Posted on 06/20/2007 9:05:55 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
A Jerusalem exhibit of Isaac Newton's manuscripts has some newly-discovered papers showing Newton's calculations of the exact date of the Apocalypse. Using the Book of Daniel, Newton argues that the world will end not earlier than 2060. "It may end later," Newton writes, "but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophecies into discredit as often as their predictions fail." Newton also interprets biblical prophecy to say that the Jews would return to the holy land before the world ends.
Yemima Ben-Manehem, curator of the exhibit, remarks that "these documents show a scientist guided by religious fervor, by a desire to see God's actions in the world." Newton's massive corpus of work reveals that he wrote almost as much about Scripture as he did about science, and indeed he saw his discoveries as showing the handiwork of the divine creator. All of which raises the interesting question: if arguably the greatest scientist of all time was such a fervent believer, indeed if most of the great scientists of the past five hundred years have been practicing Christians, what can we make of the insistence by contemporary atheist writers--from Dawkins to Pinker to Hitchens--that there has been an unceasing war between science and religion?
The atheist case relies on a few key episodes, mostly involving Darwin and Galileo. In my forthcoming book What's So Great About Christianity I will show that these episodes have been ideologically manipulated, and that the "lessons" drawn from them are largely fictitious. Here's a small example of that. We have all heard about the famous showdown between "Darwin's bulldog" Thomas Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. When Wilberforce asked Huxley whether he was descended from an ape on his grandfather's side or his grandmother's side, Huxley famously responded that he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a cleric who used his learning to prejudice people against scientific discoveries. The only problem with this incident is that it seems not to have occurred. Huxley apparently made it up to make himself look good. It's not reported in the minutes of the scientific association meeting. Darwin's friend, the botanist Joseph Hooker, was present at the debate. He gave Darwin a full account, which says nothing about Wilberforce's alleged jibe or Huxley's supposed rejoinder. In fact, Hooker told Darwin that Huxley had failed to answer Wilberforce's arguments so that he (Hooker) felt compelled to come to Darwin's defense. Nevertheless Huxley's winning rebuttal lives on in atheist propaganda.
Are science and religion compatible? Don't ask Dawkins and Hitchens, ask Isaac Newton.
“Do you believe you exist?”
For all either of us know, we could be conversing with a computer program, not another human being. If you think about it, we are. :-)
You really like Descartes don't you? This reminds me of his work talking about a personal demon.
Evolution only says that a creature will evolve so that its offspring survive in the environment. Everything else is a side effect. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says that a recently evolved creature is a higher being than something that its precursor. You need to stop thinking of evolution as design. It isn't. It is simply environmental adaptation.
>>They call it spontaneous generation I believe, and it is put forth along with evolution as a scientific possibility but like evolution the theory part of it always gets lost and it is presented as fact.<<
Hmm they shouldn’t present the origin of first life as certain because it is not certain.There shouldn’t be anything certain about first origin in school curriculum.
The development of that life from simple to complex and from similar to diverse, however, is quite certain.
*Disclaimer, yes I know that even things that are certain, like gravity and evolution are still theories.
There's a fairly easy one, but it would get me in Imus-style trouble.
Are any of his possible dates in the next 6 months? I've got some vacation time I need to use up.
There were far to many people, scientist and the like to be involved in some type of government hoax....please don't tell me you're part of the crowd that actually thinks there's some remote possibility that the moon walk was staged!???!!
My good man, I do not have "faith" man walked on the moon....I have "faith" that the hundreds of scientist involved in the project were not stupid mindless robots incapable of verifying that what they did actually worked.
Maybe its time you start challenging me to see if the holocaust actually took place...EH???
there’s no doubt that Isaac Newton would be a Creationist today.
Hmm they shouldn’t present the origin of first life as certain because it is not certain.There shouldn’t be anything certain about first origin in school curriculum
They shouldn’t be presenting any of it as certain. It should be presented as what it is a theory.
The development of that life from simple to complex and from similar to diverse, however, is quite certain.
