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"Any (court) ruling that depends upon an outdated or inaccurate definition of science or which attempts to define the boundaries of science could hinder scientific progress," the brief states in asking Jones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.
Say goodnight, Wild Turkey.
OK. I will reword. If it is not wierd, then how come you never see anyone reading their bible on workbreaks or in the public.
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.
I work for a large, conservative company in one of the most religious areas of the country. You lose.
But they work with lots of free radicals.
Goodnight. But before you go, take this with you.
(Bacon): "Neither is it to be forgotten that in every age natural philosophy [SCIENCE] has had a troublesome and hard to deal with adversary — namely, superstition, and the blind and immoderate zeal of religion
What about a scientist that opines that their may or may not be a God?
Does that clear things up?
No.
Are you one of those anti-realists or anti-reasonists we occasionally get on these threads?
Wolf
"And your motives are as clear as your metaphors obscure."
But your motives? No, it serves your side to be deceptive. The fundamental issue here is not what science is, but who gets to decide what science is. You are quite comfortable with a Judge who has no science background determining whether or not I.D. is 'science.
You say nothing regarding just how glaring a weakness on the part of the scientists themselves that they have failed in the task of making I.D. proponents as 'nonscientists'. Thus your faith is not w/ scientists, buy lawyers and judges.
You claim purity for science and hands off from folks w/ my 'motives'. Be truthful for once if you would: you are motivated by the fear of the legal system losing control over who gets to decide what words mean, especially a word like 'science'. Lawyers are in control, and it is the Law that merits every sacrifice to keep it that way.
I, however, am motivated by the Truth. For about 4 years ago, I discovered that the Law isn't everything.
Anyway, thanks for the compliment. By the way, I admire your boldness on this forum. Too many are too timid.
Do I read the Bible in Public?
Of course.
On Sat mornings, my buddy and I get together and study proverbs abit ..... at a coffee shop. The eclectic folks who see us doing this ... welllll, some of them have looked at the two of us like we are a bit out of place. I imagine sometimes that I hear them rattling their daily NYT devotional pages a bit more loudly in protest as they read ... but I'm pretty sure that is just my imagination.
"I work for a large, conservative company in one of the most religious areas of the country. "
I have done that road too; and all large companies, conservative or not, have just a few rabid folks who screech at anything Christian and shout 'HARRASMENT'!! to the management. Too many Christians, I'll grant, have found the openness of reading the bible at work to be causing too much legal trouble for the 'work environment'.
Plus, it doesn't help that too many managers at most companies are 'Business democrats'..., esp the big ones.
"Are you one of those anti-realists or anti-reasonists we occasionally get on these threads?"
If you don't mind, I have a question given this is the first time I have seen the terms 'anti-realist' and 'anti-reasonist' in print. Do you think that those two terms are related in anyway to the term 'anti-semitism'?
The internet has many places where personal letters to many different people by Einstein have been posted.
Those letters reveal that the scientist could not really be characterized as even a deist.
( P ) Pronunciation Key (d
s
n-j
n
y
-
s)in·genu·ous·ly adv.in·genu·ous·ness n.
Nope, not scientists after government funding, but consumers and entrepreneurs are the final testers in a product, and then judges can decide the safety standards too if it becomes an issue.
1. What do they mean "to let scientist decide" and pursue? I don't like science as a cult, though funding for fundamental sciences is necessary. This is mostly about government funding and we should keep such distorting power out of the sphere of education and science.
2. ID is really about engineering practicality and independent industry, whereas evolution is about science and fundamentals. As for using science to find morality and God, it's wrong, but scientist do it for their gods, and they also use morals and ethics to justify science and to denounce bogus science. So what is the problem here?
Oh no. If I was one of those I post some Indian creation myth as though I were making a point.
Now, go back read it carefully. If you are still having trouble get a dictionary and look up "belong", "empty", "compendia", "thought", "diverted", "solid", and "pursuits".
If you try you may be able to comprehend.
Ah! Philistine is right!
When scientists decide funding on science, it's like we have an essential disturbing looting conflict of interest and lack of ethics, don't we?
What a stupid comment.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" -- Mark Twain
[I will alert the mathematicians that they can no longer apply probability distribution models to natural processes (they depend on randomness). You can explain how Heisenberg was wrong about his uncertainty principle also.]
Max Jammer, author of "Einstein and Religion", was Professor Emeritus of Physics, a colleague and friend of Einstein, author of a number of treatises on the foundations of physics (including one which Albert Einstein had written a preface), and his "Philosphy of Quantum Mechanics" was reviewed in draft by paul Dirac and Werner Heisenberg.
In writing "Einstein and Religion" Jammer used the Einstein Archive at the National and University Library in Jerusalem, and the library of the Union Theological Seminary in new York.
If you place more credibility on isolated quotes found on the internet over the scholarly and comprehensive work of a world reknowned philosopher and scientist that is certainly your prerogative.
Jammer says Einstein believed in an impersonal God. My studies on Einstein are consistent with that conclusion.
If you have credible information that contradicts then feel free to post it. I have posted my data and sources supporting my position. I will keep an open mind, but the bar for credible data is set high.
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.