Posted on 12/21/2004 7:59:02 PM PST by postitnews.com
HARRISBURG, PA-The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and attorneys with Pepper Hamilton LLP filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of 11 parents who say that presenting "intelligent design" in public school science classrooms violates their religious liberty by promoting particular religious beliefs to their children under the guise of science education.
"Teaching students about religion's role in world history and culture is proper, but disguising a particular religious belief as science is not," said ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Witold Walczak. "Intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for bringing religious creationism back into public school science classes."
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United Executive Director, added, "Public schools are not Sunday schools, and we must resist any efforts to make them so. There is an evolving attack under way on sound science...Read More
(Excerpt) Read more at postitnews.com ...
Then again, nah!
Leo Rosten, alevasholem, in his The Joys of Yiddish, included the following story, as best I can remember:
A group of Russian soldiers was seeking out people to "volunteer" into the Russian army, and they came across an amazing thing: a barn that was obviously used for target practice...and every shot was a bullseye! They rushed to the nearest town, a shtetl, and asked about the barn and where they might find the amazing marksman.
"Nu, that's Shepsl's barn," Menachem the tailor told them, "but you have to understand that Shepsl's a bit meshuggeh..."
"I don't care!" the soldier in charge said, "We must have such a marksman in the army!"
"Let me explain," the tailor said. "Most people doing target practice draw the targets first, and then shoot. Shepsl, on the other hand..."
Shepsl would definitely go for the Anthropic Principle, or agree with the guy that Voltaire said argued that clearly noses came into being so that they could support spectacles. They all have it backwards. Life as we know it is as we know it because the universe is the way it is; if the universe were different, life would be different, and whatever sufficiently intelligent life forms existed would be making the same bogus arguments from design, preening over how the universe was specially made so that they could exist, and formulating the Blarghazqweric Principle.
Unfortunately we can't all be as brulliant as Les Paul, inventing and building our own guitar, then inventing and building our own multitrack tape machine to record it.
I don't even want to think about the trail of inventions we depend on to get through a single hour of any day.
Also known as the "Fallacy of the Texas Sharpshooter".....
However, I don't see it as a lop-sided thing. Evolutionists are rather fiercely addicted to making sweeping, INTENSELY RELIGIOUS-fervored claims springing from faint whiffs of so called evidence and insisting that therefore, broad ranges of 'truth' are proven by such faint whiff's of 'evidence.' What a hypocritical crock.
T & D: You have inferred, snidely commented, essentially claimed that the quality true scientists who believe/d in Creation are so few and so insignificant that they could probably stand on the head of a pin in a group hug [Quix paraphrase].
You have screamed for "evidence" though you have demonstrated a very poor relationship to the evidence that you, yourselves refer to. Given your poor interpretation of your own 'evidence,' I have no confidence you'd make the slightest good use of ANY even highest quality evidence I cited. Nevertheless, following is some significant proof that people believing in Creationism are not dunces nor mentally and scientifically insignificant as a group or as individuals. You are given to claiming people lie when actually the referent is merely a different aspect or part of the picture being more specifically referred to in a way differently from how you construe it. However, on this issue, it lookd like you folks are deliberately telling a falsehood when you insist that believers in creationism are weak intellectually or deficient in IQ; insignificant in acclaimed Scientific stature/status; extremely few in number. All such is BS, and part of you knows it.
I suspect it is the part of you that knows it and is terrified that your rebellion against God is threatened--that generates SUCH RELIGIOUS FERVOR within you and in your pontifications. You are more rabid than a Jihadi funamentalist in your RELIGION OF SCIENCE FERVOR. BTW, your claims that you are not RELIGIOUS about science are nonsense. THAT IS A SUBJECT SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF MY DISSERTATION--RELIGIOSITY IS SOMETHING I KNOW A BIT ABOUT. So, I suggest you don't bother throwing that bunch of horse pucky my way. Peddle it to someone more ignorant on the topic.
