Neither he nor any other creationist has ever been able to offer a
shred of positive evidence for their religious belief, so their entire
"argument" consists of trying to snipe at the Theory of Evolution.
You'd think Milton, with the credentials he claims, would have some
sort of grasp of such a soundly established theory (which uses
precisely the same method as every other branch of science), but his
writing shows that he hasn't grasped the first thing about evolution.
Take Milton's comment on p.132 of aforesaid book "Darwin had
accumulated hundreds of pieces of evidence that tended to support his
idea, but he knew it was inevitable that skeptics would say: Show us an
example of natural selection. So in the first edition of On the Origin
of Species Darwin gave one. He said, 'I can see no difficulty in a race
of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more acquatic
in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was
produced as monstrous as a whale.' Here we have Darwin's central idea
of evolution in a nutshell: bears can become whales, or whale-like,
given enough time and enough natural selection. One species can turn
into a completely different species by natural selection alone."
This is born out by several inescapable facts: the closest living
relatives of the hippopotamus are the cetaceans, as proven by genetics.
There's no way to account for this without evolution. The transition
from terrestrial animals to whales is documented in Carl Zimmer's book
"At the Water's Edge" (http://tinyurl.com/d8y6d). Modern whales have
been found with vestigial hind legs. Again, there's no way to account
for this without evolution.
Milton, page 133 "Darwin changed his mind about this example after
publication and withdrew it from the second and all later editions of
his book. We don't know the exact reason why he had second thoughts and
withdrew the example, but I think it is not too difficult to see why he
would have done so."
So what? The question to ask here is why Milton obsesses on this
trivial non-issue! So what if Darwin changed his mind? The chapter of
"On The Origin of Species..." from which this was removed is replete
with other examples. It's entirely irrelevant what happened to this
comment. And why is Milton so focussed on a 150-year-old book when
science has moved into the 21st century with masses of evidence
supporting the Theory which Darwin outlined?
Does Milton even offer a scientific refutation of Darwin's position?
No! All he offers is standard creationist whining. Milton,
purportedly a member of Mensa, apparently lacks the intellectual to see
beyond the end of his own turned up nose and therefore, he insists, it
just cannot have happened.
Unfortunately for Milton and his ilk, science is not conducted by
popular vote or by straw men, or arm flapping, or cheap, sensationalist
books. Science is not a democracy; it's a dictatorship and what
dictates is the weight of the evidence and the theory that best
explains that evidence. Creationism and so-called intelligent
so-called design don't *have* a theory! They don't even have a
rudimentary explanation for evolution. They are not deserving of equal
time until they do.
Milton, page 134: "Darwin was well aware of one central fact that
dominated all animal and plant breeding experiments - then and now. No
one has ever bred a new species artificially - and both plant and
animal breeders have been trying for hundreds of years, as have
scientists."
Darwin was aware - that's never been in doubt. Milton is the one who
isn't aware. He isn't aware that breeders are categorically *not*
trying to produce a new species, but to preserve the species in the
best form they can render it! It's entirely inapplicable to natural
evolution. Evolution has no plan, no design, no intelligence, no goal.
Unlike breeders, evolution isn't trying to get somewhere or remain
somewhere.
The hilarious and ironic point about this type of standard creationist
whine is that even if they were right, what they are arguing here is
that intelligent design cannot produce something as good as that found
in nature!!! In other words, they're refuting their very own position!
Milton's stupidity is manifest in almost every page: p. 135 "And
although Darwin afterwards thought better of his statement about bears
and whales, and removed it from later editions of his book, the
substance of his claim nevertheless remains THE central tenet of
synthetic evolution - bears can become whales, or microbes can become
elephants, by means of random mutation and natural selection. Today,
few Darwinists could be found to put their names to such a bald
manifesto. Yet that is what they teach in schools and universities."
