Riiiiiiight. Scientists were the ones that decided to be politically correct in virtually ALL courses from history to science to whatever. Who knew?
Evolutionists are made up of the vast majority of scientists of the past century-plus of all backgrounds, religions, political philosophies, etc, the world over. Creationism is largely an American phenomena, of a particular religion of a particular persuasion. I think the evidence is pretty clear as to which side is driven primarily by religious/political reasons rather than the science.
And once again, it's time for you to get that movie 'Expelled'. There's a good segment in there about the Polish scientist that explains it's a particularly American phenomenon to sue evo-dissenters into silence, and stomp God out of the discussion.
—Where does atomic theory mention an intelligent creator? Or germ theory? Or gravitational theory? Or relativity, QM, heliocentricity, etc? You’re again singling out evolution and criticizing it for being like every other scientific theory.
All of these were and are utilized in studying space flight and eventually making the entire enterprize possible:
The Earth reminded us of a Christmas tree ornament hanging in the blackness of space. As we got farther and farther away it diminished in size. Finally it shrank to the size of a marble, the most beautiful marble you can imagine. That beautiful, warm, living object looked so fragile, so delicate, that if you touched it with a finger it would crumble and fall apart. Seeing this has to change a man, has to make a man appreciate the creation of God and the love of God. - James Irwin, USA
Obviously, he isn't alone:
Frank Borman was commander of the first space crew to travel beyond the Earth's orbit. Looking down on the earth from 250,000 miles away, Borman radioed back a message, quoting Genesis One: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." As he later explained, "I had an enormous feeling that there had to be a power greater than any of us-that there was a God, that there was indeed a beginning."
It's quite obvious to these astronauts (a fine example of a scientist if there ever was one btw), who are more than capable of putting all of the above you mentioned together and understanding ALL of them mention a creator, in actuality.
(A multiverse is something proposed by a number of theories, such as string theory, and Smolin’s theory, and Everett’s theory, but isn’t really a theory in of itself.)
Really?
The Multiverse theory for the universe has been a recently accepted theory that describes the continuous formation of universes through the collapse of giant stars and the formation of black holes. With each of these black holes there is a new point of singularity and a new possible universe. As Rees describes it, "Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes." (Rees 3) This puts our place in the Multiverse into a small spectrum. While the size of the earth in relation to the sun is minuscule, the size of the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, and even the universe, could pale in comparison to this proposed Multiverse. It would be a shift in thinking that may help explain our big bang theory and possibly give light to the idea of parallel universes.
http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Projects/moderncosmo/Sean's%20mutliverse.html
—I can’t imagine a better series of fossils spanning from the very ape-like Australopithecines to modern man showing a gradual change in form of ape to man.
Well that's just it, you did very much imagine it. That's the point! It shows no such thing!
Those that believe that abiogenesis occurred, believe it did so because of the laws of nature and that it was chemistry – just as with snowflakes, albeit more complicated.
No, not more complicated, but with intelligent design from a creator. As with the astronauts this is quite obvious. For someone that says "no one would be happier if life came from intelligent design" as you put it, you sure have a peculiar way of showing it! Kind of like posting on FR all this tme but oblivious to the fact that the ACLU, NEA, etc. are what they are.
—How about if we listen to the scientists? You know, that group that many of which are Christian? If I was putting together material for a science class, that’s what I’d do. What would you do?
Well again, you're making my point for me!
www.dissentfromdarwin.org.
I've always been for hearing both sides and getting all the information.
“Riiiiiiight. Scientists were the ones that decided to be politically correct in virtually ALL courses from history to science to whatever. Who knew?”
—It is scientists who want evolution taught in science class. I don’t know what your comment is referring to.
“And once again, it’s time for you to get that movie ‘Expelled’. There’s a good segment in there about the Polish scientist that explains it’s a particularly American phenomenon to sue evo-dissenters into silence, and stomp God out of the discussion.”
—I’ve read a transcript of Maciej Giertych’s comments in the film before, and it had nothing to do with my comment.
“All of these were and are utilized in studying space flight and eventually making the entire enterprize possible:...”
—And all of that had what to do with my question?
I can send you 50 pages of similar such comments about evolution from Christians, but I doubt that would prove anything.
“Really?
The Multiverse theory for the universe has been a recently accepted theory that describes the continuous formation of universes...”
—Yes, really. The description of multiverses described there is the Smolin theory I mentioned, where new universes are created via black holes. That conception of a “multiverse” is utterly different than string theory’s conception of a multiverse which has something to do with d-branes. And Everett’s conception of a multiverse, which uses QM, is utterly different than the other two which essentially has an infinite number of “parallel universes” forming each moment.
“Well that’s just it, you did very much imagine it. That’s the point! It shows no such thing!”
—No, I studied bones and casts myself and read the research, and as I said, I couldn’t imagine a better series of intermediate fossils showing human evolution. If you can come up with a hypothetical intermediate fossil better than what we have, I’d be curious to hear about it.
(me)”Those that believe that abiogenesis occurred, believe it did so because of the laws of nature and that it was chemistry – just as with snowflakes, albeit more complicated.”
(you)”No, not more complicated, but with intelligent design from a creator. As with the astronauts this is quite obvious.”
—Are you saying that those that believe abiogenesis occurred believe that life formed from intelligent design and are no more complicated than snowflakes? (I have a feeling I’m wrong again, but again, I don’t know how else to read that).
“For someone that says “no one would be happier if life came from intelligent design” as you put it, you sure have a peculiar way of showing it! Kind of like posting on FR all this tme but oblivious to the fact that the ACLU, NEA, etc. are what they are.”
—I guess I just don’t necessarily think there’s a link between what would make me happy and what is reality - perhaps that does make me peculiar.
As for the NEA and ACLU, sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I don’t. (shrug)
Nice discussion, although there are times I wonder who’s post you are reading when responding to me. :-)