Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: LeftCoastNeoCon; donh
["Whereas, the proud claim that a supernatural entity beyond the capacity of science to observe, is the best scientific explanation of the universe is just oozing with scientific respectability."]

So you, donh (a frustrated junior highschool science teacher, I'm guessing? Or just an unpublished Junior College professor?)

Grow up.

don't think Einstein, Hawking, Hoyle et al are "scientifically respectable?" Mein Gott!

Neither Einstein nor Hawking has ever made the mistake of claiming such a thing. I suspect you're grossly misreading donh's actual statement.

As for Hoyle, he hasn't made that claim either, but he hardly deserves to be mentioned with Einstein and Hawking. He was a fine astronomer, but he was rather a complete crank on other subjects. He believed that insects may be as intelligent as humans, for example, and that life on Earth was seeded by aliens. He also devised a grossly inappropriate and inaccurate "analogy" for evolution which revealed a complete ignorance of the subject -- that's probably why the creationists like it so much.

What are you so afraid of that you would say such a thing so obviously at odds with the "gods" of your profession?

You're very confused if you think that accomplished scientists are "gods" to other scientists.

242 posted on 08/21/2005 12:38:29 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies ]


To: Ichneumon

According to Hoyle (pardon the "all-caps"):

"A COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS SUGGESTS THAT A SUPERINTENDENT HAS MONKEYED WITH THE PHYSICS, AS WELL AS CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY, AND THAT THERE ARE NO BLIND FORCES WORTH SPEAKING ABOUT IN NATURE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY PHYSICIST WHO EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE COULD FAIL TO DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT THE LAWS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY DESIGNED WITH REGARD TO THE CONSEQUENCES THEY PRODUCE WITHIN STARS."

-------

"Einstein is just one of millions of prominent scientists over the years that have supported the theory of Intelligent Design, but he is perhaps the best known. In an article in "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium," Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." In the last paragraph of his essay, "The World as I See It," Einstein wrote, "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence - as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." While Einstein referred to the Designer as "Reason" rather than "God," his writings make it very clear that he believed that an intelligent Designer crafted our universe and all that is within it."

"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."

Albert Einstein

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

Albert Einstein

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

Albert Einstein

"I am convinced that God does not play dice with the universe."

Albert Einstein

"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." (I think he was speaking specifically to the donh's and Narby's of his day)

Albert Einstein

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Albert Einstein

-----

In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable." "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125).

"For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded... It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty." Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)"

'Nuff said.


248 posted on 08/21/2005 12:55:01 AM PDT by LeftCoastNeoCon (Spell-check free and proud of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson