Intelligent Design—Bad Career Move?

This typically atheist attitude is why I don't subscribe to Time anymore. Evolution is a philosophy, not a science. That is why the author feels the need to put Intelligent Design down, rather than just report the facts. He is far more certain that evolution is true than Darwin was.

--I have really sad news for you, Aimee. Two pieces, in fact, The first is that huge numbers of devoutly Christian scientists, including Francis Collins of the National Institutes of Heath, think evolution is a science, as do huge numbers of scientists of other faiths. In fact, they know it is, because they know, as you clearly do not, what "science" actually is. So criticizing ID (which Collins and many other DEVOUT CHRISTIAN scientists do too) is not an "atheist attitude."

The second is that this is a blog. So when something needs putting down, in my opinion, down I put it. So sorry.

The third is that Darwin was privy to FAR less evidence than we have today (but he was privy to a brilliant mind--his own). If I'm more convinced than he was, it's because I have the advantage of 150 or whatever years' worth of EVIDENCE. About which, see above under "why Aimee is confused about what science is."
M.L.

Ah, Aimee. Spoken like a true believer. Time has it right: ID is not science. If you believe it IS science, then you probably need a refresher course. Science does not include the supernatural.

You might not subscribe to Time, anymore, but articles like this make me think maybe I should.

I find it very interesting that when we look back at our humanity and the civilization development itself; we find great men who were firm believers in God or Deity or some form of creed and men who led us to science (Descartes and its Method, Newton, Einstein, etc). When looking at how science develops and where its realm is, one cannot ignore the field of Metaphysics and Epistemology itself. From a basic premise: what is the probability that over a zillion processes worked in concert and "conspire" to create the planet like the one we live in today? The probability of winning a lottery is in the values of around 1/13'000.000 or so... Which makes winning the lottery a real never beyond probability…is the probability in the realms of 0.0000013 percentages… Now, all these processes (Chemical, Physical, Atmospheric, etc) that actually took place and were an integral part of the earth formation and evolution. And to be mild and not to use a number beyond our comprehension, let’s just be frugal and say 1 Zillion processes working in concert. So, being the statistical probability that 1/1 zillion… took place is probably equal to a number around 0.0000000000001 or so percentage. This would be a ridiculous figure just to even take into consideration; yet today’s atheist community tells us that even when we have no evidence of the NON-existence of God, we should rely on their even emptier perception of how our physical reality was formed and came into existance. Quite a leap of faith here if you ask a believer even if you ask a rational non-believer. Perhaps it is true what someone once said about one needing lots of faith to be an atheist.
I believe Einstein illustrates this issue better than anyone could: “Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind…”
There are a great number of Religious fanatics and their number becomes sometimes negative in the social arena. They become a negative force when they can be manipulated by a religious leader; even in our own great old USA. They can be negative when they preach peace and support violence or act in any self defeating manner. Such fanatics have different levels and they are not always the same or even presented under the same precepts. One thing is certain: whatever they are experiencing in the realm of what can be felt, personal communion with God or religion; it cannot be put under a microscope to be examined. The levels are different since it would be counter productive to even attempt to compare a born again Christian with a suicide bomber; although, many in the atheist movement wish to classify them as one as the same; they are not. The main self defeat in the Christian faith is the religion of Jesus Christ as it is portrait in the New Testament vs. the Christian fanatics who want death penalties and free guns for everyone when that was not indeed the ideal in any part of the New Testament. It seems to be Christ wanted a religion about what he preached and not who he was necessarily. Not a crystallized version of religion that did not include all humanity and that was unable to evolve; but indeed the contrary. Even with 11 apostles on the run and their leader crucified, Christianity managed to reach every corner of the world. Furthermore, noticed that the separation of the church, when each person was taught to read so they could draw directly from the Bible, around 1492 is directly linked to the renaissance and the Enlightment period AKA Le Illustration.
In the old days, scientists were more of critical thinkers than today. I believe it was Thomas Huxley who argued about being Agnostic because as a man of science he understood he couldn’t prove the non-existence of God or his existence. Yet, today’s scientists knowing that the realm of God is beyond the physical, at least in the human premise and concept, yet ventures to attempt to place God under the microscope as if one could find Barney the dinosaur inside our television set when the reality of what we see, even though is real, comes from another place through means not perceivable with the human senses (TV waves that travel and get translated by a TV set). Further more and as common sense dictates, if there is a God and if the finding of that God must be achieved through faith and adversity; then, it would be simply futile that God would introduce himself to us after birth and welcomed us to this world. If one must lay and build a foundation through faith, then the certainty of God’s existence would simply be self defeating in any arena that requires believing without seeing. It would be like betting on the lottery while already knowing what numbers will win... This is what many who claim to be men of science want; although faith does not work that way. It would do the scientist a great good, one who is really in pursuit of truth, to start praying just to get insight into what only the believer can feel...
Most of today’s evolutionary value has been achieved by ideals and concepts that cannot be put under a microscope, yet we never challenge their existence: Justice, Truth, Love, Loyalty, etc. No one can purchase Love (In the Metaphysical concept) although you can always buy the physical equivalent on a trip to the bunny ranch. Not the same though. Metaphysical Love, Justice, Truth, etc as ideals can never be purchased; this is why a believer would want metaphysical love, while the atheists scientist wants the bunny ranch kind of love… what happens here stays here?

Michael,

I just wanted you to clarify what you meant by your comment that "ID" is not science; it is "magic." Do you mean you subscribe to methodological naturalism as needed to do science? What is your justification that we should accept methodological naturalism? There are scientists, in fact, Professor Sarkar at UT Austin, one of the fiercest critics of ID, who thinks even if you abandon methodological naturalism as a part of the definition of what "science" is, the current theory of evolution, provides the best explanation of the evidence.

--I'm not familiar with the term "methodological naturalism," nor with Professor Sarkar, so it's tough to give you a thoughtful answer.
M.L.

OK Richard, your biased and condescending view of science and your idea that it is populated by narrow minded atheistic bigots is rather disturbing. Personal faith is just that, a personal thing, and is in no way a barrier to enter science (I have never met anyone at conferences or in personal communications who has even bother to ask about my views on religion; it is not even on the table). What is a barrier is when you come in with pre-conceived notions that will canalize your work and or prevent you from seeking the truth because it does not fit your world view.

Your talk (and very false statistics) on the origin of life shows that you have this flaw, and thus I for one am glad that you are not perusing science for you would make a poor scientist. Yes some of histories greatest minds were very religious, just like some of today’s are (some aren’t as well), showing that faith is not the antitheist of science, but a separate personality facet that is as important to their success in science as their hair colour or wither they prefer toast or cereal for breakfast. Intelligent design is not science since it does not follow the scientific method. It does not produce testable ideas and works through distortion and selection of currently unknown (not unknowable) phenomenon to create doubt in the public mind, instead of trying to convince the scientific community (who through years of training can better determine the validity of statements) with evidence.

People wonder why the scientific community so vigorously opposes ID, its not because we fear religion, its because we see the erosion of the appreciation for truth, fact and proven data in the publics mind by a the loud cries of a fringe group which has little (if anything) to offer except a diminution of both science and religion.

Would you accept it if someone with no training insisted on performing surgery claming that since so many people die in hospitals each year obviously all of western medicine is a fraud? They could claim that all the data showing that the life expectancy and quality of life increases in the last few centuries are just lies made up by a cabal of insiders to protect their way of life. This is what evolutionary biologist face through ID, not an intellectual challenge, but petty stone throwing by those who don’t understand reality because they don’t want to.

So I agree with you that faith and spirituality has many roles in ones life, and I personally am an agnostic since I known I don’t know enough to judge one way or the other on the existence of god, but I will stand up to anyone who will twist reality because it does not fit their predetermined mold. The earth is over 4 billion years old, life evolved, extinctions happened, we are descendents from apes, these are realities, they still leave plenty of room for god and faith, but those beliefs should not overrule reality.

-

Interesting how the word "science" has become so powerful that "religionists" wish to put it to work in support of their cause(s).

Have they never learned science at its most fundamental level is empirical? If one can not "measure" the thing that he are studying, he is not dealing in the realm of science. Since no one that I know has ever seen, heard, tasted, felt or smelled the Intelligent Designer, we have no data on which to base scientific conclusions.