Is this why virtually every scientist on the planet, believer or
non-believer, Catholic, Hindu, Judaist, Muslim, Protestant and whatever
accepts the Theory of Evolution whilst all the creationists can come up
with is a list of maybe 400 scientists most of whom have academic
disciplines which have nothing to do with the biological (modern or
historic) sciences?
Is intellectual honesty and a desire to find the truth no matter where
it leads the reason why the creation scientists sign a pedge stating
categorically that unless science is in agreement with scrtipture, the
*science* is wrong? Scientists, on the other hand - real, working
scientists, sign no such pledge. They let the evidence dictate what
the Theory is, not the other way around.
Milton, p. 152-3 "Macroevolution, a process that occurs over millions
of years so it cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment."
No creationist has ever been able to define "kind" scientifically, nor
explain the mechanism which purportedly prevents one of these
mysterious "kinds" from changing into another "kind". On the other
hand, mutation and natural selection are occurring as we read, and the
science of genetics shows how these mutations - so-called
microevolution - accumulate until they turn into so-called
macroevolution.
No creationist has ever refuted this, and speciation, the first step of
macroevolution, has been observed both in the wild and in the
laboratory.
In other words, this book of Milton's is an insult to trees everywhere.
Recycle it and know that that's the best use you can put it to.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell |
12 Nov 2005 07:49:18 AM |
|
|
Richard "I'm a complete fake" Dawkins wrote:
I totally agree, we should not allow irrelevant 'experts' to pontificate
about what wisdom we should and should not accept.
Then shut the ***** up, *****.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell |
12 Nov 2005 07:20:35 AM |
|
|
Richard Dawkins wrote:
[The real][?] Dawkins' mind deletes the times when orthodox scientists and materialists
made fools of themselves initially rejecting unorthodox discoveries - just a
couple of examples courtesy of Richard Milton:
Good heavens, a credit!
I suspect many of the following are false. Has anyone picked over
them?
.. Sir William Preece former chief engineer of Britain's Post Office will be
remembered for making one of the most 'idiotic' comments in history about
Edison's inventions. Sir William stated that Edison's lamp (parallel
circuit) was a 'completely idiotic idea'!
.. Professors, including Professor Henry Morton who knew Edison stated,
immediately before Edison demonstrated the electric light globe: 'On behalf
of science ... Edison's experiments are a ... fraud upon the public.'
.. The Scientific American, The New York Times, The New York Herald, the U.S.
Army, academics - including Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy Simon
Newcomb from John Hopkins University- and many other American scientists all
heaped derision, ridicule and denigration onto the Wright brothers claiming
that it was: 'scientifically impossible for machines to fly'!
.. One of the leading scientists from the French Academy of Sciences stated
that hypnosis is a fraud and stated after seeing a hypnotized subject with a
four inch needle in the top of his arm: 'This subject has been paid for not
showing he's in pain'.
.. Another scientist from the French Academy of Sciences, after listening to
a record made by Edison, stated: '... clearly that is a case of
ventriloquism'!
.. John Logie Baird, the inventor of television, was attacked by
closed-minded skeptics who stated it was: 'absolute rubbish that television
waves could produce a picture!
.. The highly prestigious (U.K.), Astronomer Royal announced that talk of
space flight was 'utter bilge'. This was just 18 months before Russia's
Sputnik I roared into orbit." Adrian Berry, Science Correspondent, Daily
Telegraph.
GALVANI, the discoverer of electricity, "I am attacked by two very opposite
sects - the scientists and the know-nothings. Both laugh at me, calling me
'the frogs' dancing master'. Yet I know I have discovered the one of the
greatest forces of nature."
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/dawkins.htm
Since there is scope for confusion, the URL above is the immediate
source of the alleged quotes. Victor J. Zammit, author of "A Lawyer
Presents the Case for the Afterlife" and provider of free legal advice
to "genuine mediums", asserts that Richard Milton said that these
people said these things.