So, perhaps you haven't seen the following lists:
|
|
|
| DISCIPLINE | SCIENTIST |
|---|---|
| ANTISEPTIC SURGERY | JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912) |
| BACTERIOLOGY | LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) |
| CALCULUS | ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) |
| CELESTIAL MECHANICS | JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) |
| CHEMISTRY | ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) |
| COMPARATIVE ANATOMY | GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832) |
| COMPUTER SCIENCE | CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) |
| DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS | LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) |
| DYNAMICS | ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) |
| ELECTRONICS | JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) |
| ELECTRODYNAMICS | JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) |
| ELECTRO-MAGNETICS | MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) |
| ENERGETICS | LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) |
| ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS | HENRI FABRE (1823-1915) |
| FIELD THEORY | MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) |
| FLUID MECHANICS | GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903) |
| GALACTIC ASTRONOMY | WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) |
| GAS DYNAMICS | ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) |
| GENETICS | GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884) |
| GLACIAL GEOLOGY | LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) |
| GYNECOLOGY | JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) |
| HYDRAULICS | LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519) |
| HYDROGRAPHY | MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) |
| HYDROSTATICS | BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) |
| ICHTHYOLOGY | LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) |
| ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY | WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) |
| MODEL ANALYSIS | LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) |
| NATURAL HISTORY | JOHN RAY (1627-1705) |
| NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY | BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866) |
| OCEANOGRAPHY | MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) |
| OPTICAL MINERALOGY | DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) |
| PALEONTOLOGY | JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728) |
| PATHOLOGY | RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902) |
| PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY | JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) |
| REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS | JAMES JOULE (1818-1889) |
| STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS | JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) |
| STRATIGRAPHY | NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686) |
| SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY | CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) |
| THERMODYNAMICS | LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) |
| THERMOKINETICS | HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) |
| VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY | GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832) |
| CONTRIBUTION | SCIENTIST |
|---|---|
| ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE | LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) |
| ACTUARIAL TABLES | CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) |
| BAROMETER | BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) |
| BIOGENESIS LAW | LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) |
| CALCULATING MACHINE | CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) |
| CHLOROFORM | JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) |
| CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM | CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) |
| DOUBLE STARS | WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) |
| ELECTRIC GENERATOR | MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) |
| ELECTRIC MOTOR | JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) |
| EPHEMERIS TABLES | JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) |
| FERMENTATION CONTROL | LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) |
| GALVANOMETER | JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) |
| GLOBAL STAR CATALOG | JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871) |
| INERT GASES | WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) |
| KALEIDOSCOPE | DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) |
| LAW OF GRAVITY | ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) |
| MINE SAFETY LAMP | HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) |
| PASTEURIZATION | LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) |
| REFLECTING TELESCOPE | ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) |
| SCIENTIFIC METHOD | FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626) |
| SELF-INDUCTION | JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) |
| TELEGRAPH | SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872) |
| THERMIONIC VALVE | AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) |
| TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE | LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) |
| VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION | LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) |
FROM:
PIONEERS OF SCIENCE: PROCLAIMERS OF FAITH
Many doctors have obediently and reverently followed Christ, but Luke, the New Testament physician, shines forth as a remarkable prototype for all Christian men and women who have cared deeply about the suffering of people, and who have tried to alleviate others’ misery and pain by imitating Christ as “the great physician.” Being more than a doctor, Luke was an evangelist and disciple of Christ, a close companion to Paul on his missionary journeys, and one of the writers through whom God gave us an account of Christ’s life. Luke was the only Gentile, and only doctor, to author a book of the Bible. Luke steps quietly out of an enigmatic past onto the pages of history (see Graves, 1999).
