Posted on 05/20/2005 11:23:15 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Not sure if it answers your question, but Albert Einstein believed in God.
Science leads you to believe in God.
God as the Higher Power.
nicely done, but shall it make an iota of difference?
This is absolutely false.
Just for the record, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the existence of God is not a matter of faith, but a matter of right reason.
The Catholic Church specifically interprets Romans 1:20 to mean that God's existence is a truth of reason and is deducible from the order of nature.
The Roman Catholic Church considers the assertion that God's existence is unknowable except by faith to be the heresy of fideism.
Therefore, ID is quite compatible with Catholic theology.
-- Steven Weinberg, Nobelist in Physics
My guess is NO.
Francis Crick
Classic.
How many Nobel Prize winners, exactly?
But not in creationism. Or intelligent design.
Yes. They published a few letters they received in response. Here's a couple:
Sir:In the Editorial "Dealing with design" (Nature 434, 1053; 2005), Nature claims that scientists have not dealt effectively with the threat to evolutionary biology posed by 'intelligent design' (ID) creationism. Rather than ignoring, dismissing or attacking ID, scientists should, the editors suggest, learn how religious people can come to terms with science, and teach these methods of accommodation in the classroom. The goal of science education should thus be "to point to options other than ID for reconciling science and belief". In this way, students' faith will not be challenged by scientific truth, and evolution will triumph.
This suggestion is misguided: the science classroom is the wrong place to teach students how to reconcile science and religion. For one thing, many scientists deem such a reconciliation impossible because faith and science are two mutually exclusive ways of looking at the world. For such scientists, Nature apparently prescribes hypocrisy. The real business of science teachers is to teach science, not to help students shore up worldviews that crumble when they learn science. And ID creationism is not science, despite the editors' suggestion that ID "tries to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature". Rather, advocates of ID pretend to use scientific methods to support their religious preconceptions. It has no more place in the biology classroom than geocentrism has in the astronomy curriculum.
Scientists are of course free (some would say duty-bound) to fight ID outside the classroom, or to harmonize religion with science. But students who cannot handle scientific challenges to their faith should seek guidance from a theologian, not a scientist. Scientists should never have to apologize for teaching science.
Jerry Coyne, Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA
Sir:I have regularly taught seminars for university biology majors, which compare the scientific claims of evolution and ID. In doing so, I am not advocating the scientific merits of ID, as discussed in your News Feature "Who has designs on your students' minds?" (Nature 434, 1062−1065; 2005). I view these seminars as analogous to media literacy courses. To understand why 80% of Fox News viewers had misperceptions about Iraq, such as believing that weapons of mass destruction had been discovered there (see http://www.pipa.org), media students need to learn how Fox News operates. Such a media literacy course does not necessarily vouch for the veracity of any particular Fox show. My interest in ID was sparked in 1999 by a local high-school teacher who used ID materials in a biology course. Parents and citizens successfully defended the teaching of mainstream science against proponents of ID, in this case the Discovery Institute (see http://www.scienceormyth.org). This taught me how effective pro-evolution groups are when they work with the school administration, and are supported by faculty from local colleges and universities. But to be effective in its support, the scientific community needs to understand the empirical claims of ID.
Although it seems to have been resurrected for religious or cultural agendas, ID's proponents have made empirical claims that can be examined. Many college students are curious about ID but have little knowledge of the claims made for it. In my experience, upper-level biology students with the appropriate background in molecular biology, genetics, developmental biology and evolution are capable of distinguishing the scientific merits of evolutionist and ID claims — to the great disadvantage of ID. Students who themselves determine that ID does not cut the scientific mustard will be more effective in their support of teaching mainstream science. Students who remain creationists or fence-sitters will at least have a better understanding of why ID has not been widely accepted in the scientific community. It may seem contradictory to offer a course on ID and evolution in colleges and oppose teaching ID in high schools. But high-school students are just learning the basics of science. To expect them to make a well-reasoned judgement about the status of any scientific theory, including evolution, is unrealistic.
David Leaf, Department of Biology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington 98225, USA
Very clever.
Everthing that begins to exist has a causal factor. God/Creator/Ground of all being/Etc. has always existed.
Really? When I took biology a couple years ago, I was only taught about evolution - no one ever questioned it, or brought up "intelligent design" [thankfully].
Also, is the "Evolution v. Creationism" debate as fierce in any other country in the world as it is in the US?
Carl Sagan
Totally agree. I assume anyone who's even peeked at these crevo threads would agree, too.
For religious scientists, this may involve taking the time to talk to students about how they personally reconcile their beliefs with their research. All scientists whose classes are faced with such concerns should familiarize themselves with some basic arguments as to why evolution, cosmology and geology are not competing with religion.
No. No! NO! It is not the job of the scientist to tell me that my religion doesn't compete with his work. That is between me, my God, and my spiritual advisors.
Personally? I'm not an ID'er. I think it's just the latest wave of superstition.
But, as the article suggests, the scientific community itself has created an atmosphere in which ID can flourish. It's the air of superiority. It's the irritating way evolutionists sigh condescendingly and explain that in science, the word theory doesn't in fact mean "theory" at all, but instead means something that any respectable person with one iota of knowledge on the subject inherently accepts as truth... etc.
Tom Tomorrow is a DU & MoveOn style leftist nutcase:
http://www.thismodernworld.com/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.