For percy: setting the record straight on Charlie Rose interview

Maybe some though need to try the other link you provided.

OK, here is the relevant area of the transcript. So they may admit some belief in a religion or a God, but not "a personal God that answers prayers." They are actually claiming science shows that God does not answer prayers, if there is even a God!This message has been edited by randman, 02-15-2006 02:29 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 02-15-2006 02:31 PM

No, they didn't really say this. Just the fact that Randman asserted the claim means that it should be approached with skepticism.Just to be absolutely clear, here's what Randman claims: And here is the relevant part of the transcript from Asgara, or you can listen to it beginning at 14:25 of the audio file. The dialogue goes like this: What Watson actually said, and what Wilson was responding to, is that he didn't know of but one serious scientist who believed in a personal God. He definitely did not say that he knew of only one scientist who held to religious belief.What's baffling about Randman is his continual need to distort what was actually said. We all accept and understand that scientists as a group are less religious than the population as a whole, and that the greater the scientist the less religious he tends to be is. But that doesn't mean that Watson's comment can be interpreted to mean that he knew only one person who holds to religious belief. He was quite clear in indicating that he was talking about believing in a personal God.--Percy

Ok percy, he says that science excludes belief in a personal God, correct?Do you admit or deny that?I already posted above that he admitted that possibly some religious belief can be reconciled with science, but he says that belief in a personal God is not compatible, and he goes on to say only one serious scientist believes in a personal God, and the other guy says he doesn't know even one, until he backs off and admits, well, he does know the guy.Was he suggesting he is not a serious scientist in his original comment?It sounds to me like he is suggesting no serious scientist can actually reconcile science with belief in a personal God.

Hi Randman,I thought you were going to discuss how wrong I was in this thread, and I was prepared to step aside and let you make your case. But since that's no longer the topic I guess I'll rejoin the discussion: No, they did not claim this. If you were there during the interview and had posed this interpretation, they would have told you that's not what meant.What they're actually saying is that a scientific approach to understanding the world makes it difficult to believe in a personal God, primarily because there is no evidence for one. But as I said earlier, scientists of this stature understand the absence of evidence issue very well, and would never reach the conclusions you're ascribing to them.--Percy

Cavediver, another explanation is they know scientists that are believers, but choose to label them all, with the exception of perhaps just one (and one of them was reticient to admit he was a serious scientist), as not serious scientists.What are we to make of that?I suspect they know full well there are scientists that believe in a personal God. They are trying to leave the impression that virtually no real scientist worth his salt can be a man of prayer, that believes God answers prayers, etc,....and they do so by, imo, passing off a clear falsehood.

When one assert that people think illogically, this usually means that one disagrees with them. Their logic might actually be impeccable. We often say "logical" and "illogical" when no actual question of logic is at issue. There is often disagreement over what is a fact. And context is relevant here, too. It's a fact that the sun rose in the east this morning, but it is also a fact that the sun isn't actually rising and the appearance of rising is due to the rotation of the earth.Asserting something as "fact" is just the way we sometimes communicate. Christians assert the existance of God as fact, whereas agnostics would call that a speculative hypothesis and atheists would assert that it is false. As has often been explained to you, science is tentative. You are presuming that there is some sort of absolute truth. There isn't. Our ideas on truth are themselves but part of a tentative theory, and that theory is continually evolving. That's confused thinking. The scientists are/were a small portion of the society. It is rare that politicians are scientists. The existence of a cadre of scientists does not make the politicians any more rational. We know that is how you see it. But you see it from a creationist viewpoint.If it were irrational and illogical, a case of group think, one might expect agreement within biology and geology but disagreement elsewhere. The fact is, there is wide support for ToE from scientists who are neither biologists nor geologists.As to "the veracity of ToE", may I remind you that scientific theories are neither true nor false. They are accepted (or rejected). There is no certain standard of truth whereby we can judge the veracity of theories. Those who accept a theory will generally speak of it as true. But that does not alter the tentative nature of scientific theories.

