This takes the discussion back to my original point. He isn't right about everything simply because of his great contributions to physics.
Quoting him as an authority on biology is entirely unconvincing.
Trying to discredit Newton when it suits an evo’s purpose by referring to his work in alchemy is intellectually dishonest.
We can look back NOW and see that it was a waste of time because we know NOW that alchemy isn’t possible, but they didn’t then. Applying today’s knowledge of things and judging someone as a *real kook* for what he believed or practiced THEN, because he didn’t know then what we know now, is disingenuous. If someone TODAY purported that alchemy was valid and worked on it as Newton did, yes, that person could be classified as a real kook.
He was doing the best he knew how with the knowledge he had. What he was doing WAS the prevailing science of the day, like it or not. If you’re going to discredit some of what Newton said because of his work in alchemy, why not all? Why pick and choose based on what you like? And why not apply the same standard to everyone who participated in work in alchemy? Are they all kooks as well? That would eliminate a huge chunk of scientists throughout history. Alchemy was finally discredited in the 18th century. Until then, it was still the prevailing scientific consensus of the day.
Besides, was his actual work in alchemy that gets the criticism or the belief that it was possible? Was there something wrong with his methodologies in doing those experiments? Do you think scientists today would not try experiments to turn other common substances into gold if it were though possible? As a matter of fact, rumor has it that this was indeed tried in the 20th century. See the section labeled *Modern Alchemy*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy
You can’t write off Newton as a kook for believing and practicing what the scientific consensus of the day was just because we know better. What’s going to happen in 500 years when prevailing scientific consensus has changed? Would you like them to judge us as kooks for working in what is considered legitimate scientific endeavors today, that will likely turn out to be wrong, just because they know more?
“Quoting him as an authority on biology is entirely unconvincing.”
I did not quote Newton as an authority in biology. I quoted him as a great scientist who saw not just evidence but proof of ID in nature. Had he known about the great discoveries yet to occur in biology and the amazing complexity of the simplest living cell, I’m confident that he would have been even more convinced of ID in nature, not less.
“Either biological life required intelligent design or it did not. As with most problems in science, it is difficult to prove one option or another with absolute certainty. Instead, options can be evaluated against each other in an attempt to estimate which option is more likely. Even then, the fact that one option may be more likely than another does not ‘prove’ that it is actually the case. Instead, I will propose a way in which both options can be evaluated against each other. The results indicate that it seems highly likely that intelligent design was required for biological life.”
Intelligent Design:
Required by Biological Life?
February 19, 2008
K.D. Kalinsky
http://www.newscholars.com/papers/ID%20Web%20Article.pdf