"Religionists" fail to recognize that scientists have learned not to claim absolute knowledge. Newton talked of the law of gravity, but as the "art" of science has progressed, scientists have learned a bit more humility. Certainly evolution is a theory, as are Einstein's various big ideas. Unlike people who are certain that they know the absolute truth, scientists deal in theories and in levels of probability.

This is actually a pretty stupid argument; but it will no doubt continue to rage - as "religionists" struggle to bathe their beliefs in the aura of science.

Michael,

Methodological naturalism is the a-priori ruling out of any supernatural causes in the practice of science. Some scientists are willing to allow for supernatural causes and still think there isn't enough evidence to argue for design. Other scientists, not based on evidence, but a philosophical position on the definition of science (and/or the world), are not willing to allow for arguments for design. I hope I am explaining that right.

--It certainly makes sense. Thanks for the information. I'm not sure how you allow supernatural causes and say you can't explain design that way, though. I would think the supernatural could explain anything you wanted, depending on how you chose to define it.
M.L.

Alex; I am very glad to hear you leaning towards the agnostic side. Personally,and as a former being in denial (myself as an atheist); I can tell you that it is quite intrinsic to those attempting to prove the non-existance of God so fiercely and without evidence; that one can easily see their fruitless disbelief. I do not see a conflict in between science and religion at all. I see them indeed intrinsically tied untill the last day of this planet. The main issue here is that the atheist cannot substantiate its theory of creedless proportions by standing in front of a church and guessing what is inside. Many are the misrepresentation of religion and religionists by the insipid atheist. Only if a human being embarks in the spiritual search for God, can such individual, begin to attest of such presence that is by all materialistic means indiscribable. Let me refer to Carl Sagan and the assumption of his creed in his last years on this blue planet; by looking at his book "Contact", just to give you a point of reference, Sagan takes the insipid atheist (I am not referring to the agnostics but to the atheists) and embarks her on a journey that inevitably leads her to experience something that she cannot replicate or prove to others but something that she knows is real. How can a scientist who claims to oppose religion or religionists, embark in the sophism of proving a Godless world where all there is in the physical realm happened by chance? This would be like saying that abnormal things do indeed happen here, in fact I walked out of my house and there was abeautifull gorgeous naked blond girl (Playboy Bunny) inside a Ferrari waiting for me...and I do not even know where she came from..perhaps she came from Dough Patterson's universe where things appear out of no where without an explanation... This is where the denial or the opposition to Intelligent Design proves going no where. The atheist cannot possibly know anything about the religionists UNLESS he himself embarks in the spiritual search for God and as science dictates through empirical exposure, testify the existance or deny God. But your typical atheist scientist is not open to possibilities...When Descartes destroys everything and begins building the new method; he does it by being open to possibility without prejudice (Prejudice against religion for instance)...That is and should always be the pursuit of science. Not the personal attack against the religionist by those who do not have the remote clue about God because they have never looked for him beyond the microscope or the fallacies of Nietzsche perception. The atheist scientist fails in many ways; one is the acnowledgement that every discipline has its tools of the trade. Astronomers may use a Telescope, Biologist a Microscope, but the religionist uses personal communion with God (Prayer and Meditation). The reason why many look at scientists suspiciously when it comes to ethics is precisely because of their lack of openess; our typical atheist scientist suffers from the same illness as the religious fanatic; Crystalization of truth in a wolrd of relativity and not absolutes.

Alex, elaborate on your statistic that this planet could have formed, here or any where in the near by neighborhood, without the intervention of something else (I call it God...the atheist scientist call it a Fallacy). I do not have a "world view" as you call it. I just fully disagree with the argument of those who lack critical thinking to rush to rule out God because they looked for the Omnipowerfull god in Nietzsxhe's writtings and because they did not find him there, then they concluded an abosute without God.

Alex, I have not argued that Intelligent design ID is a science, where did you see that? You are arguing against something I did not say. My argument was with regards to the probability that a planet can exist (Like ours) just out of the blue sky and with 1 zillion processes working in concert as a "Coincidence"? You must produce a better statistic or even hypothesis.

Alex, where did you see me replacing the Scientific method? again, you are arguing againts something I have not said; YOU said it not me. I am pro-scientific method, but the experience of looking and experiencing a religious understanding is NOT under a microscope,and its method, like Philosophy, Art, Ethics (Moral Phoilosophy) is not in the Physical realm... therefore it is actually a full 100% non sense to try to find the ideal of Justice with the scientific method under a microscope for instace. Justice is discern and understood and evolves under society's rules and precepts in continuous progress...I mean, no judge has ever taken out of his pocket 2 pounds of Justice to be sold to Dough Petterson for instance.

What are you talking about when you say a man with no experience perform surgery? The man in question here defending ID is indeed a scientist not a religious fanatic. This scientist has plenty of experience with the scientific method. Read the firt original article...first. What are you talking about?

I see no conflict with science and religion except in the stand taken by the atheist scientist opposing God without proof and as if it was not enough of a scientific violation...even refussing to explore and attempt to see and find what the religionist have found.

The realms of religion, just like the realms of Justice, Ethics, Love, Morality, etc.and everything that is artificial about us humans; it is not under the microscope as the atheist scientist propose. If you as a scientist cannot conceive of Justice and ethics because you can't prove them in the physical realm of science and these idelas can ONLY be discern just under the highest of human intellect and understanding, then you cannot understand religion. Hence the conflict between science and ethics in some aspects of the current laws.

Dough; you fail to understand what I am clearly explaining. I do not even know where to begin. That, and not to mention that you didn't even touched the probabilities with a 10 foot pole. Science cannot support the cause of religion more than you can support your great grand grand parents. Religion appears in evolution way far back than science did; it is indeed NOT religion who needs science (Science needs Ethics) and not the other way around as your sophisms attempts to misrepresent. Science is not inevitable; we could have continued without science and civilization would still be alive. Would civilization survive without religion? I guess that is the true question.

When you argue that have religionist not learned that science is empirical is the same as you saying to your father: Do you know how to make babies? Quite a fallacy of mega proportions if you ask. You cannot argue about religion because you obviously do not know enough about religion. But let's engage your non-sense proposition by asking you what the probability is that all the chemichal processes that took place, physical processes, Biological, etc...YOU name it...could have produced life on a planet by working in concert? Answer this firt and then go read Statistics 101 and Mathesis inside the Scientific Method and related writtings by Descartes. Then, you will have a glimpse of what my point of view is here.

Philosophy, let's assume Socrates as ground zero, begins with the dialogue. Question and answer. This is an act greatly covered by and studies by Metaphysics, the human soul, etc. Then, Christianity appears to shed light on human dignity but we do not begin to see its fruits untill the Enlightment period and the Human Rights writers who gathered and borrow a great chunck from the Bible's New Testament (Holly Bible for you). Then, we have the industrial period, fruit of thinkers who were indeed free thinkers and the ideal that Human beings were individuals and not a herd of turtles. Little by little one cannot deny the intrinsic yet sublime hand of spirituality (religion) involved in all these great events that gave birth to science. Neither YOU, nor anyone else can dismiss the great work and intervention of scientist who were believers. You are doing so because you are failing to see the realm of possibilities in Religion; since Metaphysics is something you appeared to know very little to nothing about; yet, you claim to be pro-science. You are not only attacking but dismissing religion and the religionist as if you had an absolute that can sustantiate the non-existance of God. You are misrepresenting having an Ace after all four Aces are already on the table. To differenciate between religious fanatism and spiritual growth is something you must learn if you are to continue in search for truth. A true religionist can never argue to have found an absolute in the realm of the mortals and the imperfect world (You, Me, and this planet); yet you must assume an absolute in God but not in any human being and not in what I have stated here about religion. You are speaking against something like your falacies of a world that just came to exist without the zillion of processes that HAVE HAD to take place. Yet, you dismiss ID as if you yourself have found an absolute in science. There is religious certainty for the true searcher agnostic, there is certainty for the true believer. There is only a world of automats and causation for the insipid atheist. Although, logic, and common sense dictates that this world itsn't so. The sole artificial civilization away from the Natural law realm and indeed placed in the realm of Metaphysics so testifies that there is much more than meets the eye of science alone. A true scientist must be open to the realm of possibilities and not a close minded entity automat that dismisses everything just because it exists in the realm of Metaphysics where he cannot purchase 2 pounds to take home; Atheists are away from the hand of the science that you claim to represent. For the atheist scientist, Humans are just automats, and the world is just a series of cause and effect without color. Atheist are still watching TV black and white trapped in a world of the same colors. Religion is meant for men to think less and understand more. It is not meant to enhance the grandiose narcissistic athesist scientist but to create a true discernment. If you were a true searcher scientist you would have experimented (empirical test) with religion. But your misrepresentation of religion clearly uncovers you as a person who has not walked that path; therefore you cannot possibly know anything about religion beyond someone elses's opinion. Not a critical thinker here on your part.

Egad! I knew that I should not enter such an absurd discussion.

Religion and science are two totally different approaches to knowledge. The one speculates about ultimate reality; the other deals with testable this-world questions.

Scientists do not attempt to prove or to disprove the existence of God. God is not observable and therefore his/her/its existence is not testable. "Does God exist?" is not a question which can be answered using the scientific method.

I see no reason why a course on world religions should not be taught in the schools, as long as the teachers are careful not to proselytize; but incorporating religion in the science curriculum is like serving hot soup and ice cream simultaneously in the same bowl.

This is a rediculous article, certainly befitting of Time Magazine. If a single scientist can "do science", why can't a God?

Real science begins when we do not exclude any of the possible facts.

--If you think it's been suggested anywhere that a God can't do science, you haven't been reading very carefully.
M.L.

I have read many of the comments and it always amazes me the twists the religious will do to compare science to religion.It is basically simple.Religion no proof Science proof.Intelligent design fiction evolution non fiction.Everything unknowable is not attributable to a god it is just not explained yet.To give tenure in science to a man who believes in fiction science is absurd and in the rest of the scientific community would bring derision upon the university.I am sure their are open slots for him to get tenure at Pat Robertson U where he should be anyway.It is good idea to keep the crazy{yes crazy time to wipe this scourge of magic out of the scientific community there is no debate} in the same area so we can watch them.

I have read many of the comments and it always amazes me the twists the religious will do to compare science to religion.It is basically simple.Religion no proof Science proof.Intelligent design fiction evolution non fiction.Everything unknowable is not attributable to a god it is just not explained yet.To give tenure in science to a man who believes in fiction science is absurd and in the rest of the scientific community would bring derision upon the university.I am sure their are open slots for him to get tenure at Pat Robertson U where he should be anyway.It is good idea to keep the crazy{yes crazy time to wipe this scourge of magic out of the scientific community there is no debate} in the same area so we can watch them.

Discussion is actually healthy for the civilized man. Knowledge is not knowledge untill it is shared. Despite the diversity and the contrast in views; it is indeed in the arena of debate where one may find truth.

Religion and science are not as separate as it has been wrongfully portrait.

AGAIN: what is the statistic/Mathemathical probability that a zillion processes worked in concert to create a planet like ours? YOU atheist still run away from this one...STOP running... Tell us what the probability that 1 zillion different chemichal and in any field reactions took place to give life and that that life; on top of it all; managed to evolve? As a person who claims such a high respect for truth and proof you certainly runaway from it quite easy.

Scientists do not attemptto prove or disprove God, YOU argued. Yet, the clear atheist position of several persons here speak for itself. Is there proof for God's existance? Absolutely YES. But this proof, AGAIN, is not in the arena of microscopes and narcissist scientists who fear God might step on their toes...Instead, it is in the individual's personnal communion through prayer and meditation...THERE is not any other path through the understanding of God that trough the reasons found inside personal communion (prayer) and personal meditation. This is equivalent to saying: why can't I find the Atlantic ocean in Montana? I looked and it wasn't physically there so, as an atheist scientist I must conclude that the Atlantic ocean is a fallacy and it does not belong in the scientific discussion...it doesn't even exist...I couldn't find it in montana... Offcourse and again: God cannot be found in Montana...But, technichally yes..the Omnipresent thing about God...but for the atheist scientist...NO...

It isn't hard to see the grandiose approach of the atheist scientist...This atheist scientist feels that: why should I have God as the ultimate reason and reality when I have little tiny microscopic knowledge of the world through science? Although, the real question is: Why wouldn't the atheist scientist venture to admit that there is more that meets the eye? Descartes and his method finds God FIRST thing. Prejudice is not an option: Example, "...a professor told me in college that I should not include God in anything to do with science therefore I am prejudiced towards religion..."

Our universities are plague with persons of atheist convictions (lack of convictions is more like it...)...the creation of replicas of one another to the extreme of having an atheist scientist mind of the collective...Impossible to create critical thinkers who can even discern what it not in the physical realm of possibility and fact... BUT, the human spirit is much greater than this...although the atheist scientist refusses to believe it... I would too if I though all things happened by "chance" and I am an automat in a world of causation... actually anyone would...

The problem with teaching a class on world religions is that what do we do with certain aspects of religion? Jews are "the chosen ones" but not the rest... Christian and Jews are infidels acording to Islam...we should slaughter Christian and Jews according to many in Islam... NOW, when it comes to Christianity and specifically the New testament...No one is excluded and no one is "the chosen one" ...each person must find God through personal communion with him... Pay close attention to the new testament and the atrocities that were committed by many on behalf of Christianity through out history...when indeed they were nowhere to be found in the teachings of Christ... Even the current evil/satan ideas and the death penalty with those in the far right... Do we see Christ in the new testatament with a bad case of OCD with the devil as many Christian preachers have? No! Do we see Christ focused on Death penalties even after rescuing Mary of Magdalene and the fact that his teachings were not violent? No... Even in what pertains to a woman's ministry...yet the pagan and religious practices of those days even prevented the idea of women as leaders...even less religious or political leaders... specially after christ died and the heavy hebrew influence (the hebrew view of women as inferiors at the time)...

Religion and God are paralell with worship as soon as reason appears in the primitive man... First, there was the worship of the elements...(thunders...The moon...etc) such definition of deity gets enhanced as man reasons more and evolves more... But reason alone will prove a failure when trying to understand God...The sole concepet of God implies an Omnipowerfull being... How can a mortal and imperfect creature like any of us even conceive of it? Not many can even conceive of God...

When a human being rules out God (been there done that) the almighty subconscious must replace him automatically... In the atheist this cannot take place... How can the atheist replace God with the automat he believes himself to be? How can an automat respect and care for other automats? Simply Imposible...hence the lack of ethics in many atheist...Carl Marx (the end justifies its means...etc) I know this will not be engaged by the atheist here, but it must be highlighted... Science is NOT a thing out there on its own.... it is a man creation...MAN MADE in fact it is indeed a religionists creation (tell me what percentage of philosophers who contributed to the foundations for science were believers?) How many times does math and many other disciplines get associciated with God? I mean, the atheist scientist can continue pretending covering the sun with the shadow of his finger but... This would also explain why the athesits scientist cannot conceive of God and Science under the same roof... eventhough since the beginning of philosophy (critical thinkers that laid the foundations for science) and though out the same creation of a scientific process and concept, religion was there... Today's athesit wants God removed because the last 2000 years prior to what gave bith to science were wrong by including God?

And you know what? what happends in vegas does not stay there....not always...and avoid eating icecream with soup...I did that when I was an atheist and it was not something nice...

Thomas Billis, go read the New Testament and follow the two previous links that I posted (click on my name on first and last posting of mine prior to this one)...1) Einstein 2) Critique of Pure reason... When you fully understand what it is that you are discussing then come back and argue...then I will discuss your wrong misrepresentation on Christianity by having Pat Robertson as the leader of Christianity... If you are a frustrated Christian and Pat Robertson represents you then speak for yourself... I have found a few whose teachings come close to the New Testament: Charles Stanley, Joel Osteen, etc... I am certain there are many more... Your misperception of science and religion is not a topic for discusion on the rational arena... Arguing on behalf or against a topic propossed does not equal misrepresenting a topic without reasons... Have you tried icecream with soup? try it! I am sure you will love it...

even Einstein had a strong belief in ID.

I'd of loved to see a college turn down his tenure because of it.

--If you think Einstein had "a strong belief in ID," you are seriously clueless about Einstein's beliefs. More of what I was talking about in the previous response.
M.L.

Rene Descartes seems to believe in ID too if you read his Discourse in Method. I just can't oppose the inventor of the Cartesian plane on this.

first, when Einstein and Descarte worked much of the most compelling evidence for evolution, from the discovery of DNA, the feather dinosaurs of the Jehol Biota to modern studies showing microevolution were not known. I hope, when presented with all the modern evidence and hearing the false arguements of IDers, they would rightly denouce them using them as a role model and reject the distortions of the scientific method. Using them as examples is like saying Jesus wasn't a true Catholic because he didn't obey all the rules set down by Vatican II. Also a personal belief in a divine being is not the same as ID, and someone can be very spiritually aware and still accept evolution. Of and the running, your stats are wrong. As was recently found, there are other planets with conditions to hold life, and by most conservative estimates the number of planets that could house life in our galaxy range in number from the hundreds to hundreds of thousands. The odds of life emerging from the intial conditions on our planet are not that great, and when factoring in thousands of simultantious reactions occur over litterally hundreds of millions of years, the probablity of life starting is not that bad. If you look at the recent research, while there is dissent on the exact method of the origin of the first replicating "organism" (either RNA, protein or metabolism based)the fact that the problem is not currently resolved is not the same as saying it will never be. Also the origin of life is not the same as evolution. The origin could be due to a set of condition on this planet that cannot be perfectly replicated due to subsequent effects of geology, biology (metabolic process such as oxygen production)and other factors (i.e amount of solar radiation, duration of the earths rotation around the sun, graviety etc), doesn't mean that evolution can be ruled out. Would you ask that Christianity be ruled to be untrue because we don't know all the events of Jesus life during his teen years and early-mid twenties? I don't hate religion, and all those who have a deep felt personal conection with your God/s I say I hope you feel content. But when personal beliefs conflict with the evidence, you can chose to ignore it, but please do not try and force this belief on others.

"and when factoring in thousands of simultantious reactions occur over litterally hundreds of millions of years, the probablity of life starting is not that bad"

So how come the other hundred or so similar planets in our galaxy does not have forms of life?

"but please do not try and force this belief on others."
Religion is preached in places you are not forced to visit, evolution is taught as a fact in schools, while there are lots of scientists that don't beleive in every aspect of evolution!!

--Hundreds of other similar planets? Where do you get your information. We know of ZERO other similar planets except for Mars, and we don't know that Mars doesn't have life. I suspect you're equally well informed on what scientists believe.
M.L.

Richard Basque says:

"AGAIN: what is the statistic/Mathemathical probability that a zillion processes worked in concert to create a planet like ours? YOU atheist still run away from this one...STOP running."

It's a good question Richard. I don't know the answer. Probably very small. Extremely small. Just like winning the lotto. But people *do* win the lotto and I don't think they care what the probability was. And our planet DOES exist, so the probability must have been high enough this particular case.

But let me ask you the reverse question: What is the probability that a supernatural omnipotent God-being exists and yet we have no evidence of it's existence?

As Thomas said quite nicely above: Religion no proof Science proof. Science works on finding evidence to support theories. In fact, no rational person believes in things without evidence. Therefore, anyone who believes in theories which have no evidence to support them are, by definition, irrational.

regards,

Cameron Reilly
CEO, The Podcast Network (www.thepodcastnetwork.com) &
Host of Australia's #1 podcast G'Day World (www.gdayworld.com)

There is one inaccuracy in this posting. That is: "Gonzales has done all sorts of serious work in astronomy..."

You can see for yourself all the interesting work he has done by searching for his name in the author field on the NASA Astrophysics Data System.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html

Any professional work he has done (papers, presentations, etc.) would be listed there, if in fact he did any. The only thing he has listed is a book review. Even a graduate student would have upward of 5 listings with their name as top billing.

It's not surprising a believer in ID wouldn't be offered tenure, since they would clearly lack analytical problem solving skills, but most likely the fact he hasn't done any work is what doomed him.

Cameron:

Again, you are not only missing out in a great deal of this discussion. Are you purposely doing it or are you not reading well to engage the discussion in the route of the issues I have presented? The probability of winning the lottery is about 1/13'000.000 thirteen million or so... the probability of all chemichal and physical reaction, the distanc4 of our planet from the sun, etc...Yu name it... is in the 1/1 Zillion... quite larger than even the probability of winning the lottery... much larger, therefore less of a probability... If you win the big prize in the lotto without playing the lotto (what is the reson or purpose of Life in this or any other planet?)then, I will reconsider your hypothesis as proof of probability...

Now, the quick disregard from the atheist is that he would not dare to venture in the realm of what he cannot see or touch... Great men from antiquity and not so distance in the past DID do so. When looking at Natural Law VS. Moral (Ethical) Law (Metaphysics); one can clearly see that all the concepts (Ideals) that are of any value to the Human race (Humanity) are concepts and ideals that exist nowhere physically...AGAIN, they can only be discerned and not put under a micoscrope... they have no scientific value, yet they are the most valuable for humanity...Justice, Ethics, Love, Loyalty,... all these go beyond the brain's chemichal reactions... AGAIN: Read the Critique of Pure reason... Read Descartes... There is plenty of material to understand this issue from a different point of view that is more favorable for everyone (The Agnostic and the Believer) ...I will exclude the atheist since a true scientist will never close the door of probability or possibility... Aldus Huxley clearly used the term Agnostic because he had to confess he had no prooof of the non-existace of God.

You will ALWAYS fail if you attempt to find God under the microscope... OUR entire existance as a specie is ARTIFICIAL...we are not just monkeys with clothes or machines... well, not all of us at least. Natural Law is that precisely..."Natural" and the scientist attempts and does all his work on the material realm... Now, Metaphysics and Religion in particular are indeed beyond the Physical... YOU will NOT find God there in the physical realm....AGAIN, and just as a Law student graduate must spend years reading concepts and ideals to just grasp the understanding (concept)of Justice... SO DOES the one who wants to find God. The one looking for God will indeed find proof and existance of God when after many times in prayer and meditation (Personal Communion) such God is reveeled to the individual...NEVER in its entirely...God has the limits of an imperfect mind and a mortal body to deal with...It is a great achievement that we can just conceive of God considering our position... Or perhaps as we all can tell right from wrong (Who made us that way? No one...pure coincidence according to the atheist scientist...)as we can tell right from wrong and do many other things in common sense (Le bon Sense Descartes and the Scientific Mehtod)... YOU cannot find (seldom will) what you are not looking for... The scientist who ventures into the realm of possibility and prays and meditates with the sincere desire to find the almighty creator of his soul...WILL inevitably find him beyond the mere physical restrictions of this realm.

AGAIN, YOU cannot find the Atlantic ocean in Montana...NOT today... perhaps years ago, BUT not today... To find the Atlantic you must venture to the East coast if you lived in the USA... You may take the long route going across the pacific... BUT you will never find it in Montana. The atheist cannot find God simply because he does not have the vision, the courage, or the ability to see beyond his nose and his microscope...The atheist scientist is quite insecure...it is a miracle he does not doubt his shadow...BUT if he din't doubt his shadow, then the concept of a soul could be easily explained or at the least conceived to the atheist scientist.

The reasons why many atheist are so depressed and so spiritualy empty are not hard to find. From the believer's perspective is easy to see...The certainty obtained by a true believer indeed surpasses all doubt and all possible delusional state. Many studies have been done (Avoid looking at studies done by the far right self religious believers who want to proof God by force)... Look at real studies done on persons who pray and their efficiency...MRI, etc.. Mind over matter...BUT first, Spirit over mind... to the non-believer is just mind over matter... he is missing 50% of the equation...

What is the probability that God will not reveal himself to man? Zero! Who says God doesn't or hasn't? To the true believer God has revealed... to the scientist open to possibility and prayer and meditation (Personal Communion) God has indeed revealed... hence the scientist believer who attempts to even look and find God in the physical realm (where he is not but which realm has indeed been affected by the creator)...

To the Scientist believer there is much to be discovered in the physical realm and the spiritual realm. To the atheist scientist there is just Science as his "god"... Science is MAN MADE and the one element who arrived late to the party... Metaphysics has been around much longer... way longer...in time and space...

It wouldn't hurt the atheist scientist to just be open to the realm of probability and possibility when it comes to God... worse case scenario; the atheist would stope thinking of himself so inferiorly as he does... he would not only regain self respect but respect for others beyond the concept of mere automats of machines....Not to mention the infinitive power that day by day and small step by small step... God would continue to reveal to him (the atheist scientist) even as God does to the worse and misguided of believers...

