1 posted on
11/13/2002 5:27:59 PM PST by
ckilmer
To: ckilmer
What about politics and science?
2 posted on
11/13/2002 6:00:19 PM PST by
cornelis
To: ckilmer
Nietzsche: "God is dead."
God: "Nietzsche is dead.
Which statement is verifiable?
4 posted on
11/13/2002 6:58:10 PM PST by
IronJack
To: ckilmer
The tide began to turn a decade later, however, when William Jennings Bryan began preaching against Darwinism. He was influenced by a 1923 book, The New Geology, which argued that Earth's apparently ancient age was an artifact created by God to test people's faith.Here is an interesting book review of a history on Young Earth creationism.
5 posted on
11/13/2002 7:13:48 PM PST by
Dumb_Ox
To: ckilmer
And biologist Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, insists that "a lot of scientists really don't know what they are missing by not exploring their spiritual feelings."Feelings - yes, that about sums it up.
6 posted on
11/13/2002 10:25:37 PM PST by
edsheppa
To: *crevo_list; AndrewC; f.Christian; gg188; gore3000; Heartlander; scripter; WhiteKnight; ...
Ping.
7 posted on
11/14/2002 7:56:08 AM PST by
scripter
To: Condorman
I didn't include you in my ping list by accident. My list is now sorted so I can better add/remove folks.
12 posted on
11/14/2002 8:20:25 AM PST by
scripter
To: ckilmer
Physics, metephysics, consciousness, spirituality, etc: You need unified thinking to devise a unified theory; you need to include everything to devise a theory of everything.
16 posted on
11/14/2002 8:36:34 AM PST by
Consort
To: ckilmer
Oh boy, another one, placeholder bump.
37 posted on
11/14/2002 10:50:48 AM PST by
js1138
To: gubamyster
bttt
To: ckilmer
Charles Townes, a Nobel-winning physicist and coinventor of the laser, has said that discoveries of physics "seem to reflect intelligence at work in natural law." The point here is not unimportant: the working assumption is that there is no intelligence at work in natural law. Theories that posit a role for an intelligent agent are rejected scornfully -- usually as "untestable".
What that really means is that the scientific method (as propounded on threads like these, anyway) is inadequate if the universe does not conform to its atheistic assumptions.
It's always good to identify one's blind spots.
47 posted on
11/14/2002 11:41:30 AM PST by
r9etb
To: ckilmer; Naked Lunch
bump
83 posted on
11/14/2002 10:06:30 PM PST by
maro
To: RaceBannon
Hey Race,
I read this in the magazine earlier today and thought you'd be interested.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson