-Isaac Newton
He probably didn't want the Galileo treatment. You know, the Inquisition...
Or maybe… The ACLU, Dawkins, anti-god freepers, et al. didn’t exist to ‘damn’ the implications he saw in his findings because of all his “religious speak”.
And you can back that up I suppose? That he conceded the existence of God out of fear for his safety?
If someone as brilliant as Newton could look at creation and come to the conclusion that there was a designer, I don't see why *scientists* have such a problem with ID and why they mock it and ridicule it so much. *IDiots* I believe is the term I've seen. That applies to Newton, then, too. Right? Scientists are willing to call someone of Newton's caliber an *idiot*?
Furthermore, if you want to continue to criticize the DI and id, while cheerleading the for the ACLU:
According to historian James Moore (1982), however, around 1840 a new movement of young middle-class reformers calling themselves "Naturalists" appeared. This group as young adults typically changed their creed from Christianity (which they felt was morally bankrupt) to one based on "Nature." They were "poets and lawyers, doctors and manufacturers, novelists and naturalists, engineers and politicians." The group included such well-known individuals as George Eliot, Herbert Spencer, Matthew Arnold, Francis Galton, J. A. Froude, G. H. Lewes, Charles Bray, Alfred Lord Tennyson, John Tyndall, F. W. Newman, A. H. Clough, Harriet Martineau, F. P. Cobbe, and, of course, T. H. Huxley. Moore shows that the central feature of this new creed was the redefinition of human nature, society, order, law, evil, progress, purpose, authority, and nature itself in terms of the Naturalists' particular view of Nature, as opposed to the Christian Scriptures. In fact, they tended to attack the Christian Scriptures as the true source of societal evil. God, if he existed, was to be known only through the Nature which he made. Thus, according to Moore (1982) and Young (1980), "positivism" was not primarily a methodology for science, but a religious movement that sought to replace the cultural dominance of the Established Church.Added (The beginning of the anti-theism, anti-morality, and anti-discovery institute)
Charles Darwin launched his theory of biological change in this context. He proposed a mechanism for the appearance of new forms that did not depend on any pre-existing or exterior shaping forces. The environment became the only needed constraint. It was a theory of strategic importance for the Naturalists, particularly for the "X" club, Huxley's "Young Guard" party in science.
Added (The beginning of the actual political movement within science)
The significance of a mechanism can be understood only within the world views of its proponents. The "Naturalism" that initially proposed and supported Darwin's mechanism was both a world view and a social movement. These individuals viewed the world as autonomous, and the Darwinian mechanism as autonomous creator. The scientific members of this movement, Huxley's "X" club, were engaged in a successful campaign to wrest the university chairs in the sciences from the clergymen/naturalists of the Established Church. The ability of Darwinism to replace the divine with a natural process was a critical support.
Added (The beginning of the control from the ’new elite’ that must stifle any theistic belief that is at odds with their ‘fundamental’ natural doctrine )
- David L. Wilcox
So what does this ‘new science’ mean for all mankind?
DAWKINS: (snip)"…But yet we have this gathering together of genes into individual organisms. And that reminds me of the illusion of one mind, when actually there are lots of little mindlets in there, and the illusion of the soul of the white ant in the termite mound, where you have lots of little entities all pulling together to create an illusion of one. Am I right to think that the feeling that I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things, that this is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a kind of society of mind?"PINKER: "It's a very interesting question. Yes, there is a sense in which the whole brain has interests in common in the way that say a whole body composed of genes with their own selfish motives has a single agenda. In the case of the genes the fact that their fates all depend on the survival of the body forces them to cooperate. In the case of the different parts of the brain, the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit, presumably in the frontal lobes, that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction. In How the Mind Works I alluded to a scene in the comedy movie All of Me in which Lily Tomlin's soul inhabits the left half of Steve Martin's body and he takes a few steps in one direction under his own control and then lurches in another direction with his pinkie extended while under the control of Lily Tomlin's spirit. That is what would happen if you had nothing but completely autonomous modules of the brain, each with its own goal. Since the body has to be in one place at one time, there might be a circuit that suppresses the conflicting motives…"(end snip)
You know, many criticize ’Christians’ here on this forum in the name of modern science, but what about the somewhat religious celebration in the name of Darwin Day with Their Wedge Document’:
*Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations
*Darwinism refutes typology; i.e., that the world is stable and invariant
*Darwin's theory of natural selection made any invocation of teleology unnecessary
*Darwin accepted the universality of randomness and chance throughout the process of natural selection
*Darwin developed a new view of humanity and in turn, a new anthropocentrism
*Darwin provided a scientific foundation for ethics
‘Darwin Day’
BTW, here is the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) teaching evolution to the church.
…"as a blind man has no idea of colors," Newton wrote, "so we have no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things." But the structure of the universe provides a clue, enabling us to "know (God) . . . by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes." As for the idea that science could lead to atheism, Newton dismissed it brusquely: "Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could [not] produce [the] variety of things" found on our diverse and ever-surprising world…
"He probably didn't want the Galileo treatment. You know, the Inquisition..."
I guess that would also explain why Pascal, Pasteur, Kelvin, and Maxwell were devout Christians who believed their mission as scientists was to discover the laws of the Creator.
Most modern evolutionists don't have a clue about the history of science, and they routinely piss on the legacy they inherited from.