Alex:
from May 17th Posting...I was not aware of Einstein doing work with evolution, as far as I know he was primarely a physicist. Descartes lived around the reinassance period and he did not do work in evolution precisely, he was primarely a Mathemathetian and a Philosopher, he has also been charged and convicted with a great portion of the scientific revolution that followed after his "scientific reform"...I was not aware of either one doing work with DNA since Einstein died around mid fifties... around he time Watson and compadre discovered and clarified the idea of the double helix (DNA)...as for Descartes, he lived hundreds of years ago (reinassance)...no way he could have done work on DNA although many argued that the concept of DNA was clear for the Greeks and the Hindues...(Debatable)...But not really, nothing that can be proven with precision and certainty. By the way, the Catholic church is responsible for a great deal of stagnation in science and literacy for over 1300 years. The Catholic church did not exactly allowed the common man to read and write...schools did not exist as they do today... The Catholic church did serve a religious valuable purpose (not a part of this discussion)but not as you are presented the analogy of Catholic church and Jesus Christ. AGAIN, if you, a believer or not, grab and read the New Testament, with all its flaws and different view points from the writers who lived aroundthe time of Christ; will inevitably have to conclude that what Jesus (Joshua) taught was NOT what today's religious Christian fanatic preaches or supports.. Hence the conflict with religion... In most ways Jesus was a reformer (beyond this he was much more but for the atheist at least he was a reformer)...90% of what is taught and in the manner in which is taught today about religion (Christianity) is simply wrong... Jesus challenged the then establishment and beyond that his work was done in a purely spiritual non-violent manner...(Long story, long discussion...not a part of this blog though, not entirely but just partially...intrinsically connected also)... A true scientist when looking at evolution would simply have to admit that there was something else... a hand that interveened and either aided or manipulated evolution...all things as they have happened cannot be the product of "chance" just because the scientist atheist is angry that God did not introduce himself to him at age 7.

There are books that speak of Christ in his teen years, you might just have to look.

Beside the entire system we call evolution there is also the Natural VS. the Artificial... beyond that there is the Metaphysics of it all... not only the grasping of concepts BUT also the fact that we can tell right from wrong... did we come "preprogrammed" as the latest HP? If we do, who programmed us? The air? the wind? who wired our brains? Chance? the invisible and unreal atheist scientist? Whoever did it... it was certaintly not Irrational and fully know what would happen... Perhaps we are indeed more than meat robots...
Life can be really limited and sad when there is only one life to live (Like the soap opera). Thank God the reality of it is much more promissing, real, and full of hope. One main ingridient? Faith, the ability and courage to believe without seeing... but at least the feeling of certainty for the one who does personal communion steadily with his creator (private prayer and meditation).
The true scientist would not debate if there is something else orchestrating our creation or evolution but who.... The sole concept of "I think therefore I exist" creates the greates question of all... why me? why now? what does all this mean?

Alex wrote:"and by most conservative estimates the number of planets that could house life in our galaxy range in number from the hundreds to hundreds of thousands."

That's who I quoted, is it because of your age you only read small postings? Or is it my name that rases a flag?
I will admit though, you have made me question and find out more about life and religeon, and find God (thank God) to be very clear to me.

Sherif:

Are you talking to me? (avoid using the DeNiro's voice here)In my last post I addressed the comments made by Alex, usually I address the comment by the contributor of that particular comment. It makes no difference what your name is, unless off course if it is Mother Theresa or Ghandi or Einstein, or Descartes... in which case I would praise you and then ignore you.

If you are indeed addressing me; let me give you the bad news, I ain't young brother; second, I am very glad you are now reconsidering God. Don't choke yourself please, just read about him, meditate in the privacy of your home about him (God)...but most of all don't close the door to probability and possibility... And remember, you will find lunatics on the left and the right of this issue...the ones who do not even belive in theirown shadow and the ones who are paranoid enough to think they have 3 shadows with one light source... The truth tends to lean towards the middle... Glad to hear you are reconsidering. All great discoveries do open when the door of possibility and probability were left opened... And never forget that God never will speak to you in a physical manner...the real change after many days of prayer and meditation will reflect and will be felt by you but the unexplained and the challenge will be to put that in writting for others to see... Try explainning the conncept/ideal of Love or Justice to a really ignorant of Love or Justice person... Then you will see the challenge presented to the believer by the non-believer...

I am not talking to you Richard, sorry about that, I am talking to M.L, read my earlier post please, I actually like your sense alot, same as Behe makes much more sense than those considering their great grandfather to be a monkey, argue there are forms of life out there (which I agree), but why don't we interact with them? Or they would attempt to in public? A law? By who? that was my point.

--Behe only makes sense to the ignorant.
M.L.

DJ:

From May 21... follow this link,http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=33&isFellow=true it will take you to a website then open the papers written by Gonzalez. By the way, not only NASA looks at the sky and the stars. Be open to possibility and probability; it may even aid your Critical thinking Skills.

You can also click on my name, it will also open the link hopefully...

Sherif:

I am glad you have shared your thoughts. Consider the fact of the Newer generations (since the emerging of science) they have this wrong belief that they can only believe in the little tiny microscopic knowledge that we hold today. It is indeed a miracle that an atheist even considers Justice, Love, Loyalty, or any oher Metaphysic value as real...I mean, have you seen Justice? or Love? Can you buy 2 pounds or even a gram of Love, Justice, or loyalty? yet we can all discern them but no one can actually put them under a microscope...same with any higher Ideal of the human soul; including God. I agree with the agnostic scientist; they are still slothfull by not pursuing the finding of the almighty creator through prayer...BUT, at least this agnostics dare to admit that they have no evidence to disprove God. Science is Man Made...therefore full of flaws and imperfections including the crystalized concepts atheists scientists sometimes embrace... Atheists can be as flexible as a piece of concrete....Just like the far right fanatic believer in God...

Mr. Basque:

You're right to look at the extraordinary odds that humans are here and able to ask all these questions in the first place. The most basic example of such odds can be found in the amazingly small but non-zero size of the cosmological constant (lambda), which affects the expansion rate of our universe. If lambda = 0, then the gravity from the mass in our universe would cause the whole thing to collapse to a point, preventing humans from being here. On the other hand, if lambda had been even a little bit more than zero, the universe would have expanded so rapidly that galaxies (including stars and planets) would have cooled too quickly. But it turns out that lambda is extraordinarily finely tuned: lambda is greater than zero, but no bigger than about 1/10^120. This number (0.000 ... [120 zeros!] followed by a one) is so remarkable that it doesn't seem to be a mere coincidence. Multiplying the odds that lambda = 1/10^120 by the odds that the Standard Model of Particle Physics would have the exact values it does seems to create a perfect storm for those who would dismiss the presence of a higher Being.

Still, there IS a scientific explanation for all this. See Leonard Susskind's "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design." We still have no NEED to introduce God into the discussion in order to understand why humans are here (although choosing whether to believe in God is of course permissible -- the equations are consistent either way). Rather, Susskind argues that string theory, admittedly a controversial theory, predicts that our universe is just a tiny speck among about 10^500 other universes. This number is so large I can't even imagine it. However, if true -- and despite all the best efforts to reject it, string theory appears to be at least part of the answer -- then of course our universe, and humans, exist. The odds that a universe with our small lambda will exist among 10^500 choices are nearly certain. And, by definition, if humans are observing a particular universe, then that particular universe must be one which is finely tuned (i.e., lambda and so forth are just right) so that humans may observe it.

Besides, there are all sorts of problems with the God hypothesis (not that I'm rejecting the idea of God, by the way). For instance, if there is indeed a higher Being, who designed Him? By what mechanism does the Being intervene to guide evolution? Does the Being violate the Laws of Physics to accomplish His goals? Is the Being subject to the laws of quantum mechanics? (Thanks again to Professor Susskind for raising these questions.) If you believe in God, please answer or attempt to answer some of these questions -- I certainly am trying too!

