Evidence for God from Science

http://www.pssiinternational.com/

A list of doctors and physicians:

http://www.pssiinternational.com/list.pdf

Godslanguage,

There are three things I see why only certain scientists only promote evolution..

1. Accountability. If they can get rid of the God argument, then they can only be accountable to themselves and not God. That way they can do what they please...

2. Laws. It is currently against the law in the U.S. to teach ANYTHING besides evolution in a public setting. Teaching creationism or ID will get you fired.. I know a few scientists in my area here that already have. Certain evolutionary scientists will make sure these laws stay in place regardless of the facts.

3. Money. Certain scientists think that teaching anything besides evolution will dip into their funds.. In other words its the "MONEY." Just like our greedy oil companies, we have some greedy scientists..

Thanks for your links...

Thanks for the response Gman.

You are absolutely right Gman in every aspect. Alot scientists or biologists or ND'st are definetely in it for the money, under certain circumstances, that usually means/includes repelling any competitive theories that present themselves by buying out the secular media (National Geographic, Scientific American, CNN, BBC etc...) to promoting some of they're ideologies. Frequently, I hear ND'st making claims that creationists or church leaders are in it strictly for the money, this is ridiculous to propose such a thing for the majority of christian leaders, churches and/or organizations I believe this is not they're primary purpose, its to spread the word of the gospel.

Creationism/ID in my personal opinion should be taught at least a minimal if not in science classrooms the equivalency to general education courses that are taken as optional courses. I mean the garbage courses that I have taken back in college are just plain stupid and are more philosophical and pointless then anything I have ever seen and are being taught in college classrooms this very moment. Something as worthwhile discussing, a big topic in America such as Creationism/ID would definetely be more interesting than a stupid philosophy class talking about how Ghandi is so much more humble then Jesus Christ. Another kind of situtation I heard in the media about this kind of bolony which I recently heard appeared on NBC on the Conan Obrien show which the guest sang a song about how Jesus Christ was "gay". This is kind of off topic stuff but for anyone that hasn't heard about this...you could probably look this up on google, and the lyrics by the way are pathetic. Someone else put it well, this should absolutely be untolerable by the Christian community, and I agree.

There are the scientists who feel that science is under attack by creationists and ID'st and it is in the "interest" of science to prevent any unscientific theories to be promoted or teached in schools/colleges/universitites. Obviously, creationism is depicted as a mere religious theory which I agree should not be taught in science classrooms because most of the time it takes scientific data and interprets it from a biblical perspective. Even if the data does agree there is no reason to make people interpret scientific data this way, but realizing that there is another perspective of interpretation of the data should at the very least be known of, and this is where the general education courses would come in (in my opinion ofcourse). Because while ideologists are teaching subjects in colleges that don't rely on agreement between even the scientific community, political disagreements, moral disagreements, philosophical disagreements etc... they are allowed to promote they're own ideologies, and hold on...wait...as long as they're not christian of course or they have anything to do with the bible or interpretation of scientific data currently.

The links obviously show that there is a disagreement between knowledgeable people in medical fields between doctors/physicians/scientists. I suspect, the ND'st first step would be to find out each of the doctors/ph.../sci... historical backgrounds. Such as what god they believe in or pick on things such as what college or university they went too etc... Possibly the ND'st might conclude that they would need to be re-educated or perhaps be taught by Richard Dawkins himself. The fact is that there is a disagreement between the scientific community about evolution in general...claiming just because one part believes they know it all and the other doesn't but should come to reason is fairly indicative that one side is trying to achieve something they wish too but have come to the realization the other side isn't stupid enough.

Alot scientists or biologists or ND'st are definetely in it for the money

Certainly a lot are.
I know (very good) researchers who work for about 15000$ a year.

I personally would prevent my children to attend a school in which ID (or any other garbage) is tought in science class.
This is not to defend science. It would be to defend my children.

I wish we could force IDs to live on the outcomes of their theory and force scientists to live with their outcomes of science.
I think this would soon end the debate.
By natural selection.

|-o-|

BTW Are physicians scientists?

Gman wrote:Godslanguage,

There are three things I see why only certain scientists only promote evolution..

certain, of course, being the majority of scientists worldwide.

Gman wrote: 1. Accountability. If they can get rid of the God argument, then they can only be accountable to themselves and not God. That way they can do what they please...

