A real scientist speaks, rather than a science-priest.
Well, that’s his last prize. Probably no more funding, either. Possibly, he’ll be looking for a new job as well.
You can join Reasons to Believe. Our founders Hugh and Kathy Ross, along with Ken Samples, Razale Rana, Jeff Swernick, and others, write books, speak, study the connection with God, Science, and the Bible. We have been reading their books and going to their meetings for many years. They are Cosmologists, Physicists, etc. Their office is in California.
If interested I would recommend Why the Universe is the Way it is. And Who was Adam.
Last Saturday at our RTB meeting on campus of UT we had for our speaker Michael Strauss, an OU professor. We discovered Not All Okies are Dumb Okies. He is brilliant. One week we had a professor of Quantum Mechanics.
We just got a dvd from RTB about String Theory. Very interesting.
If the Universe had a beginning, Big Bang, had to have a creator...
A breath of fresh air.
If I hate anything it is a smug atheist. And they are all smug.
Gleiser is a Jewish agnostic who is honest with himself and his work. His views on the subject follow those of Einstein and Einstein’s mentor Kurt Goedel. Such views are valuable to defend science against deceivers who abuse science.
Newton was to the 17th century what Einstein was to the 20th century and what Goedel is becoming to the 21st century. Yet Newton was a devout Christian.
A Christian scientist is not only humble but also guided to uncover and enlighten what God wants His human creation to have, There are many scientific facts to pursue but the Christian scientist lets God and His flesh form in Christ be the guide as to what to pursue.
Belief in Christ not only instills humility but also guides the Christian scientist to avoid shiny objects such as beautiful fruit from a poisonous tree. For example, precoded genetic laboratory grown humans; should the knowledge underlying technology for this be a focus for development or should it be avoided in favor of gaining genetic knowledge to cure disease? Which should be funded? Which should receive research grants? Such questions are moral and ethical in nature and are rooted in scripture.
That is a great starting point. Atheistic materialism gives a multiple choice test question on causality and forbids one of the answers, possibly decapitating itself in the process.
The problem for agnostic scientists, and even more for atheists, is that there is plenty of scientific evidence for the existence of God, indeed the God described in the Bible, no matter how much they ignore, deny or try to define it away.
Excellent, thanks for posting.
We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that.
...
If you ever discuss theism with an atheist ask them if they’ve considered all possible definitions of God?
You know, I’m a “Rare Earth” kind of guy. I think our situation may be rather special, on a planetary or even galactic scale.
...
I’m a Rare Earth guy because that’s what the preponderance of evidence suggests.
bkmk
bump
Great article, H. Thanks so much for posting.
s, ping....
the irrationality of nonbelief
“...rising tide of active, open hostility to science and objectivity...”
Maybe the interviewer was playing devil’s advocate, as he said, but this is a scurrilous falsehood. There may be a rising tide against scientism and the corruption of the process of science. But not against science and objectivity.