Science is not the rejection of God. But God, like every other human idea, is a hypothesis until supported by empirical evidence. Einstein spoke of God often -- i.e., "God does not play dice" -- but I think he used God as a shorthand for "a logical ordering of the world that explains why everything is the way it is." Ultimately, accepting the God hypothesis without empirical evidence's support puts knowledge of the basic workings of our universe beyond our reach, while science aims to put knowledge within our reach. Not only that, science is remarkably successful in its explanatory power, and it has been so without using the God hypothesis so far. So, until we NEED the God hypothesis in order to do science, I think we shouldn't decide the question. Let's let the believers believe and the non-believers disbelieve, but scientists shouldn't accept ANY hypothesis without subjecting it to "the scientific method." After all, that's their job.

Best,
Simon

@Basque: " A true scientist when looking at evolution would simply have to admit that there was something else... a hand that interveened and either aided or manipulated evolution...all things as they have happened cannot be the product of "chance" just because the scientist atheist is angry that God did not introduce himself to him at age 7"

*sigh*

Basque, I'm assuming you know what a strawman fallacy is. If not, you just made it. It's the part where you talk about evolution as a "product of chance." It is not.

Mutations are random events due to the behavior of atoms and molecules. However, evolution is non-random because natural selection is non-random. QED, evolution is not probability-driven.

Also, most scientists are religious.

These arguments are referred to as PRATT-previously refuted a thousand times. Please don't use them again.

More @ Basque: "the probability of all chemichal and physical reaction, the distanc4 of our planet from the sun, etc...Yu name it... is in the 1/1 Zillion"

Actually, the probability is 1.0. It occurred.

"Now, the quick disregard from the atheist is that he would not dare to venture in the realm of what he cannot see or touch"

Wrong...theoretical physics is all about things that we can't see or touch, but we can test for the existence of what we've hypothesized. Can you test for God?

"When looking at Natural Law VS. Moral (Ethical) Law (Metaphysics); one can clearly see that all the concepts (Ideals) that are of any value to the Human race (Humanity) are concepts and ideals that exist nowhere physically...AGAIN, they can only be discerned and not put under a micoscrope... they have no scientific value, yet they are the most valuable for humanity...Justice, Ethics, Love, Loyalty"

Yes...they do have scientific value. You just lack the imagination needed to see it. The social sciences study these a lot.

"Or perhaps as we all can tell right from wrong (Who made us that way? No one...pure coincidence according to the atheist scientist...)"

Uh...how about our parents? BTW, stop putting Descartes with the scientific method. Descartes was NOT an empiricist; he was a dualist.

"It wouldn't hurt the atheist scientist to just be open to the realm of probability and possibility when it comes to God... worse case scenario; the atheist would stope thinking of himself so inferiorly as he does"

I find it amusing that you think that atheists think they are inferior. Projection perhaps?

Simon:

I enjoyed your clear exposition of a complex topic. Please avoid the use of Mr a priori to my name. Mr Basque is my father. Simon, I feel that you did not engage what I have been attempting to bring across here. The basic premise I have propossed is this: There are two realms in what pertains to us humans; one Natural and one Artificial. We, as humanity, are a clear portion of the Artificial realm. Science works mainly in the Natural realm. No other animal evolved as humans have: why? Only the human species evolved in such manner. I have engaged the string theory and I enjoy it very much; I have a DVD "The Elegant Universe" which I believe it was produced by PBS, (NOVA), Brian Greene. I do believe it is great that we are venturing to explore our universe and finding answers. The issue is not here in the venturing or the exploration; the issue is indeed in the ruling out God beyond possibility and probability under the excuse that there is "no empirical evidence" when in fact there is plenty. And AGAIN and as I have stated many times: Like all that is of value in the artificial world that we humans have evolved into (Justice, Loyalty, Love, etc) God is also an ideal realized when the precept of God is understood through personal communion with God (Prayer and Meditation). But, let's ignore personal communion and the ideal of God for a second and let's look at the achievements (limited by the way) of science. Science has not achived all knowledge yet, there isn't any evidence that dictates with certaintly that it would be discovered even in the near future. One key issue: Matter, we are still embryos in what pertains to the study of matter; despite much being accomplished there is still the other significant 99% to be discovered and understood. The reason we are going through this is because in the condition of Mortal and imperfect beings (as I hope you are) we must really praised Socrates when he asserted that the only thing he knew it was that he knew nothing. Science is in reality not a being or anything beyond a Method created by Humans (Imperfect Mortal Humans like most of us). Science is not God despite the pretentious attitudes displayed by atheist scientists who act as if they have achieved Nirvana when in reality they still stink like diapers in the great scheme of evolution of our universe...The "scientific method" was indeed stagnant for a while untill Mathmathetian Rene Descartes and others venture forward and avoided Crystalized assumptions (For example: Ruling out God without evidence on inexistance). All this is very serious territory in so many critical ways than one: Ethics being one of the most important ones, I believe.

Now, P(x)= P(priori X) X P (Selection X). String theory basic precept... only opens the door to the probability of the expansion... Just like the probability of anything happening is dependant in many other factors that were involved and that happened a-priori. This only looks at what has happened BUT there is always the question of: what was first the egg or the chicken? It is just a mental pandora's box with no actual solution in the human mind since 20 years from now and as science itself evolves, we will be ruling out today's discoveries faster than we throw away used paper towels... We cannot hold a variant of impredictable proportions and that is also so dependant on time and space as an "absolute" in any way shape or form. On the other hand, those things that are of use for the human species (our historic reference as back bone: ethical philosophy and metaphysics and even epistemiology) ... are permanent elements that I do not anticipate will be rule out and discarded as quickly as scientific discoveries do. For instance, I do not anticipate we will legalize murder or terrorism or any other unethical atrocity in the world today. But today's scientific discoveries might actually be obsolete tomorrow...Not with ideals or precepts which are permanenet...These constants will remain that: constants... just as any other artificial aspect of human evolution that can be considered of value for humanity (Justice, Loyalty, God, etc). Now, on a personal note: I do find an issue with the atheist scientist who does not pray, does not engage the God's proposition and rules God out without attempting to find him... This says a lot about a person who might claim to be a truth lover or even a lover of new discoveries...

Simon, left brains and right brains individuals tend to have different view points...what I say is this: be more efficient and be both! Do not limit rational to logic and reason alone (God can be reasoned and God can be logical, refer to Descartes and his first finding in the method: God)... The fact that science moves faster as new discoveries are made available does not translate into leaving essential luggage (ethics) behind...

Personal opinion, I do not want our schools to become the breeding ground for madrassas and fanatics. I do not anticipate they ever will; in fact when I went to kindergarden (hundreds of years ago)religion was still taught in school, and no, I do not feel traumatized because of it. The religion that was taught was a basic concept from a religion of peace AND not the suicide bombers religion. I saw no threat in that. As our country receives more immigrants from elsewhere... this can become a challenge, and I can understand leaving religion as a matter to the individual and families to discover. I can understand not violating another person's religion (creed or lack thereof)by impossing ours...Although we must admit that eventhough we respect religion... don't go looking for Chrstian Cathedrals in Saudi Arabia... Although Saudi Arabians can find respect for their Mesquites here....Quite a double standard by all practical purposes... The industrialization took place in the Christian world obviuosly after the Enlightment... I do not see a threat in Christmas trees or other signs that always existed but that now are to be found "traumatizing" for many... Let's do this practical experiment and let's tell the Muslim world that we are going to practice an open form of religion (as it is indeed protected by our constitution) in the Muslim world...see what happens...to me, this is simply non-sense... BUT, it is this Christmas tree during winter that the atheist scientist wishes to make dissapear... The atheist scientist is traumatized by what his subconscious already knows: God does exist.

Simon, I do not believe that God violates his own laws of the material world. I see God as the greatest Teacher of all;...And, he left the Lab door opened so we could all see inside and explore and think and learn to think critically. The bug of discovery and desire to discover was also put there by God. For Mortal imperfect beings that came out of "no where" just by "chance" as the atheist scientist proposses, we certaintly are doing very well by using language and many other means of advanced communication.

Simon, here is the scientific method for God: Personal Communion with your father and creator, Pray and meditate alone and tell no one about it. After a while (perhaps days, weeks, and months of personal daily communion)see what happens... Like all great value in human existance, you will begin to discern God BUT you may find it a challenge to just grasp the concept enough to put it into words. Jesuits spend years studying theology just to grasp the concept of God...the ideal of God. As a mortal and imperfect human, you (we) must realize that our limitations are quite bizarre...it is indeed a miracle that we can even conceive of God.. although, anthropologists agree that along with reason (Homo-sapiens) the desire to worship appeared... I mean, I haven't seen monkeys going to church on sunday...so God must be reasonable up to a certain extend.

