Scientist defends Big Bang and God

The Daily O' Collegian ^ | 10/5/05 | Micah Ownbey

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Dr. Henry “Fritz” Schaefer, the Graham Perdue professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia, gave a presentation Tuesday night about the convergence of science and Christianity.

Schaefer is a five-time Nobel Prize nominee, according to The U.S. News and World Report. He is the sixth most-cited scientist in the world, and he is the author of more than 1,000 scientific publications.

He lectured on the Big Bang Theory, Stephen Hawking and God to a crowd of nearly 800 people at the Seretean Center Concert Hall.

[js1138]

and truthful.

[Old Professer]

It is actually quite profound.

[Old Professer]

Using that reasoning faith is dangerous and should be controlled, but belief and action must always be separated upon analysis if we are to be free men.

[stremba]

So then you are okay with having no science at all taught in our schools, since none of it can be proven?

[r9etb]

and truthful.

Not even truthful. Trite, predictable, and (alas) a strawman of the most cursory construction.

[js1138]

Are you denying that many, if not the majority of the freepers posting on these threads deny a multi-billion year old universe? Are you denying that many, if not most, deny the historic fact of common descent, even though Behe, Dembski and Denton accept it?

[r9etb]

Are you denying that many, if not the majority of the freepers posting on these threads deny a multi-billion year old universe?

Yes, I am denying that. Certainly there are some posters who are "young Earthers." But to say that they represent the majority of posters is not justified. And it's even less justifiable to extrapolate from those who post on these threads, to those who merely read them, and from those to everybody who's not associated with FR.

Note, BTW, that you're now headed down the road of refining your claims about who you're talking about. Always a good sign that you've built yourself a strawman.

Are you denying that many, if not most, deny the historic fact of common descent, even though Behe, Dembski and Denton accept it?

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[js1138]

It's relevant when you and other ID high hats refuse to join in the dispute with YECs and refuse to say what it is you believe. If you don't accept YEC and don't have the courage to join the discussion against ignorance, then you are an empty suit.

But I have known that. I have been asking for two months now for any ID advocate to step up and say what they would teach in biology class. It's fine to say that science is tentative, incomplete and subject to revision. That's the strong point of science. But that takes ten seconds to say.

After you've said that, what do you teach?

[Old Professer]

The anthropic principle, the just-so nature of the physical constants that make life possible, what if they exist because they are essential to the existence of our universe, not the other way around?

[Old Professer]

It has the benefit of studious social thought without being preachy or condescendingly dismissive; better than most offerings here.

[Old Professer]

It would have ceased to matter when the last observer was gone.

[MayflowerMadam]

Evolution isn't science; it's a theory and nothing more. (That's why it's called "The THEORY of Evolution". Of course actual science should be taught in school, but not the fairy tale elements. If people want to believe in evolution on the basis of faith, as do those who believe in creationism, fine, but there's no proof in either.

[r9etb]

It's relevant when you and other ID high hats refuse to join in the dispute with YECs and refuse to say what it is you believe. If you don't accept YEC and don't have the courage to join the discussion against ignorance, then you are an empty suit.

If you can't simply ignore them like the rest of us, then you're too wrapped up in a side-issue and need to get a breath of fresh air.

But I have known that. I have been asking for two months now for any ID advocate to step up and say what they would teach in biology class.

Hm. Musta missed your demand. The way I would address the issue is very simple: be honest, and help the kids to understand what the controversy is all about. Approached properly, a discussion of ID in a classroom would provide an opportunity to help students investigate the underlying assumptions of science; understand what makes a valid hypothesis; what it takes to verify a hypothesis; how one might decide between two or more valid hypotheses; and so on. Only by actually addressing the issue head-on with a real debate -- not hiding it as you wish to do -- can the students understand what's going on in this debate, and make an actual informed assessment of the merits of the case.

It's fine to say that science is tentative, incomplete and subject to revision. That's the strong point of science. But that takes ten seconds to say.

Ah, yes. But "science" isn't saying that in this instance. Science is instead shouting loudly that it's absolutely correct. If one wants to emphasize that it's "tentative, incomplete and subject to revision," then the best way for kids to get the point is to enter into a discussion that emphasizes the point.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

After you've said that, what do you teach?

Here are a few ideas:

Critical Analysis of Evolution, Material for Students

This is the tip of the iceberg. As time goes on, there will be many more materials available for instructors to present. These things take time. As technology continues to improve, the amazing machinery and mechanisms found in organisms will come to light. Like, for example, this little cellular machine:

Image of myosin-actin interaction revealed in cover story of Molecular Cell

(3D) atomic-resolution images of the motor protein myosin V as it “walks” along trackways made of actin

[js1138]

Hm. Musta missed your demand.

I made no demands. I simply asked for information. I posted my request nearly a hundred time over a period of six weeks. I posted it on every crevo thread during that period.

I notice that you have done what every other ID advocate has done when asked to describe what they would teach in biology class. You have sidestepped the question.

It takes thirty seconds to "describe the controversy." Now what do you teach?

[js1138]

The critical analysis stuff has been gone over. Back when there was some chance it would be taught I posted the entire CA teaching guide as a thread. It got about a thousand posts.

It doesn't answer the question of what would be taught. The main proponents of ID have given up their opposition to common descent. There really isn't any organized opposition to evolution among scientists, except in the minutia of the processes of variation.

[silverleaf]

the anthropic principle....an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it...

I suppose at the time of our deaths we will both discover the answer.

[BnBlFlag]

"My dog has more morality than the Hindu or Muslim religions"..............But at least the Hindus are not trying to cut your throat.

[flevit]

believing a meal exist does not do a starving man any good until he actively eats it.

[flevit]

I always love cell bio papers because they ALWAYS explain cell functions by using analogies to mans (intelligently?) designed objects to better visualize the events/actions of the cell. as if these "motors" "ferries" etc.. are fundamental to biology.