If Christianity takes a compassionate view toward the sick, and if Christian doctors share a common attitude, it is because Luke helped foster both. His testimony to Christ continues to resound wherever the Scriptures are read, and his ideas are remembered. Luke had love for Christ, concern for the truth, humility towards others, compassion for the lost, evangelical zeal, loyalty to those he loved, and the professional skill needed to make a difference. We need seek no better model of the Christian scientist than Luke the physician.
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) is most renowned for his discovery of the law of universal gravitation, the formulation of the three laws of motion, (which make possible the discipline of dynamics and all its sub-divisions), and his development of calculus into a comprehensive branch of mathematics, now a basic tool in practically every science department.
He formulated the great law of energy conservation, developed the particle theory of light propagation, and as an astronomer, he constructed the first-ever reflecting telescope. This man of immense intelligence was also a genuine believer in the Bible as God’s Word. He wrote many books on biblical subjects, especially prophecy and the coming of Christ. He also wrote books defending the Ussher chronology against those who would try to push back the date of creation. He wrote influential papers refuting atheism and defending creation and the Bible. He believed that the worldwide Flood of the Bible accounted for most of the geological phenomena, and he believed in the literal six-day Creation record. He once wrote: “We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.”
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) is one of the greatest names in the history of science and medicine, chiefly because of his establishment of the germ theory of disease, and his conclusive demolition of the then-prevalent evolutionary concept of spontaneous generation.
He also was a physicist and chemist by training. He was the first individual to explain the organic basis and control of fermentation, and as his research led him deeper and deeper into bacteriology, he isolated a number of disease-producing organisms (and developed vaccines to combat them). Some of the microbes he studied caused the dreaded diseases of rabies, diphtheria, and anthrax. Additionally, he developed the process of sterilization, and the eponymous concept of “pasteurization.”
He undoubtedly made a tremendous contribution to the saving of human lives, and many scientists would say that he was among the greatest biologists of all time. Pasteur was a very religious man, and ever more so as he grew older. When asked about his faith, he replied: “The more I know, the more does my faith approach that of the Breton peasant. Could I but know all, I would have the faith of a Breton peasant woman.”
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) is considered by many to be the “founder of modern science,” despite being universally known for his masterfully designed paintings. He was a magnificent engineer and architect who designed many of the chief structures and public works of the city of Milan, Italy. His scientific notebooks teem with studies and analyses of problems in dynamics, anatomy, physics, optics, biology, hydraulics, and even aerodynamics—all far in advance for his time. He was an experimental scientist long before the formulation of what we know today as the scientific method. Leonardo was a man of high moral character was kind in his dealings with others, and was a sincere believer in Christ and the Scriptures.
Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England (1561-1626), is considered to be the man primarily responsible for the formulation of the scientific method, stressing experimentation and induction from data, rather than philosophical deduction in the tradition of Aristotle.
Sir Francis was a devout believer in the Bible. He once wrote: “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.”
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was one of the greatest early philosophers and mathematicians, and is considered the father of the science of hydrostatics, as well as being one of the founders of hydrodynamics. In mathematics, he laid out the foundation for the modern treatment of conic sections, as well as differential calculus and the mathematical theory of probability.
He also is recognized for his invention of the barometer. He is equally celebrated for his religious contributions, his best known work being his Pensees. He was a deeply spiritual man who is famous for what is known as “Pascal’s Wager”: “How can anyone lose who chooses to become a Christian? If, when he dies, there turns out to be no God and his faith was in vain, he lost nothing—in fact, he has been happier in life than non-beleiving friends. If, however, there is a God and a heaven and hell, then he has gained, and his skeptical friends will have lost everything in hell!”
Robert Boyle (1627-1691), one of the founders of the Royal Society of London, generally is credited as being the father of modern chemistry, as distinct from the alchemy of the Middle Ages. His name is associated primarily with the basic law that he discovered, relating gas pressures to temperature and volume—the fundamental principle of gas dynamics. His contributions in both physics and chemistry were significant, and he was considered to be the greatest physical scientist of his generation.