No, they consistently argue that science is not compatible with belief in a personal God, and go as far as to dissemble, imo, by claiming they know of only one, and one tried to deny even that, serious scientist that is a believer. Personally, I don't buy they "know of" only one scientist that is a believer in a personal God. You can if you want, but I think it was clear when one said he knew of not one that he actually did know of one.You can choose to ignore their statements, but it's right there in the transcript.If they meant that science is not necessarily in conflict with belief in a personal God, they would have said that. They said the opposite.

You ignored the entire substance of my claims.1. It is illogical to automatically exclude consideration of something, and then say you have objectively shown that this something is incompatible with science. Specifically, they rule out God a priori and then claim belief in a personal God is not compatible due to an objective process. It is subjective, not objective. There is a subjective choice to a priori exclude the concept of God from the start, by definition. So the process is perverted and false, and yes, illogical because it is circular logic.2. You are ignoring the point of the Biogenetic law. It's not that science made a mistake. it's that there was never any science behind the idea in the first place. It is a total fabrication, a myth, not connected to any facts or viable factual claims whatsoever. The fact that evos pushed this for 80 years shows they were not just doing science, but promoting myths, and claiming a myth is a fact when there were no facts at all, none, nada, to substantiate the claim.

I think you're hearing what you want to hear. You want your worst fears about evolutionists confirmed, and so you reach conclusions consistent with those fears. You're welcome to your interpretation. I have little concern that many others will find it persuasive as it sees everything in terms of black and white and ignores far too much.--Percy

http://www.berkeley.edu/.../releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtmlThis is just one guy, but are we to really believe that Watson and Wilson have never known of scientists like this guy, who won a Nobel prize in physics but also is a preacher?Come on....if you believe that, well, I've got some ocean-front property in Kansas.....

I see that as your misinterpretation of what happened. It was found valuable by embyologists. Your characterization is incorrect.

He explicitly agrees you cannot reconcile science with belief in "a divine Creator', period. How much clearer do you need it to be?Elsewhere, he leaves a little room for perhaps some sort of religious belief, whatever that may be, but says that belief in a personal God is not compatible.So he states belief in a Creator and belief in a personal God, both, are not compatible with science. Perhaps, he believes there could be a religious belief in a cosmic energy or something, but they exclude the following:a Designer
A Creator
and a personal Godall of it, basically.This message has been edited by randman, 02-15-2006 03:07 PM

There were no observed facts to support the Biogenetic law. If it was found valuable, then it they consider fabricating a myth valuable, and I suppose evos do think that way, but it's not real science.

So you're saying...what? That Watson and Wilson both know more than one serious scientist who accepts a personal God, but are unwilling to admit this in a public setting? So you're accusing people of lying again? Doesn't the constant, "He lies, he deceives, he's dishonest," stuff get old to you after a while? It's sure getting old with everybody else. Maybe we should make you part of some EvC Forum initiation where one can't be considered a true evolutionist with full member status until they've been accused of dishonesty by Randman. You'll be our definer of the true evolutionist!You don't even know Watson's and Wilson's criteria for considering someone a "serious scientist". Your accusation is based upon no information, just an inherent distrust of anything and anyone associated with evolution, and a willingness to make baseless accusations ad nauseam.The other thing is that it is quite possible that your scientist/minister does not believe in a personal God who interferes in daily life and answers prayers. Did you read the whole interview? At one point he says some things consistent with a personal God, like this: But then he goes on to say: His views on death are definitely non-traditional: I'd say the interview is inconclusive regarding whether he accepts a personal God. He never mentions prayer or God's actions in the world.He also disagrees with you about evolution, which is off-topic, but since topic is never important to you anyway, what the heck: Bottom line: you've got to try to rein in your tendency to see dishonesty and deceit in everyone who disagrees with you.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-15-2006 03:26 PM