|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The wonder of science vs. the banality of creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
It is my understanding that Newton's math showed that the solar system would not be long-term stable and his conclusion was that God helped maintain the stability and didn't work on the math any further.
He was, of course, wrong. Laplace and Lagrange showed how the solar system is stable (for long periods anyway) due to gravity alone. This is an example of a scientist actually being influenced by his religious beliefs. And he was wrong and gave up too soon. Now maybe someone will show us how a specific religious belief had the opposite result.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
It is my understanding that Newton's math showed that the solar system would not be long-term stable and his conclusion was that God helped maintain the stability and didn't work on the math any further. Really? I didn't know that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
it didn't cause them any harm or interfere with their accomplishments High praise indeed. Sounds like herpes. Capt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Look at the amount of money spent on SETI. JUST to prove that there is more life than what the scriptures reveal. You don't need SETI to prove that, a list of the organisms mentioned in the Bible is quite sufficient.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Personally I think even the notion of the "why" is a misconceived folly. How insightful. All that scientific curiosity and wonder gone in a flash.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Where is the Foundation of Evolution? On what Law of Science does it stand? The laws of genetics, obviously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Not an authoritative source by any means, but well said...
In the past people such as Keppler and Newton had no trouble giving God the glory for their work and for the order they found in the universe. They did not worship science but they used science to discover more about the world that they believed God had made. They did not see that their religion was interfering with their science, simply that it formed the basis for believing that man was indeed a rational being, that the universe was created by a rational being and could therefore be investigated in a rational way. This was for them a logical deduction. Should religion restrict rational thought or scientific inquiry from pursuing its own conclusion Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Only because their search for truth didn't end with the back cover of whatever sacred text they followed. This, of course, is what distinguishes them from cdesign proponents of various flavors. Yet that's exactly what they were, Intelligent Design proponents of various flavors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Now maybe someone will show us how a specific religious belief had the opposite result. That would be a list of every founding member of modern science and that their religious beliefs being the mental foundation of their research. Your counter would be anything they had written in criticism of their "religion". Galileo would have been one example you could use if he was actually changing his own belief system. But I don't think he bought into the Churches stand in the first place. I certainly don't believe the teachings from my own home church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Personally I think even the notion of the "why" is a misconceived folly. How insightful. All that scientific curiosity and wonder gone in a flash. So you think that science can answer your "why" question then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Only someone totally ignorant of the mind set and practices of current cdesign proponentsists could make the claim that they bear any relation whatsoever to someone like Galileo. Cdesign proponentsists start with the assumption that the bible is accurate, then look for ways to warp the evidence to fit within that assumption. Galileo looked at the evidence and came to conclusions in direct contradiction with with bible. They are polar opposites. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That would be a list of every founding member of modern science and that their religious beliefs being the mental foundation of their research. Where is this list of "every founding member of modern science", then? Only it seems that it will have to include a heck of a lot of modern scientists who've made foundational discoveries.
Your counter would be anything they had written in criticism of their "religion". Even as arguments from silence go, that's fairly lame. I have never written anything in criticism of Limburger cheese, but that does not mean that by default it can be assumed to be "the mental foundation of my research". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yet that's exactly what they were, Intelligent Design proponents of various flavors. And here are some people who are not.
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin. --- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU). Fortunately, science has moved on since the seventeenth century. They don't share Newton's belief in alchemy, either. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
What's more, there are over 1,000 scientists named Steve who agree with this statement:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. None of them are cdesign proponentsists, either. If around 1 in a hundred scientists are named Steve, Project Steve suggests that over 10,000 scientists feel the same way. Of course, we all know that none of these guys know anywhere near as much about 21st Century science as the "founders of modern science" (whoever they are) did. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Galileo looked at the evidence and came to conclusions in direct contradiction with with bible.
There is no "direct contradiction" today, so there was none back then either. His conflict was with the church LEADERS who rarely cracked open a Bible themselves. Still a common problem in many denominations.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024