Science came late to the party. The true method should be critical thinking. I find and speak to too many scientists who are atheist and who are very much insecure people... many who have a very partialized, biased, and limited view of the world... Yet, they hold titles as "Doctors"...on the other hand, you may find persons with great insight of the world without a title...Atheist scientist doubt everything although Cartesian doubt did not mean that when Descartes attempted to fix the method... Certain things are amatter of common sense...(Descartes and Le bon sense) why don't we walk on our hands instead of or feet?

Simon, my first grasp of God begins with a belief without seeing: Faith. Now, if such faith is an obvious desire trait in man by God (all religions seem to agree here)... then God cannot be present because he would defeat the idea of believing without seeing. Again, if we met God at 7 years of age... this world would not be the great shock it is for most of us (Believers and non-belivers alike) ... Does God manipulate our spiritual growth? absolutely yes (not his quantum physics laws). Notice that we tend to fail where we need the most work in our lives...and who put that there? Coincidence like the other hundreds of billions coincidences? Why and how do things happen to work in concert or like a beautifull waltz...? I think of God indeed as Omipresent, Omnipowerfull, and Omnisapient... Eternity is where he comes from and where he will go.... Notice that even Savants geniuses seem to connect to "something" of higher intelligence and seem to tap into this source of great intelligence...where is this source? Does God live in paradise and is paradise the center of the universe? Do we vibrate at a different and higher number as we evolve upwards and inwards towards God? If God is to exist, would he invest so much in those creatures who can have the potentiality for survival as each of us mortals? Now, surviving this life... is it of importance or should be disregarded as a "I can't find it under the microscope therefore it does not exist?"... For small, tiny, mortal, imperfect, and in many ways insignifficant creatures in a vast universe we seem to be doing really well...

Best,

Richard

Corey:

Quite entertaining postings of yours. Darwin would be proud of your fallacy; Darwin is Natural philosophy; Translation; as obsolte as aspirin for the treatment of inability to read and critically think. I have not argued that evolution is the product of chance but precisely against it. Do you use prescription glasses? Get a new pair and a new exam.

Mutations are not "random" events; they are indeed predispossed events.

Natural selection is that: Natural. Humanity, however is NOT natural, is Artificial... Animals in the Natural do not behave like humans...they do not build houses and theories and discuss topics. Animals do not wear glasses and fail to read as you have. Everything about Darwin is obsolete; first the man copies the entire theory of the species laid by the scholastics from the church; then he grabs a pair of scissors and removes God and he thinks he has done a great discovery. Today we know that Hitler was a big believer of Darwinism in many ways, hence he is dead and lost the war. Real good that Darwin did attemting to stick the Natural inside the Artificial; Completely obsolete when attempting to understand humanity.

What arguments are you referring to? You are indeed pissing out of the buckett here. Again, read carefull all previous postings then make another try. No arguments have been used here that do not remain on the discussion table. What are you remotely talking about?

You are arguing through boths sides of your mouth. The reason that you aredoing so are: Lack of good reading glasses and lack of critical thinking. You are arguing on behalf and against our own self... Quite interesting is you ask. Maybe it is a new therapist what you need.

When you stand in a street corner and an accident happens (Let me clarify for you before you continue misreading again...a traffic accident where you are a spectator; although the way you read you could easily be the main protagonist)Now, if the accident happened at 2 pm YOU cannot go and say a couple of hours later that you can predict with certainty that an accident would happen at 2 pm because it already passed, therefore it can not possibly be a probability but a certainty... it already took place... You may argue what the probability is of an accident happening in the same corner, even at the same time...but that is different kind of probability as probability pertains... if you bought the lottery and you won, then the probability of winning is NOW 1.0; However, since you did not know you would win before it played; the probability WAS indeed 1/13.000.000 million or 0.000000013 or so... a-priori probability cannot be a-porsteriori when an event is clearly identified and took place already... Probability can only be a-priori NEVER can it be a-posteriori except in the assumption of possible events when we have a parameter or set of parameters...

An automat can never be the same as a son of God even through faith (each human soul)... again you continue to argue through both sides of your mouth... For the atheist scientist man is ananimal, automat, a caca machine if you will... therefore such being can never be or defeat the concept of a purpose in exitance beyond causation...or the concept of a human soul.

I cannot possibly continue engaging your non-sense because I would be violating a basic principle: The argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained... Your arguments are absurd at the least because you have not read the previous postings and came to the blog swinging at whatever you found...Your arguments are incoherent at best, you are unable to read, to make matters worse you are arguing against your own self... You obviously lack critical thinking skills... it may be because you do not how to read well yet...lack reason and coherence... I do not want to stop you from beating your own self up...it would be unethical on my behalf. Perhaps beating your own self up might help you come back to your senses... get new reading glasses also... and go have some icecream with soup in Vegas... I won't tell anyone.

@Basque

Your writing is about as clear as Gene Ray of TimeCube. Moreover, you link to Discover Institute Pages. You appear to not understand science nor the philosophy of science in any way, shape, or form and have an inability to make any sort of cogent argument.

You seem to be little more than a troll.

@Basque
Are you serious about which came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither came first, they evolved together. Sorry, was just reading your post and that just sort of stuck out.
Oh yeah, way to put Hitler and Darwin in the same sentance, they teach you to do that in seminary :P

Corey or Teapot?

Schizoid personality disorder? I would love to engage your attempt to pretend an argument; but first, it must be a rational one. Your attempt is beyond insipid. Where do you see the word seminary? are you "seeing things" now? I garantee you that if you come to the rational arena I would debate you... before that and where you are now I can't reach... nobody could.

By the way, as one in full defeat as you are; you didn't engage any of my points propossed. Give me a rational argument and stop beating yourself up with non-sense and I will give you run for your money. If your sentencing structure is not even rational to start with... This is a blog about ID and the national debate of God (If ID involved) and Science and a profesor named Guillermo Gonzalez... I hate to have to spell it for you but you are clueless.

You write words and fail to engage them...like a fish without backbone and out of water... Sort of like Callicles arguing with Socrates in Gorgias...Pure BS and no substance..which by the way..he also supported the idea of Natural law as you do.

You continue pissing yourself and still out of the buckett... That idol of yours, Gene Ray, is an atheist; I am not at all. You continue beating yourself up; please stop. The beginning of this blog by Michael Lemonick cites Guillermo Gozalez and the ID issue and the Discovery institute and the astronomy papers by Gonzalez HENCE the link... Stop drinking, stop the psychotropics... don't beat yourself up... Look for professional help!

--Vulgar and full of personal attacks. You need to clean up your act, Richard, or you'll be prohibited from posting.
M.L.

ML

You forgot or purposely ignored the previous postings that I responded to (Corey or Teapot or whatever this person's name is). By all means that could be considered vulgar and personal attack without rationale; although you failed to address it.

When you make a posting, could you do it OUTSIDE my post and/or after my post; or any other post. At times it appears as if you are a part of the post made.

Also, you said that Einstein did not engage the ID issue. Here is a link to articles published by Time I believe, and Einstein seems to be quite affected and even in support for the most part for the concept of God/Religion; yet you seem to rule it out without even a comment on a previous post. Click on my name to open the link I am referring to.

--I opened the link. You seem to have missed the last 60 years or so worth of Einstein scholarship. Einstein's concept of God was nothing like what you seem to think, or for that matter what the incurious journalists of the 1930s seemed to think.
M.L.

Michael L:

This text waspublished by TIME magazine. Please follow this lnk: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1607298,00.html

You can also click on my name to open this link I am referring to.

Michael, I love and respect science a great deal. I do not agee with the current trend of erasing and removing God from everything and everywhere just to satisfy the athesit scientist community. I know many great persons who could potentially be even better if they just not shut the door to the probability and possibility of God. Again: I do not believe in radical religionism or the imposition of religion either. We have plenty of religious fanatics in this country as it is even and despite the fact that many of this far right religionist even claim to have read and follow a book which does not teach fanatism (New Testament).