Trust me, Gman, most scientists arent like this. i've met quite a few. there are many scientists who had no idea of a christian (or any) god while growing up. they don't feel they have to justify anything. they are only doing as they have done since childhood--exploring the world around them in a naive way.

but don't take me wrong, sometimes naivete is a good characteristic. [good] scientists are naive because they do not have expectations for a result. now, i will agree there are many corrupt and/or crackpot scientists out there, but there are also many corrupt and/or crackpot theists out there. its just human nature.

also, scientists seem to adhere to a different set of morals, though morals nonetheless. its more of an analytic morality--they try to observe their surroundings and predict what is about to happen, then they form hypotheses on what their possible actions might cause, then choose from those possibilities based on what will achieve their intent most accurately. they get used to having to decide on their own instead of sticking to a set of black and white rules.

and, of course, the instinctual set of morals that every person is born with, even though they are all slightly different. but we are all born with a sense of what we should and shouldn't do--its called instinct.

Gman wrote: 2. Laws. It is currently against the law in the U.S. to teach ANYTHING besides evolution in a public setting. Teaching creationism or ID will get you fired.. I know a few scientists in my area here that already have. Certain evolutionary scientists will make sure these laws stay in place regardless of the facts.

relax, please... it takes time to get a theory accepted by enough of the scientific community to become teachable. remember how long it took evolution to become accepted? it takes time because enough motivated people have to stumble upon a reason to support it, whether they are right or wrong. think of it this way, if Creationism or ID is to become a respected science, then they must start from scratch--they can't use anything that evolution has 'discovered'. so it will take some time for their theories to become developed enough to teach children.

but there are also the many groups who see (correctly) that ID and creationism researchers are almost completely comprised of christians. this means that many will take ID as a christian theory and so it won't be accepted as science (scientists like diversity).

Gman wrote: 3. Money. Certain scientists think that teaching anything besides evolution will dip into their funds.. In other words its the "MONEY." Just like our greedy oil companies, we have some greedy scientists..

again, you take the effects of a human trait and blame it on science.

yes, this is true for some, but not for most. if you knew any real scientists, you'd be surprised.

the ones who get paid big money are the ones working on specialized project funded by companies who need their research to develop products or services.

if you met any true scientists you'd retract your previous statement. they don't care about money because they've been doing what they're doing since before they were paid to do it. they do it because its their lifestyle--they enjoy figuring things out merely by observation and measured interaction.

when you're doing real science, you don't get paid very much because no one these days can make money off the migratory patterns of seagulls or the such. and even if you do make a lot of money as a scientist, most of the time its in a position such as engineering or physics, where the work you do is constantly compared to how it works in reality.

do you want to know the biggest reason why scientists support evolution?

because they're used to it. if its been that way for a while, then humans will always take it for granted. they don't care enough to look any deeper or question why its accepted as it is because its work thats 'already been done'. and who wants to do work thats already been done? seems like a waste of time, right? wrong, as you know.

so, in conclusion, try to keep in mind that most people believe in something only because they've been exposed to it so much over time, that it becomes fact to them.

RoyLennigan wrote:do you want to know the biggest reason why scientists support evolution?

because they're used to it. if its been that way for a while, then humans will always take it for granted. they don't care enough to look any deeper or question why its accepted as it is because its work thats 'already been done'. and who wants to do work thats already been done? seems like a waste of time, right? wrong, as you know.

so, in conclusion, try to keep in mind that most people believe in something only because they've been exposed to it so much over time, that it becomes fact to them.

Absolutely.

You need to post more often.

RoyLennigan wrote:certain, of course, being the majority of scientists worldwide.

Great another word twister... Obviously not all scientists think like this and not all scientists are evolutionists.. If you are confused on what the word "certain" means look it up in the dictionary please...

Roy wrote:Trust me, Gman, most scientists arent like this. i've met quite a few. there are many scientists who had no idea of a christian (or any) god while growing up. they don't feel they have to justify anything. they are only doing as they have done since childhood--exploring the world around them in a naive way.

You don't know me so don't judge me.. Accountability is something that ALL people struggle with... I know some scientists who don't even know what God is and they are living a more Godly life than some Christians I know... Maybe even more than myself..

Roy wrote:also, scientists seem to adhere to a different set of morals, though morals nonetheless. its more of an analytic morality--they try to observe their surroundings and predict what is about to happen, then they form hypotheses on what their possible actions might cause, then choose from those possibilities based on what will achieve their intent most accurately. they get used to having to decide on their own instead of sticking to a set of black and white rules.

Scientists seem to adhere to a different set of morals? That's funny, I never saw separate laws for scientists in our court system.. Again not all scientists are evolutionists.. Some are theists too..

Black and white rules huh? So tell me, what are the rules against murder? Is it wrong or grey?

Roy wrote:and, of course, the instinctual set of morals that every person is born with, even though they are all slightly different. but we are all born with a sense of what we should and shouldn't do--its called instinct.

I heard that Adolf Hitler had a lot of instinct too...

Roy wrote:relax, please...

You relax.. Why does ID scare you so?

Roy wrote:but there are also the many groups who see (correctly) that ID and creationism researchers are almost completely comprised of christians. this means that many will take ID as a christian theory and so it won't be accepted as science (scientists like diversity).

Scientists like diversity huh? The case for ID is for intelligent design. Let people decide for themselves who they think that designer was.. America is a secular nation.. We live in a democracy not a jail cell..

Roy wrote:again, you take the effects of a human trait and blame it on science.

No on "certain" scientists... Not science itself...

Roy wrote:yes, this is true for some, but not for most. if you knew any real scientists, you'd be surprised.

Oh so you agree with me..

Roy wrote:the ones who get paid big money are the ones working on specialized project funded by companies who need their research to develop products or services.

if you met any true scientists you'd retract your previous statement. they don't care about money because they've been doing what they're doing since before they were paid to do it. they do it because its their lifestyle--they enjoy figuring things out merely by observation and measured interaction.

No but some are fearful that their public projects will get cut if they start supporting the case for ID.. And if their projects get cut, no money. And no money means no jobs..

What I believe about the case for ID will actually strengthen their jobs and projects. Not cut jobs. I believe it will FUND them more money.. Creationism or teachings from the Bible should not be taught in a public setting.. (Although I would like it that way perhaps..)

Roy wrote:when you're doing real science, you don't get paid very much because no one these days can make money off the migratory patterns of seagulls or the such. and even if you do make a lot of money as a scientist, most of the time its in a position such as engineering or physics, where the work you do is constantly compared to how it works in reality.

For the most part I agree with you.. But I don't think bringing ID onto the turf won't cut scientists funds..

Roy wrote:do you want to know the biggest reason why scientists support evolution?

because they're used to it. if its been that way for a while, then humans will always take it for granted. they don't care enough to look any deeper or question why its accepted as it is because its work thats 'already been done'. and who wants to do work thats already been done? seems like a waste of time, right? wrong, as you know.

Is that why only 1 in 4 Americans accept Darwinian evolution as the whole truth? No most of it started with the Scopes trial in 1925.

Roy wrote:so, in conclusion, try to keep in mind that most people believe in something only because they've been exposed to it so much over time, that it becomes fact to them.

So what are you implying? It's been around for so many years that it has solid ground and completely factual? Keep in mind that the Scopes trial in 1925 was the movement that forbade the teaching of creationism in any state-funded educational system.. And it is amazing to consider that the Scopes trial lasted only 12 days.. Hardly enough time to get all the facts.. And it was lost because William Jennings Bryan dropped the ball and couldn't defend the Christian faith not the other way around..

Also ask any real scientist.. Darwinian evolution is a theory not a fact...

Also ask any real scientist.. Darwinian evolution is a theory not a fact...

I did and I got a different answer.
Your keeping supporting the idea that scientists are divided about Intelligent design is funny.
Even Gould (who is known to be critic to evolution) recognised that evolution is a fact. Of course it contains some theory, but GMan you are claiming that we do not share ancestors with Chimps!
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/ ... heory.html

Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their [ID] own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

Your standards about scientific theories do seem similar to Behe's ones.
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/off ... Fid=dn8178
Not a compliment.

If scientists are doubting that you will not have problem in providing us with alist of scientist claiming that we do not share ancestors with chimps, don't you!




See also:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeacti ... 1169651835

25.000 or so!

Angel wrote:I did and I got a different answer.
Your keeping supporting the idea that scientists are divided about Intelligent design is funny.
Even Gould (who is known to be critic to evolution) recognised that evolution is a fact. Of course it contains some theory, but GMan you are claiming that we do not share ancestors with Chimps!
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/ ... heory.html

Well look at that... Since we are talking about previous claims (my previous claims about chimps in a different post), I found a different answer too. The funny thing about this one is that it came from you..

Quote Angel: "Scientific knowledge about origins of life is quite approximate and yet not based on solid ground."

Who's divided now?

Well... you keep hitting on your head.
Here and in other threads.

What the hell has abiogenesis to do with the fact that we share a common ancestor with chimps?