Yet, he also was a humble person and a diligent student of the Bible. He was profoundly interested in mission work, and often gave much of his own money to spread Bible translation work and the propagation of the Gospel. He was strong in apologetics, and founded via his will the “Boyle lectures,” which are intended to defend the Christian religion.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) is universally acknowledged as one of the greatest physicists of all time. He was gifted in scientific experimentation and the studies of electricity and magnetism. He discovered electromagnetic induction, and introduced the concept of magnetic lines of force.
He also invented the generator. Two basic units of measurement—one in electrolysis, and the other in electrostatics—are named in his honor. Yet, Faraday was a humble man who had an abiding faith in God, the Bible, and prayer.
Edward Jenner (1749-1823) stands as the “patron saint” for every doctor who ever took a lonely stand to fight an epidemic. He was derided and persecuted (even by the members of the elite Royal Society), yet he has the distinction of being perhaps the only doctor ever to provide the world with the tools necessary to eradicate completely a disease.
Smallpox was sweeping through Europe, bringing terror and death. Jenner confirmed his religious views shortly before he died: “I do not wonder that men are grateful to me, but I am surprised that they do not feel gratitude to God for thus making me a medium of good.” By his concern for the poor, he demonstrated that he was a pious individual. In his writing, he asked Christ to receive his imperishable soul. His name and work will be remembered as long as the world remembers its benefactors.
Joseph Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) lived a short, but uniquely productive life. As one of the greatest scientists of his era, he also was a sincere, Bible-believing man. Building on the concepts and experimental work of his friend Faraday, he developed a comprehensive theoretical and mathematical framework of electromagnetic field theory, embracing all types of energy systems (excepting gravity and nuclear forces) within the famous “electromagnetic wave spectrum.”
Albert Einstein called Maxwell’s achievement: “the most profound and most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton.” His religious beliefs were essentially fundamentalist in nature. He strongly opposed the theory of evolution, and was easily able to develop a rigorous mathematical refutation of the famous “nebular hypothesis” of the French atheist LaPlace. He also wrote an incisive refutation of the evolutionary philosophies of Herbert Spencer, the great advocate of Darwinism. He was a diligent student of the Scriptures and godly in his religious walks of life.
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), was a physical scientist who started out as a teenage prodigy. Eventually, he held the chair of natural philosophy at the University of Glasgow for 54 years. The number of his contributions in physics and mathematics, as well as his practical inventions, was mind-boggling. He established the scale of absolute temperatures, so that such temperatures are today given as so many “degrees Kelvin.”
He established thermodynamics as a formal scientific discipline, and formulated its first and second laws in precise terminology. He was the first scientist to adopt and use the concept of “energy.” Kelvin was a devout theist who opposed both Lyellian uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolution. Yet with all of his honors, Lord Kelvin remained faithful and humble. He was firm believer in the Bible, and supported its teaching in the schools of England. In his famous testimony given in 1903, Lord Kelvin made the unequivocal statement: “With regard to the origin of life, science… positively affirms creative power.”
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872) is justly famous for his invention of the telegraph, one of the most important milestones in human history. The first message sent (in 1844) over the wire was “what hath God wrought” (Numbers 23:23). This was indicative of Morse’s whole life and purpose—desiring to honor the Lord in all things.
In addition to his innovative genius, Morse was an outstanding artist, serving for 20 years as the founder and first President of Sculpture and Painting at New York University. He also built the first camera in America, and produced the world’s first photographic portrait. Today, he is ranked among the greatest portrait artists of all times. Just four years before he died, Morse wrote: “The nearer I approach to the end of my pilgrimage, the clearer is the evidence of the divine origin of the Bible, the grandeur and sublimity of God’s remedy for fallen man are more appreciated, and the future is illuminated with hope and joy.”
George Washington Carver (1864-1943) was the great African-American scientist who was considered the world’s top authority on peanuts, sweet potatoes, and their numerous byproducts. Born a slave, he worked his way through college in the north and then returned to the south, desiring to devote his life to improving the quality of southern farmlands and the economic prosperity of the people.
