Posted on 02/23/2006 5:26:21 PM PST by gobucks
This, in my mind, is semantics.
In my mind, only the first of these is actually a "miracle" and I know of absolutely no evidence (save for testimonial) to support that anything of this sort ever occurred.
Here's another quote from Albert Einstein which shows very clearly he is not in the least bit as anal about the distinction between science and the mysterious as certain folks, for whatever reason, may be: "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
Good for Al. Like I said, he was a poetic sort. I'm sure his musing would make interesting reading with a nice cup of coffee in front of a fire. What he didn't do, however, was force his philosophic meanderings into his science. He's no ID poster-boy.
Do you see how he considers the mysterious to be the source of all science? Maybe would should keep guys like him out of science class.
Oh, please. Ask most scientists, and they'll tell you the sense of the mysterious is what drives them. Because they want to answer those mysteries, they want to uncover that knowledge. While the mystic revels in mystery too, he does so for mystery's sake, he wants to preserve the mystery, revel in it, experience it emotionally. The scientist wants to shatter the mystery. Answer it intellectually. Expose it, and move on to the next mystery.
The fact is, Albert Einstein was a real scientist because he constantly questioned the staus quo.
Albert Einstein was a real scientist because he followed the scientific method. He was a great scientist because he was creative in questioning the then-current state of knowledge.
Classical Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism are about as status quo as it gets. Modern-day flat-earthers, as it were.
Ha! That spin is ridiculous. The Modern Synthesis (the current theory of evolution) isn't just status quo, it's well established and state of the art. That's not to say that there aren't mysteries; there are tons of them. But they aren't on the level of "Did evolution happen?" or "Is Natural Selection the major driving force of evolution?" or "Is the theory of common dissent true?"
In fighting this supposed "status quo" your average creationist is in the position of the astronomer who's bothered by cranks saying, "maybe if you weren't so wedded to the status quo, you'd consider the merits of the geocentric model of the solar system."
This should have read:
In fighting this supposed "status quo" your average creationist is in the position of the crank who bothers the astronomer by saying, "maybe if you weren't so wedded to the status quo, you'd consider the merits of the geocentric model of the solar system."
Klinghoffer's is a minority view, even among Orthodox Jews.
"I can't remember ever seeing a picture of a blonde, blue-eyed Jesus."
The only one I saw was from Salvador Dali. But his pictures were usually meant to be distorted.
"........How many more would you like?"
Wow. I never realized how religious they all were. There's lists for signing the Darwinian Creed in blood!
I like the religious testimonials best:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3948_want_to_become_an_ncse_steve_2_16_2003.asp
I can't wait till they accept my claims for Ph.D.s in biology, geology, paleontology, and other related scientific fields.
Okay, but why believe in a God who never intervenes in his creation? If all further intervention by God is unnecessary, then he may just as well be dead to you.
Because I don't believe in God in order to get something.
That's like believing in Santa Clause in order to get the christmas presents.
So9
They may be different, but in and of themselves they no more constitute science than does the general assumption that intelligent design may serve as an inductive standard.
. . . assume that a lack of specific knowledge of how something arose is somehow evidence of anything.
In other words, if we do not specifically know who makes a mechanical object, and how they made it, since we lack this specific knowledge, we cannot count this object that is organized and performs a specific function as evidence of intelligent design. Sorry. I don't see how it follows, nor do I have the slightest idea why certain people would get their knickers in a knot over such a thing. Actually, I have more than an idea, but it would not be well-received.
Neither do those who undertake science with the understanding that the universe is intelligently designed and sustained. The author of a book does not need to insert his personal biography into every page, and the reader should certainly not expect him to.
Albert Einstein was a real scientist because he followed the scientific method.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. He was not a slave to methodolgy, and certainly knew better than to restrict science to the scientific method. Incidentally, the geocentric model of the solar system may not be as passe as you infer. How do you know the earth is not the center of the universe? As Dr. Einstein would be happy to point out, it's all relative.
"Ideas have a tremendous effect on people"
I prefer saying "beliefs". And, yes, beliefs can be corrupted, but a corrupted belief is no longer the same belief as the original. So, I don't think we can say, "such-and-such belief was used or abused to do perpetrate so-and-so" when it wasn't even the same belief (or idea). Can a specific religion be said to be used if the perpetrators didn't even believe or apply its most fundamental tenets?
"The first humans where africans...i conclude Adam and Eve where africans"
Who were they exactly? You've seen them?
I think of "beliefs" as a stronger force upon human behavior than "ideas," but believe that even simple ideas have a tremendous effect. Had Darwinian ideas (or beliefs) not been present to assist Hitler in justifying eugenics, he would probably have found some other idea. I believe it should be the aim of both religion and science to represent truth. The two are not mutually exclusive but complimentary, much as the physical world and thought world are symbiotic.
Believers in Old Testament messianic prophesies definitely believe Jesus had a beard long enough to be grabbed and pulled out by hand. Isaiah 50.
Eugenics does not require people with "defects" not to have children. Most "defects" are recessive. It would help for people with family histories of specific genetic problems to avoid having children with mates having similar histories.
I suspect within a hundred years such concerns will be moot.
And Timmy is still ignoring the answer I made to his challenge days ago.
And don't forget that some of the commoner ones confer resistance to diseases:
Cystic fibrosis - cholera
Tay-Sachs - tuberculosis
Sickle cell, thalassemia - malaria
Adam & Eve or the first humans?
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.