Replies

There may be but the theistic evolutionists ones get a lot of scorn from the atheistic ones and often have their work marginalized. I remember the E Forest Mims controversy in Scientific American. He is an electronics engineer who used to publish a column outlining practical problems and solutions in electronis. He was popular until word got out that he was a "born again conservative Christian"...he wasn't even into biology and he got booted out of the magazine for not having the proper "scientific" mind-set...the hue and cry coming from mainly atheistic evolutionary biologist readers or the magaizine. The implication was clear...you can't have religious principles and be a good scientist.

The intelligent design folks start with either a theistic premise or an extraterrestrial premise for example. If you read further, you would have noted my discussion of the Tautologous. Evolution indeed follows only from the evidence, the theory of which is induced from the patterns that are measured, seen, ect. My arguement is with those scientists who assume that anything that is tautologous or not testable is always necessarily false. Good science in the objective sence indeed deals only with the evidence before it...though the problematic part is to interpret the data into a form that can be systematically organized and interpreted meaningfully. In the end, SUBJECTIVE BIAS chooses the shape in which data is organized into hypotheses which can be tested and verified. It is this INDUCTIVE phase in which science has its most weakest flaw. It is also interesting once hypotheses are verified then a DEDUCTIVE process follows from those Hypotheses.

The greatest difficulty for both evolutionists and Creationists is that we can't go back in time. The Subjective Biases of both camps send both sides down different paths with each side coming up with plausible sounding theories and data to support their views. The Creationists start with a Tautologous premise, evolutionists ignore that premise or view it in the negative. Until the physics folks invent a time machine in which all concerned can go back and see what happened we'll never know, we'll only have at best educated guesses from both sides of the arguement,(and name calling on both sides)!

There may be but the theistic evolutionists ones get a lot of scorn from the atheistic ones and often have their work marginalized.

That's simply not true. Kenneth Miller of Brown University is quite open about being a devout Catholic, yet he's published dozens of articles in peer-reviwed journals and his high school and college biology textbooks are some of the most frequently used in the country. Every single member of the pope's Pontifical Academy of sciences is a theistic evolutionist, and yet they're all members of mainstream scientific organizations and/or on the faculty of major universities. There are also several respected evolutionary biologists who happen to be evangelicals, but you'll forgive me if I do not remember their names since I'm neither a Protestant nor a biologist.

The intelligent design folks start with either a theistic premise or an extraterrestrial premise for example.

That's just not true. They claim that a dispassionate examination of the evidence will lead one to conclude that an intelligence of some sort, either God or aliens, had to design life. Of course they are wrong, but they most emphatically do not start off with a theistic premise.

My arguement is with those scientists who assume that anything that is tautologous or not testable is always necessarily false.

Most scientists do not make this assumption.

Good science in the objective sence indeed deals only with the evidence before it...though the problematic part is to interpret the data into a form that can be systematically organized and interpreted meaningfully. In the end, SUBJECTIVE BIAS chooses the shape in which data is organized into hypotheses which can be tested and verified.

I see you have been influenced by postmodernism. Strange, for a conservative. It's usually the left that launches into this sort of nonsense.

Please tell me, what "subjective bias" causes biologists to infer evolution and common descent from the genetic, embyological, and palentological data?

Scientific American is a magazine with a clear left wing, atheistic bias, and does not speak for the scientific community as a whole. As a working chemist, I have met and worked with many scientists, the vast majority of whom are Christians. None of them have been ridiculed, shamed, or in any way professionally harmed by their religious beliefs. The only way that this would occur, and rightly so, is if they allowed their religious beliefs to override the evidence that they gather and therefore caused their beliefs to color their scientific findings. Scientists must put aside personal beliefs and focus exclusively on the evidence.