He developed over 300 products from the peanut, and over 118 from the sweet potato. Carver was also a sincere and humble Bible believer, never hesitating to confess his faith in God, and attributing all his success and ability to the Lord. In 1939, he was awarded the Roosevelt Medal, with the following citation credited to him: “To a scientist humbly seeking the guidance of God and a liberator to men of the white race as well as the black.”
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) is considered to be the founder of physical astronomy. To some extent, he built upon the foundational studies of Copernicus, as well as utilizing the telescope developed by Galileo, but it was Kepler who discovered the laws of planetary motion, and who established the discipline of celestial mechanics.
He demonstrated the heliocentricity of the solar system, and published the first ephemeris tables for tracking star motions, contributing also to the eventual development of calculus. Kepler was an earnest and devout man who had studied for two years in a seminary. He was apparently the first scientist to state (in his astronomical researches) that he was merely “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”—a motto adopted by many scientists since his time.
His astronomical studies also led him into studies of biblical chronology, and as a result, he strongly believed that the world had been created about 7,000 years ago. He wrote in one of his books: “Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.”
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) is widely regarded as the father of biological taxonomy. His standard classification system of plants and animals still is used today, and is known, in fact, as the “Linnaean System.” He was a man of great piety and respect for the Scriptures. One of his main goals in systemizing the tremendous varieties of living creatures was to attempt to delineate the original Genesis “kinds.” He attempted to equate his “species” category with the biblical “kind,” believing that variation could occur within the kind, but not between or among kinds. Thus, he believed in the concept known as “fixity of species,” even though he realized that he could well make mistakes in identifying any given original kind.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) is known as the father of genetic science. He began working on breeding peas in 1854, to find information on the study of genetics. But it wasn’t until 34 years after his work was originally published, and 16 years after his death, that his work was rediscovered.
It has since become the basis for one of the most significant branches of science. Mendel died in 1884, receiving no recognition for his work. His carefully recorded data were essentially lost until 1900, when his work was rediscovered by three scientists working independently of each other.
Not only did Mendel pioneer the science of genetics, but he also let his light shine brightly to all through his example as a faithful, devoted monk who opposed Darwinism. God designed living things with the capacity for great variety—but within very specific limits. Mendel’s work is confirmation of this wonderful design. Gregor Mendel was one of the creationists who helped inspire modern science.
In each of these cases, the scientists were creationists who unreservedly believed in God and His Word. Although some were what we today would call “progressive creationists,” none was a theistic evolutionist. They came from a variety of denominational backgrounds and doctrinal persuasions, but all were committed to the basic doctrines of New Testament Christianity.
The God of Mendel, Kepler, Linnaeus, da Vinci, Newton, and others is still the same “Creator, who is blessed for ever” (Romans 1:25). Truth be told, many of the major branches of science were founded by Bible-believing individuals. Our scientific founding fathers, including post-Darwinian scientists, demonstrated their strong religious beliefs through words, and even actions when necessary. Despite the persecution endured, these great creationist scientists stood firm, and in doing so, left us with both an unparalleled legacy and an inspiring example to follow.
REFERENCES
Graves, Dan (1999), Doctors Who Followed Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel).
Jim Holt (1997), “Science Resurrects God,” The Wall Street Journal, December 24.
Lahaye, Tim (2000), The Battle for Truth in the New Millennium: Mind Siege (Colorado Springs, CO: Word).
Morris, Henry M. (1981), “Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past,” Impact Article #103 (El Cajon, CA).
Morris, Henry M. (1982), Men of Science, Men of God (El Cajon, CA: Master Books).
Stear, John (no date), “Are Creation Scientists Real Scientists and Do They Do Real Research?,” [On-line], URL: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_no_research.htm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Sensible Science" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed:
(1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher;
(2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted;
(3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials;
(4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article;
(5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original);
(6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time;
(7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and
(8) articles may not be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites (although links to articles on the Apologetics Press Web site are permitted).
