Evidence for God from Science

Ernst Mayr has a powerfrlul bias and I thinks he's a bit senile; he's around a hundred years old and says anyone who doesn't believe evolution is an idiot, I wouldn't listen to much he says.

When I want my car repaired, I don't go to an accountant. Silly as it sounds, I have this idea that people who understand the subject are more likely to know it.

As Scott Adams has observed proponents of ID observing, scientists don't believe in evolution because what they are studying proves it (quite the opposite sometimes), they accept it because they were taught it's true, and they assume that others in other branches of science have found evidence for it.

Ernst Mayr has a powerfrlul bias and I thinks he's a bit senile; he's around a hundred years old and says anyone who doesn't believe evolution is an idiot, I wouldn't listen to much he says.

If he's saying things to you, it would be remarkable. He's dead.

He was, however one of the greatest minds on philosophy of science. Trained formally as a biologist and a philosopher, he was unique.

Jbuza wrote:Yes, Bgood, IF only I could see clearly I would accept evolution, I know. He is caliming that being subjected to a bunch of biology courses, all of which will tell you that eovlution happened, that you will be more likely to believe evolution happened. There is nothing there. I am not arguing that it isn't true, I really don't know how all the biologists feel, but I am stating that it isn't even remotely worth considering as an evidence that evolution actually took place.

Again no one was claiming it was evidence.

Yehren wrote:

Ernst Mayr has a powerfrlul bias and I thinks he's a bit senile; he's around a hundred years old and says anyone who doesn't believe evolution is an idiot, I wouldn't listen to much he says.

If he's saying things to you, it would be remarkable. He's dead.

He was, however one of the greatest minds on philosophy of science. Trained formally as a biologist and a philosopher, he was unique.

You know what I meant, in his book. I think it is What Evolution Is.

Personally, I think that the existence of people like Kurt Wise (a very intelligent, well-educated, God-loving, and sane person, who is a YE creationist) shows that it is possible to reject evolution without being evil, stupid, ignorant, or crazy.

He simply says that the evidence would have no effect on his religious beliefs.

He's honest. Who can argue with that? His preconceptions about what the world rule his conclusions.

That's unusual among scientists, but it's not impossible.

"If he's saying things to you, it would be remarkable. He's dead.

He was, however one of the greatest minds on philosophy of science. Trained formally as a biologist and a philosopher, he was unique."

So was Richard Goldschmidtt. He gave us the Hopefull Monster. Mayr thought it was a ridiculous idea. Gould et al ressurected it with the name of punctuated equlibria.

Theere is no way to reconcile evolution with a Biblically derived religion.

"My particular religious beliefs or yours notwithstanding, it is a fact that in the scientific world of the late twentieth century, the displacement of God by Darwinian forces is almost complete. This view is not always articulated openly, perhaps for fear of offending the faithful, but the literature of science is not a good place to keep secrets. Scientific writing, especially on evolution, shows this displacement clearly."

Miller, Kenneth - A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (New York: Cliff Street Books, 1999) p. 15

Professor of Biology
Brown University

BTW: Natural selection creates nothing...it preserves.