In my country we have an expression which sounds like "let's go mess" to refer to someone who makes a mess on purpose in order to avoid to admit to be wrong.

It seems to me that is what you are doing.
My opinion of course.
Cheers

angel wrote:What the hell has abiogenesis to do with the fact that we share a common ancestor with chimps?

Because abiogenesis is the first in the series that lead to the theory of common ancestry.

August wrote:

angel wrote:What the hell has abiogenesis to do with the fact that we share a common ancestor with chimps?

Because abiogenesis is the first in the series that lead to the theory of common ancestry.

Common ancestry does not depend on abiogenisis.

Life is a given, for example life could have been created and from there diverge. The origin of life is a separate matter.

Think of it like a series of roads. There are several possible paths to life.
Creation.
Seeding from space.
Abiogenisis.

They all reach a common point, the foundation of life.
Regardless of the actual mechanism this (the foundation of life), is the starting point for the theory of common ancestry.

Another way to look at it is like cooking. The ingredients for a recipe are a given. Irregardless of the path the ingredients took to get to the kitchen counter, the starting point of the recipe is with the ingredients themselves.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:

angel wrote:What the hell has abiogenesis to do with the fact that we share a common ancestor with chimps?

Because abiogenesis is the first in the series that lead to the theory of common ancestry.

Common ancestry does not depend on abiogenisis.

Life is a given, for example life could have been created and from there diverge. The origin of life is a separate matter.

Think of it like a series of roads. There are several possible paths to life.
Creation.
Seeding from space.
Abiogenisis.

They all reach a common point, the foundation of life.
Regardless of the actual mechanism this (the foundation of life), is the starting point for the theory of common ancestry.

Another way to look at it is like cooking. The ingredients for a recipe are a given. Irregardless of the path the ingredients took to get to the kitchen counter, the starting point of the recipe is with the ingredients themselves.

Which do you favor over the 3 bgood? The three possible paths to life? Is it a matter of being unsure? or unwise?

We are NOT discussing life origin here (in particular with GMan who argued against common ancestor).

WE ARE DISCUSSING EVOLUTION.

If you please imagine the first bacteria was designed. We are discussing the possibility that creation of the first bacteria was the only divine action.

That is what Darwinism is about.

angel wrote:We are NOT discussing life origin here (in particular with GMan who argued against common ancestor).

WE ARE DISCUSSING EVOLUTION.

If you please imagine the first bacteria was designed. We are discussing the possibility that creation of the first bacteria was the only divine action.

That is what Darwinism is about.

I don't have time to debate this. Go read what evolutionists say:
Theodosius Dobzhansky: "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, the biological, and human or cultural development. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."

Julian Huxley: "The concept of evolution was soon [after its appearance] extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of the stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social athropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all pervading process. Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect to evolution in general."

Robert Jastrow: "Basic building blocks of life--amino acids and nucleotides--were made in earth's atmosphere by the passage of lightening bolts through primitive gases. Then they drained out of the atmosphere into the oceans and made a kind of "chicken soup" in which collisions occurred. Eventually, the first self-replicating molecule was formed by accident, and as soon as a molecule could divide and reproduce itself, you had a magic law broken for the first time."

Wynn & Wiggins: "Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the “spontaneous action of Nature” into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but... Aristotle's hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation/natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology's Theory of Evolution".

John Waldon: "The term "evolution" is used to refer to the general theory that all life on earth evolved from non-living matter and progressed to more complex forms in time; hence, it refers to macroevolution and not microevolution."

One of the most vocal supporters of evolution in the USA is the National Academy of Sciences. They publish this:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1541.html#description
"The field of planetary biology and chemical evolution draws together experts in astronomy, paleobiology, biochemistry, and space science who work together to understand the evolution of living systems.
This field has made exciting discoveries that shed light on how organic compounds came together to form self-replicating molecules--the origin of life."

Stop playing games, Angel. If there was a universal common ancestor, created or not, please describe it, and state what characteristics it had. And if that was "created", why not every other ancestor? You also have to show that the common ancestor was front-loaded with enough genetic information to explain all future species. You then have to account for the fact that even if all of that is granted, the Darwinian mechanisms of mutation, gene drift and selection will destroy any such front-loaded and necessarily suppressed information. Furthermore, you then have to demonstrate the causal, developmental or determinant relationships between that genetic information and speciation.

The only way the evolutionary mechanisms can make sense is if life evolved from non-life by the same mechanisms. Under any other circumstances those mechanisms will destroy life, not promote it.