Posted on 10/17/2005 5:36:09 PM PDT by gobucks
An international group of scientists have filed a "friend of the court" brief with federal Judge John E. Jones III advising him that "the identification of intelligent causes is a well-established scientific practice" and asking him to allow "the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead."
Jones is presiding over the Dover intelligent design trial.
The 24-page brief — carrying the names of 85 scientists in fields including chemistry, molecular biology, mathematics, neurological surgery and environmental science — states "the definition of science and the boundaries of science should be left to scientists to debate."
"Any (court) ruling that depends upon an outdated or inaccurate definition of science or which attempts to define the boundaries of science could hinder scientific progress," the brief states in asking Jones to find in favor of the Dover Area School Board.
"Natural philosophy was the term whose usage preceded our current term science in the sense that prior to the replacement of the term "natural philosophy" with the term science, the term science was used exclusively (and comparatively rarely) as a synonym for knowledge or study and when the subject of that knowledge or study was 'the workings of nature', then the term "natural philosophy" would be used."
Thanks for the post. It shows clearly that natural philosophy was science, not religion as you posted.
"and that the remaining variety proceeds from hindrances and aberrations of nature in the fulfillment of her work, or from the collision of different species and the transplanting of one into another"
You really should get out more. Seems Darwin admired Bacon:
Opposite the title page of Darwin’s Origin of Species appears the following quotation:
‘To conclude, therefore, let no man … think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both.’
[page ii]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so
far as this-we can perceive that events are brought about not by
insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular
case, but by the establishment of general laws."W. WHEWELL : Bridgewater Treatise.
" To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of
sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a
man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's
word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but
rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both."
Hmmm. I guess that is why Darwin quoted him just below the title page of his famous book.
Your quite welcome; this tidbit about the 85 scientists was overdue for posting ... funny, the other side didn't see fit to discuss this aspect of the case.
At least they could have been sympathetic to all the jeers these scientist types are getting in their cafeterias at their universities...
Credentialing institutions are a funny place, and the credentialists are a high and mighty bunch.
If you don't believe in credentials, then don't have 85 scientists sign a letter listing their credentials.
My my. I think you were the one who was implying the credentials were not 'good enough'. But let's not struggle over this further, ok? We both know full well the ground we stand on, only I can add I also know full well the ground you stand on.
You, however, see my as suspect terrain...which is ok. I understand how desert sand can appear to look like quicksand....
"If most of the US population is Christian, why do most people think "wierd" if they see someone reading a bible on their work break?"
You are not really asking a serious question are you? The answer is too obvious: you are spending way too much time around the wrong people. No wonder you SOUND so wrong so much of the time.
For I would argue 'most' people don't think it is weird if the see someone studying the Bible. Now, if I see Saib studying the Koran at the local BK, that is definitely a different matter. Especially if he is muttering ....
"Sorry, I didn't know ID postulated that God and another Alien were responsible for creation."
not 'and' , 'either'..
The Amicus brief is based solely on the credentials of the signers. If you're just looking at their credentials, which the signers obviously want you to do, then yes, I find their credentials lacking. I'm not sure what's so complicated about this.
I understand how desert sand can appear to look like quicksand....
And your motives are as clear as your metaphors obscure.
According to Max Jammer, author of "Einstein and Religion" Einstein believed in an impersonal God as expressed by Einstein in his paper "Science and Religion".
Einstein was a deist, in that regard. However it never fails to amaze me that a man who could think so logically, and accept that a Creator does exist, could not conceive of a Creator sufficiently powerful or willing to interact with His own creation.
Einstein was not a particularly advanced thinker when it came to philosophy and theology. He never professed to be. His writings on the subject were fairly pedestrian. For instance, this, extract from Einsteins "Science and Religion", itself an article that appears in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49.
Einstein asked the same questions as any person who has only given fairly shallow thought to God. (How could God allow evil to exist? etc etc)
Einstein clearly does not understand the reality of Christ, or the Holy Spirit either. Any person, scientist or peasant, who accepts Christ into their heart will feel the full truth and reality of the Holy Spirit. We sense it as readily as we sense heat to our fingers.
It is as real as anything ever proven by science. We trust our senses to accept scientific fact, so we uses our inner senses and the same brain to accept the truth of the Holy Spirit.
Science cannot prove "love" exists either.
I am a scientist and engineer. For 25 years I was a deist also. Then one day after hearing the words of Christ I decided to "investigate" and consider with an open mind the possibility Christ is truly the Messiah. With some skepticism but sincerity I asked Christ to show me he was real and come into my heart. In that moment I learned one of the greatest things about life and nature and something that no current scientific system of philosophy has ever been able to explain, we can commune with God therough the Holy Spirit by accepting Christ as our Saviour. Christ was completely 100% truthful.
Any scientist who denies the existence of the Holy Spirit or God is simply blind to a possibility that has already been actually proven personally to 100's of millions of people, except those particular scientists.
The argument, by the way, is not between science and christianity. The debate that roils is between materialistic atheists hiding behind science and religions, other than Christinity. I have no argument with science. I know the particular truths about Christianity that are necessary. Science is in the dark, so far, on that matter.
The problem today for such atheists however is that science is more than ever proving the Bible to have ever more credibility and proving the atheists wrong.
The universe as we know it is statisically practically impossible to exist in a form that would support life, if it were left to simply random "natural" processes.
clarification to this "Einstein was not a particularly advanced thinker when it came to philosophy and theology.",, should read "Einstein was not a particularly advanced thinker when it came to philosophy of life and theology."
Again, when man contemplates nature working freely, he meets with different species of things, of animals, of plants, of minerals; whence he readily passes into the opinion (giving you a hint here) that there are in nature certain primary forms which nature intends to educe, and that the remaining variety proceeds from hindrances and aberrations of nature in the fulfillment of her work (in other words the motivation behind the ToE is not new) or from the collision of different species and the transplanting of one into another. (see) To the first of these speculations we owe our primary qualities of the elements; to the other our occult properties and specific virtues; and both of them belong to those empty compendia of thought wherein the mind rests, and whereby it is diverted from more solid pursuits.
Does that clear things up?
The point you miss is that he was criticizing evolution before Behe.
Most of the religious nuts here are "Christians". Many even say that Catholics are not Christians! Boy, is Bacon rolling over in his grave ...
If you were really a scientist/engineer, you would know that "natural" processes are not random.
Boy. You are way off the mark. He was criticizing RELIGION! And Behe supports evolution, common descent, an old earth and that God may not be the intelligent designer. How many of those do you support?
Do you read your bible in public?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.