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE ORG LINK
[THE FIRST PART OF THE DOC FOLLOWS]:
Apologetics Press :: Sensible Science
Pioneers of Science: Proclaimers of Faith By Taylor Reeves
Printer version | Email this article
“Creation scientists are not real scientists, and they do not do real research!”
One of the most self-serving, egocentric, and impractical arguments of modern evolutionists is their arrogant, outrageous, and prejudicial claim which states that scientists who believe in creation are not “real” scientists. They decree that it is utterly irrelevant that a significant number of creationists have earned Ph.D. degrees in science, hold responsible and significant scientific positions in research and academia, and have published scientific articles, journals, or books. If they are creationists in any way; then they are not “true scientists.” Steven Schafersman, of Rice University’s department of geology, stated:
I dispute Henry Morris’s claim that thousands of scientists are creationists. No scientist today questions the past and present occurrence of evolution in the organic world. Those “thousands of creationists” with legitimate post-graduate degrees and other appropriate credentials are not scientists, precisely because they have abandoned the scientific method and the scientific attitude, criteria far more crucial to the definition of scientist than the location or duration of one’s training or the identity of one’s employer (as quoted in Morris, 1981, p. i).
Terry Mortenson, an Earth-science creationist, refuted concepts like these when he wrote:
Such statements (that creation scientists aren’t real scientists and don’t do real research) are often heard from evolutionists when confronted with creationist objections against their theory. It is a classic ad hominem argument—in other words, attack the person in lieu of refuting his argument. But besides that, it is simply false (as quoted in Stear, n.d, parenthetical comment in orig., emp. added).
Due to remarks such as Dr. Schafersman’s, modern creationists are conveniently excluded as scientists merely by definition. Science derives from the Latin word scientia, which means “knowledge.” However, according to evolutionists’ revised definition, it does not simply mean “knowledge,” “truth,” or “facts,” as we used to think, but it instead means “naturalism” or “materialism.” But is it not true that if an individual is qualified (by taking courses, meeting all requirements, and passing exams) to be a scientist, then that person is a scientist, no matter what kind of knowledge that person obtains, or the opinions that he or she expresses? Consider this example: Suppose a qualified physician who lived 200 years ago did not agree with the then-common practice of “bleeding” people to help cure certain diseases? Would he still be a real doctor? Indeed he would! Just because creationists who are scientists see things in a different light, does not mean that they are not “real” scientists. The evolutionary community has veered far afield in its designation of who is qualified to practice science. The very possibility of a Creator is prohibited by majority vote of the scientific community, and those who believe in God or are willing to defend the concept of creationism may be forced to forfeit their positions as scientists (see Morris, 1981, p. i).
Perhaps one of the most erroneous beliefs of contemporary thought is the widespread and trite notion that biblical Christianity is in conflict with “true” science and, therefore, that “genuine” scientists cannot believe the Bible and its contents. The scientific method, (which, by the way, was invented by a believing scientist—the Lord Chancellor of England—Sir Francis Bacon) is built on experimental testings of hypotheses. Since creation and other biblical doctrines cannot be tested in a laboratory, they are considered non-scientific, and are viewed as something to be taken “on faith.” In addition, it sometimes is suggested that the Bible contains many scientific inaccuracies. But this is the not the case at all! At the very most, it is contended, a scientist may be able to accept the spiritual teachings of the Bible if he wishes, but never its scientific and historical teachings (see Morris, 1982).
Science and Christianity are more closely related in certain areas than most people would like to admit. And few want to admit there is a binding connection between the two. Scientist Daniel Lapin observed: “Virtually every major discovery in physics, medicine, chemistry, mathematics, electricity, nuclear physics, mechanics and just about everything else has taken place in Christian countries” (as quoted Lahaye, 2000, emp. added). According to The Wall Street Journal, “40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God—and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (as quoted in Holt, 1997, emp. added).
