Posted on 04/15/2006 11:44:16 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Correct, although there is a high negative correlation. Acceptance of science and belief in ID or creationism are, however, mutually exclusive.
Huh?
Define truth and what proof is required for truth. Not argument, proof.
No, your assumption would only be true if all scientists are members of the National Academy of Science.
I have no idea whether their survey is correct, but even if it is, it would tell us nothing about the scientists as a whole.
I don't see the word "creationist" anywhere in the article. While ID may be in accord with the views of creationists, one need not be a creationist or biblical literalist to infer intelligent design from the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions. Be that as it may, polls used to politicize science and religion may stir up the emotions, but they are of little use in determining what is, or is not, true.
If we all evolved, and are no different in physical makeup
from other "animate" forms of life isn't raising the tail and throwing coconuts
just as valid as marking a voting card, or hanging a chad,
or vocalizing an utterance? Or, do you allow for "yourself"
(whatever your biochemical induced self-existent illusion is) with a
higher intelligence?
This is sheer fantasy.
Do you believe that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" – essentially the I.D. position.
Not at all. Omniscience is not a high degree of intelligence, but a different concept altogether. The essence of intelligence is drawing conclusions from necessarily incomplete information. This points up two fatal objections to I.D.. First, it demands that the designer perform feats vastly beyond the scope of any intelligence. Second, life cannot be the creation of intelligence because there had to be life before there could be intelligence.
The problem of the origin of life is virtually ignored by almost every FR evolutionist. It is not a separate question. The problem is that even evolutionists recognize the impossibility of the 'primordial soup' suggestion. that someone is willing to finance expensive research into the question means nothing other than a personal animosity to the only other possibility; and that is the existence of a Creator.
Perhaps you are religious. However, you are certainly lacking faith.
Not quite what the survey found, but what's a little mis-speaking among friends ...
Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).-- Leading Scientists Still Reject God
Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.
Or they can believe in a God -- and she let evolution run its course without continual tinkering with it.
Nothing can undermine ID. That's part of the reason it's not science.
"And being skeptical of the theory of evolution and believing in science are also not mutually exclusive."
"Correct, although there is a high negative correlation."
The negative correlation may be in quantity but not necessarily in quality. Most scientists did believe the earth was the center of the universe. More recently, most researchers believed and taught us that salt intake was directly related to high blood pressure. It was gospel and spawned a billion dollar industry in low salt food and salt substitutes. They, even though in the majority, were wrong, and finally had to admit it. There may be strength in numbers but not necessarily truth in numbers.
There is no conflict.
Same goes for slow lions over the longer term.
Thanks CG.
Your point rings hollow, to say the least. Why should anyone consider your evaluation of Christianity to be sound in the first place when you do not accept the authority of biblical texts? You may be a master of scare tactics and the politicization of science, but you are no master of common sense.
" The problem of the origin of life is virtually ignored by almost every FR evolutionist. It is not a separate question."
Sure it is. Ever since Darwin said the origin of life was outside the scope of his theory.
Some theories may be somewhat complicated, and beyond the abilities of most laymen to have well-informed opinions. The physical and mathematical sciences come to mind.
For the rest of us, here are some useful definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
Wow! Another person who believes God exists and that things change over time! Congratulations!
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.