How could it be any other way, if it were the other way around we would be amoebas.
*Disclaimer, yes I know that even things that are certain, like gravity and evolution are still theories.
This is the only admission I ask for They are theories.It’s very hard for some on this forum to admit it. Their arguments are mostly directed to attacks on people of other opinions instead of offering proof, which they never seem to have other than the offering of other like thinking scientist.
I do doubt it.
Galileo's case suggests an answer to that question. Galileo was a thoroughly committed Catholic; that did not save him from being pronounced - for his views on physics - to be vehemently suspected of heresy. And are not people today denounced as enemies of religion for holding the wrong opinions on biology?
D'Souza suggests that we ask Newton whether religion and science are compatible. I would rather ask D'Souza himself, for only he can say whether his religion is compatible with science. It is not compatible, if it commands him to believe or disbelieve something that can be tested by the methods of science, without regard for the result of that test.
Not really, but I have faith.
barbra ann
No need to get hostile, EH??
You simply restated my argument, that the very people who crucified Christ, and his own followers, saw him resurrected, in the flesh, and became his firmest believers. Why, 10 of the original 11 disciples died a martyrs death stating this very historical fact, and refusing to deny it. The burden is on us to accept or deny their testimony. Since one can not "prove" they were right or wrong, we must take either position on faith.
Since you are so willing to accept the testimony of a bunch of engineers (non of who were threatened with death, to the best of my knowledge), why would you deny the testimony of men who were in a position to KNOW if what they believed were fact or not, especially under the pain of death?
*Are science and religion compatible?*
If by ‘religion’, ‘organized religion’ is meant, then probably no (because the Bible conflicts with much of what modern science teaches).
But certainly a person who does not identify as a member of an organized religion, for example, can believe in God and evolution at the same time, right?
I don't think evolution is capable of anything, so this is not my problem. Evolutionary biologist are the ones who are constatly trying to explain every obvious sign of design as a result of random genetic mutation (the only plausible mechanism), that provided advantage to the SINGLE ORGANISM that had the mutation, which allowed it to survive where others died (natural selection), and thus pass on it's unique genetic material to the rest of the population. We ain't talkin' just bacteria in a petri dish here, neither!
You are correct, evolution did not design anything, it just explain the gradual accumulation of complexity over an enormous amount of time, thus climbing Mount Improbable up the opposite gradually sloping side. Thus, all of the beatiful complexity in the world is just the result of a bunch of accidental errors in the transmission of the genetic code, which incidentally, is untestable. This is REAL faith!
It’s easy.
On one side of the argument is the group that makes the statement and demands that you *disprove* it. But when you make a statement, the onus is on you to provide evidence to *prove* it. So one side is always being required to do the leg work.
Hmmmmm....
Untestable? Hardly. All you have to do is look at the recent evolution of bacteria that are highly resistant to antibiotics to know that a life-form evolves so that its offspring will survive. Or look at the changes in the flu each year. And beauty? Didn't I just finish telling you that evolution does not have a conscious design process?
There is much in the creation account in the Bible that fits with current scientific thinking, along with comments made in other books of the Bible concerning scientific matters.
The main issues that seem to be the hot buttons are the unique creation of life as opposed to evolution, and the age of the earth. Even Answers in Genesis doesn’t deny that natural selection and variation within species doesn’t happen. They have a different explanation of *kinds* and how animals have changed from them but every time I link someone to the article, I NEVER get a response.
As far as it being *mythology*, on what basis have arrived at that conclusion?
Don't forget the "global flood" (for which there is no scientific evidence).
To be more accurate, you should have separated "the unique creation of life" and "evolution."
The evolution of life (speciation) can take place in the exact same way whether life arises from:
a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
(From a post by Dimensio here.)
I don't know why you and other creationists keep joining the origins problem, which is poorly understood scientifically, with evolution, which is pretty well understood scientifically.
Are you unaware that they are different fields of study, or are you just casting up gigantic strawmen?
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.