Numerous scientists, philosophers, and inventors of the past have been staunch Bible believers. No one should presuppose that they were committed to theism and creationism because they were unfamiliar with alternative philosophies. Many scientists were outspoken opponents of Darwinism, and even those who lived before Darwin were strong opponents of earlier evolutionary systems, not to mention pantheism, atheism, and other such anti-supernaturalist philosophies, which were every bit as prevalent then as they are now. As a matter of fact, some of the most distinguished historians and philosophers of science have recognized that the very existence of modern science had its origins in a culture at least nominally committed to a biblical basis, and occurring at a time in history marked by an astonishing return to biblical faith (see Morris, 1982).
The rise of modern science generally is associated with the Renaissance period, although its roots go back into antiquity. The scientific revolution really commenced with the Protestant Reformation. Prior to that, scientists almost necessarily had to be nurtured in the educational institutions of the Roman Catholic Church, which meant that most scientists were people who believed in the Bible, and in the deity, atoning death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because they came out of such a background, and across a span of several centuries, it sometimes is difficult to evaluate their personal relationship with the Lord, but there is no reason to doubt the validity of their belief in God.
Like people in other vocations, scientists through the ages have held a variety of specific religious beliefs. In addition to being highly qualified in their fields, they have held firmly to a belief in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, they have accepted Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and they have believed in the one, true God of the Bible as the Creator of all things. They also have represented many different fields of science. In other words, there have been leading scientists in nearly every field of science who have studied both the Bible and their own scientific disciplines in depth, and who have been firmly convinced that the two are compatible and go hand in hand. These great scientists recognized that God supernaturally created all things for specific and unique purposes. They believed, as scientists, that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him,” learning to understand and control the processes of nature for God’s glory and man’s good. They believed and practiced science in exactly the same way that modern creationist scientists do today (see Morris, 1981).
TABLE I [SEE ABOVE--FIRST TABLE PRESENTED]
You posted:
when instead you were merely babbling on with incoherent, meaningless ramblings.
Qx: You are soooooo funny. And you think it scientific that you label sentences outside of your construction on reality with such assaultive, insulting words. So impressive! What rank hypocrisy you demonstrate. Aren't you proud! It must be reaching Olympic proportions!
You:
I was under the obviously false impression that when you spoke of Israel and Biblical prophecies, you were attempting to make a point rather than just deliberately posting meaningless drivel.
Qx: I virtually never post deliberately meaningless drivel. Given my attraction to Viktor Frankel, I think meaning is one of the treasures and supreme priorities of life.
However, I've also learned that one cannot force horses to drink. And, that drivel is understandably in the eye of the beholder of those so addicted to religious fervor in behalf of chaff and shallow whisps of evidence collectively called evolution. If I fed on such chaff so much of the time with such religious fervor, I'd probably be inclined to see drivel everywhere, too.
Qx:
BTW, are you characters aware of your fiercely religious fervor in behalf of evolution
You:
No, but I am aware of the many creationists who assert such religious fervor in response to our requests that they actually support their bizarre and nonsensical claims with evidence.
Qx: This is soooooooooo classic.
You haven't a clue--not a shred of insight into your own blindness. I suppose that's sort of given as part of the definnition of some types of blindness. I just didn't suppose it was sooooooo pervasive in your case. You are very diligently proving it is. And, I'll tell you again, I happen to be a fair expert on THAT topic--even a scientific expert on that topic.
And, you are EXTREMELY RELIGIOUS AND FIERCELY FERVENTLY SO about evolution. It's amazing how pervasively your fervor seems to neuter your higher mental processes.
"albeit rather loud and vociferous in their pronouncements."
The characters on this thread have convinced me more than ever that rabid evolutionists
are AT HEART pure and simple rebels. They are terrified that at some point, their license to rebel with official sanction will be revoked and that they will then be forced to consider more seriously that they are NOT their own god; ends unto themselves alone and totally.