Michael, I would not dare to argue that Einstein at 50 years of age and into his late years was an atheist of any kind; not even remotely; in fact, pay close attention to his words and thoughts. Furthermore, his inclination towards Christianity and his clear inclination to be intrigued by Jesus Christ...Einstein refers to the order in the universe and what he calls "The mind of God"...This was published by TIME magazine itself April 5th 2007. Here is a portion of the text published:

"...Einstein did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase a profound faith in, and reverence for, the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws. Around the time he turned 50, he began to articulate more clearly--in various essays, interviews and letters--his deepening appreciation of his belief in God, although a rather impersonal version of one. One particular evening in 1929, the year he turned 50, captures Einstein's middle-age deistic faith. He and his wife were at a dinner party in Berlin when a guest expressed a belief in astrology. Einstein ridiculed the notion as pure superstition. Another guest stepped in and similarly disparaged religion. Belief in God, he insisted, was likewise a superstition.

At this point the host tried to silence him by invoking the fact that even Einstein harbored religious beliefs. "It isn't possible!" the skeptical guest said, turning to Einstein to ask if he was, in fact, religious. "Yes, you can call it that," Einstein replied calmly. "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."

Shortly after his 50th birthday, Einstein also gave a remarkable interview in which he was more revealing than he had ever been about his religious sensibility. It was with George Sylvester Viereck, who had been born in Germany, moved to America as a child and then spent his life writing gaudily erotic poetry, interviewing great men and expressing his complex love for his fatherland. Einstein assumed Viereck was Jewish. In fact, Viereck proudly traced his lineage to the family of the Kaiser, and he would later become a Nazi sympathizer who was jailed in America during World War II for being a German propagandist.

Viereck began by asking Einstein whether he considered himself a German or a Jew. "It's possible to be both," replied Einstein. "Nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of mankind."

Should Jews try to assimilate? "We Jews have been too eager to sacrifice our idiosyncrasies in order to conform."

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

--After much huffing, puffing and linking, you have managed to present n evidence whatever that Einstein supported what we now call "Intelligent Design," in which the laws of nature, which Einstein DID revere, are inadequate and thus need to be tweaked every so often to make things turn out right.

As I've said before, many scientists are devout believers. The vast majority of these think Intelligent Design is a crock. So do I. So, I'm quite sure, would Einstein have. What kind of an incompetent Creator would have been unable to put together natural laws that weren't good enough by themselves?

Just because a gifted scientist,no matter who they are, believes that a Christian or any other God exists does not in any way confirm the presence of such a being or power. I am an agnostic who does not happen to believe that the world's religious traditions have actually revealed God.

Why do I say that? Because all of these myths stories are incongruous with the universe that is being revealed through science and human knowledge. Literally these stories are no longer relevant to modern knowledege in how we have discovered the universe operates. Ethical values are something entirely attainablethrough human consensus and need no supernatural origins to give them validity.

These old stories originated from a time when humans had little idea of the breadth and complexity of the universe they were part of.

We have no credible evidence of such a God,only the very subjective,personal interpretations of what we believe is God.

I believe that religious faith should not be excluded from scrutiny,especially because of how religion tries to influence the affairs of human society. Religious faith must prove that it has empirical,reproducable substance to be a supreme arbiter of human affairs. So far it has come up incredibly short on that quality.

Religion needs to SHOW US ALL A COMMON reference that we can all agree on as truly God. But unfortuately, God is not something yet that we can empirically prove,so for now religion should unequivocally stay out of science,public education and politics because religion is something so highly personal and not something universally understood as the same thing for all humans.

JL:

Quite a simplified viewed of the world you have presented and perhaps the product of limited information. Also, there is a great deal of out of fact and out of context statements. When I say limited information, I am referring to the common day disease of excluding God WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF HIS INEXISTANCE. Perhaps to an atheist this is more conceivable than for an agnostic...the Agnostic, despite his handicap, he is in many instances open to the possibility of God. You claim to be an agnostic but God is nowhere to be found in your propossition...How is that?

JL, first you praise reasearch and the great scientist (Einstein) not before the disclaimer that if they so happen to believe in God is of no concequence to this story (Your argument of who cares if they belived or not). Well, it is of full consequence ERGO the issue between ID and science.

JL, have you read any of the previous postings and discussions or did you just arrived to this post? Please read the previous posts; what you wrote clearly says that perhaps you missed the train of thought here.

Our universities today, are producing a mass number of persons who recite the same serial poem "God does not exist there is no empirical evidence" ...Yet, it is the same current trend in science that has failed to make the discoveries than men from antiquity and any past eras were able to discover....For instance, today we have mapped the human DNA (HGP) yet we still do not have vaccines or cures for most of human affliction (disease). Jonas Sulk would have had a party with so much data that we have today... yet, our current men of science are indeed stagnant...despite so many discoveries we do not seem to be creating anything more than treatments for symptoms and no cures. Right now there is a pill in the market for anything you want except for cures...This is the product of the same handicapped "God does not exist we don't have empirical evidence" mentality. We are stagnant in a world that has had such great discoveries latelly... go to the medical field and you will find the greatest of dinassours in white coats. Scholars of trivia, they can recite the entire Medical Enciclopedia including the atheist hymn of "God does not exist we don't have empirical evidence..." BUT they do not appear to be critical thinkers... Assuming they were indeed critical thinkers, perhaps we would have had more action with results (cures) and less forplay with treatments for symptoms. There is treatment for HIV, Herpes, but no vaccine...no cure...and more possible treatments in the pipe... but no cure yet. There is treatment for hyperlipidemia...statins and God knows what else...BUT, no cure for hyperlipidemia... No cure for Insulin dependant persons, no cure por obesity (major factor in Diabetes type B or many times insulin resistant individuals...) BUT, no cure.

In a world that moves forward at a faster pace and speed everyday, we have managed to create more anti-depressant medications and more crystalized science than at any time in or history... and indeed this goes hand in hand with more atheist entering the scientific community and even the product of a Godless science. THIS is indeed intrinsically tied to the removal of God from everywhere starting with the scientific field...The product? Less cures, less hapiness, more depression, actually less of everything that is of value to the human spirit...Perhaps the common day atheist might conclude we should all be taking Prozac since real happines is a fictional state since no one has ever put real hapiness under a microscope therefore there is no empirical evidence that it exist...so let's all get a prozac presciption...INSTEAD of excercise, prayer, personal communion and more human contact.

RELIGION HAS SHOWN A TRUE REFERENCE WHERE WE CAN ALL AGREE. Such proof is not in a lab but indeed where the rest of what is of value for the human spirit is: in the greatest precepts and ideals and in the metaphysical field... READ all previous post before you answer this one please. Hence the failure by the atheist science to find God in Montana....

By the way, engage all that I have satted and argued on behalf of prior to this and here in this post. Many of what I have propossed has gone without response ecause the athist science find it clear impossible to respond to it...so the best strategy is to avoid a mined field of reasons under a different approach than the insipid "I can't see God therefore he must not exist..."

We are already underminding the respect for humanlife as it is. Can you imagine a world where God disappears? Empoverished and gloomy sad days full of hunger and stagnation...crystalized failure, without future just like the soviet union of atheist Carl Marx.

"Many of what I have propossed has gone without response ecause the athist science find it clear impossible to respond to it..."

Richard, do you really think that you are making any real argument here? Or, maybe, you think that entire "athist science" has gathered here to battle you (of course they are cornered, nothing to say)?

Richard, do you beleive our world is 6000 years old? How about all the other human species found? If the pyramids are 5K years old, how did we change so fast?
If we don't have cures, why do they subscribe medicine to people? Should there be a different form of treatments/science?

Richard,

I agree with others that you are not really making what is thought of as logical arguments, but subjective assertions that are your own interpretations of reality. You believe these things(God, Jesus, salvation)in your heart but cannot show us real evidence to back up your assertions. I may make personal assumptions and subjective assertions also,but I want my arguments rely on the physical evidence that science and human knowledge has produced as fact.

Science cannot prove nor dispove God and that is why I am an agnostic and that is the premise of my arguments about having no empirical evidence. It is reasonable for humans to want evidence for their beliefs and not just accept things on faith or because you,a book or a preacher say these things are true.

I acknowledge that science does not have all answers and I certainly do not proclaim to know the "truth" which to me is impossible because we do not have access to all possible information ("truths")in this 14 billion light year time-space universe that we are just a very, very small part of.

You and billions of others see God in many different ways without a common empirical reference. These mental images are non-verbatim, non-transferrable thoughts,synapses of your brain, which do not qualify as