Although I was particularly sceptical about the Astronomer Royal's
remark, it is supported in a few places, such as
http://www.verulamwriterscircle.org.uk/50/fiftyyearsofufos.html where
it's associated both with Richard Woolley taking the job and also his
repeating the remark "four and a half" years later, by which time - if
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_space is correct - monkeys had
survived space travel (well, one of two did) and the backside of the
Moon had been photographed. I'll be astonished if Dr Woolley dismissed
the scientific importance of the latter, so I take it he was referring
specifically to the utility of the human astronaut programme. I wonder
if he ever changed his mind.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lokke" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell |
11 Nov 2005 04:36:38 PM |
|
|
I don't get the point...sorry
(anyway...if science can't aswer that, it's not in science domain, so
it is not scientific to me...)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell |
11 Nov 2005 04:17:35 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1126751,00.html
By ERIC CORNELL
Scientists, this is a call to action. But also one to inaction. Why am
I the messenger? Because my years of scientific research have made me a
renowned expert on my topic: God. Just kidding. You'll soon see what I
mean. Let me pose you a question, not about God but about the heavens:
"Why is the sky blue?" I offer two answers: 1) The sky is blue because
of the wavelength dependence of Rayleigh scattering; 2) The sky is blue
because blue is the color God wants it to be.
My scientific research has been in areas connected to optical
phenomena, and I can tell you a lot about the Rayleigh-scattering
answer. Neither I nor any other scientist, however, has anything
scientific to say about answer No. 2, the God answer. Not to say that
the God answer is unscientific, just that the methods of science don't
speak to that answer.
Isn't that more or less the definition of "unscientific"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell |
11 Nov 2005 05:25:58 PM |
|
|
"Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131747455.455028.168550@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1126751,00.html
By ERIC CORNELL
Scientists, this is a call to action. But also one to inaction. Why am
I the messenger? Because my years of scientific research have made me a
renowned expert on my topic: God. Just kidding. You'll soon see what I
mean. Let me pose you a question, not about God but about the heavens:
"Why is the sky blue?" I offer two answers: 1) The sky is blue because
of the wavelength dependence of Rayleigh scattering; 2) The sky is blue
because blue is the color God wants it to be.
My scientific research has been in areas connected to optical
phenomena, and I can tell you a lot about the Rayleigh-scattering
answer. Neither I nor any other scientist, however, has anything
scientific to say about answer No. 2, the God answer. Not to say that
the God answer is unscientific, just that the methods of science don't
speak to that answer.
Isn't that more or less the definition of "unscientific"?
According to http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=unscientific ,
"unscientific" means "not consistent with the methods or principles of
science." Now, this can be taken in two ways: contrary to those methods and
principles (i.e. "antiscientific"), or simply irrelevant to those methods
and principles ("nonscientific"). I think the author's point is that
theism, and discussion of God's purposes and actions in the world, is
nonscientific but not antiscientific.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell |
11 Nov 2005 06:17:08 PM |
|
|
Chris Johnson wrote:
maff wrote:
What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1126751,00.html
By ERIC CORNELL
Scientists, this is a call to action. But also one to inaction. Why
am I the messenger? Because my years of scientific research have
made me a renowned expert on my topic: God. Just kidding. You'll
soon see what I mean. Let me pose you a question, not about God but
about the heavens: "Why is the sky blue?" I offer two answers: 1)
The sky is blue because of the wavelength dependence of Rayleigh
scattering; 2) The sky is blue because blue is the color God wants
it to be.
My scientific research has been in areas connected to optical
phenomena, and I can tell you a lot about the Rayleigh-scattering
answer. Neither I nor any other scientist, however, has anything
scientific to say about answer No. 2, the God answer. Not to say
that the God answer is unscientific, just that the methods of
science don't speak to that answer.
Isn't that more or less the definition of "unscientific"?
Science doesn't consider "The Easter Bunny likes the color
Blue a lot" either.
First of all, one has to prove god or the easter bunny exists.
And that either have anything to do with the sky or its color.
Theology does not do this of course.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