What ignorance!
NOTHING in life nor in any culture supports such a nonsensical construction on reality. Yet they are fiercely and rabidly addicted to it.
Amazing. Truly God said it right when He said that a fool has said in his heart that there is no God.
Evolution doesn't "stand up" in the community, it is a required belief system within the community.. starting in the public schools right up through College and into the professional world. It is a system legislated in by fiat and when anyone dissents, their grants/funding dry up, they don't get peer reviewed, they are mocked, derided and run out of the community. People know what side the bread is buttered on and are reticent to step out of line - save for some brave souls that won't be bullied. It's taliban mentality - evolutionists are imposing their system on everyone else and demonizing anyone who dares challenge them. It isn't science. It's a belief system. And they're hiding behind the deceptive term "evolution" which has multiple definitions - one of which is observeable. Time for it to go. And they know it and will go out kicking and screaming; but, out they will go.. along with their funding.
Only a few of your scientists lives long enough to encounter Darwin's ideas, and not one lived long enougn to see DNA evidence.
Lord Kelvin should not be on the list. He estimated the age of the earth to be 100-400 million years -- hardly Biblical. He later revised his estimate to several billion years.
ABSOLUTELY WELL PUT.
THANKS.
Depends on what you call Biblical.
The Bible does NOT SAY what the world was BEFORE it was FORMLESS AND VOID before Adam.
I personally believe that God could have and evidently did mush things over completely and start over maybe a large number of times before history as we know of it.
DNA evidence is strongly in favor of ID. It's amazing to me that rational, intelligent people could construe it otherwise. LOL.
We shall eventually see how many super sharp scientists of our era really believe in Creationism and how many don't. I think a lot of those that do are wimps about admitting it because of tenure and other important $$$$ things.
And your Biblical authority for this is...
Please explain how identical non functional code across species lines supports ID. If you care to assert that the code is functional, please list the function and your evidence.
I said it was my belief. I didn't say I had Scripture to prove it. Just one that allows it.
There are some others which sort of could hint at it in a mild way but I don't remember what they are at present.
It's not something I'd want to wave a huge flag over.
But there are too many evidences of past civilizations dated well beyond 10,000 years ago. I realize there are debates about dating. But even if one uses tree rings, I think the dating can go back beyond 6,000 years pretty easily.
In any case, it doesn't really matter to us and our relationship with God now and between now and eternity. In eternity, we'll know all kinds of things we don't know now.
Hey, group, I'm not at all willing to get into the tedium of the details.
Besides, there are others who could do that better than I.
I will continue to state my beliefs and assertions that feel fitting and fun for me.
I have no interest in playing your game according to your rules.
And so we must wholesale the Theory of Evolution while barring all other possibilities from the classroom? Sure.
. . . and not one lived long enough to see DNA evidence.
If they had they would have said along with the rest of those who know such things: "It most certainly is not by chance that you are here and are able both to observe and to contemplate life."
The point is, evolutionists have no monopoly on science. They never have, and they never will. It would be no surprise to me if science has not suffered over the past century and a half due to stultifying stigmatisms foisted upon those who have the sense to realize where the universe came from and what it is about.
ABSOLUTELY.
THX.
Much appreciated.
If I were to guess his agenda it would be that he wants to stay at the head of pack – thus the changing from Ovrut to Turok. If I were to suggest a weakness, that would also be it. The desire to be associated with a pack of any kind (IMHO) would contribute to “group thinking”.
Evidently for the Steinhardt's and Turok's et al - the presence of a beginning is considered to be a weakness in a theory. I imagine it is because a beginning requires an uncaused cause, i.e. God. For instance, wrt to cyclic model:
Meanwhile, the new concept is not free of cracks, either: Even the cyclic universe does not address when the cycles began, so "the problem of explaining the ‘beginning of time’ remains," the researchers say.
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.