[...] its troops in defense of the creationism bills. They accuse Florida Citizens for Science of mobilizing the humanists. Funny. Many of our members are Christians. For example, our president is a deacon in his church [...]

Do you honestly believe Newton, of all people, was “anti-science?”

More to the point … I notice you have a web site. You can credit science for that. Just the fact that you can communicate with a global audience by sending electrons down copper wire confirms a lot of what quantum physics has spent the past century working on. Do you use penicillin when you get sick, or do you pray?

There’s nothing inherently anti-religious about science. I’m always puzzled when the most extremely religious declare war on science … especially the ones that don’t live in a cave honestly eschewing it.

Forrest,

Your other comment was deleted. Please check my Rules of Engagement regarding personal attacks.

You make my point for me – Science and the law upon which it is based were created by a rational being and therefore, as a believer, I can not be any more anti-science than any of the other believers who were and are scientists. Babbage, Pasteur, Newton, Kepler, all scientists and all believers in the same Creator God I believe in.

Thanks for stopping by.

OC

I made no personal attack; I’m not sure what you’re referring to?

Newton, Kepler, Pascal and Boyle were pre-Darwin. I know Newton was brilliant, but expecting him to come up with evolution singlehandedly several centuries before Darwin managed it is a bit much, isn’t it? Especially since he never made any particular study into biology? I mean, seriously, do you think that proves something?

Creationism isn’t science, even when it’s Newton believing it. It’s still religion, because it’s still based on ‘revelation’ rather than empirical evidence.

And as for some of Darwin’s contemporaries not accepting evolution, change in science takes time, even with the best of people — and I note, again, that Kelvin and Babbage weren’t biologists, and Pasteur was more of a chemist (albeit a biochemist).

In the 20th century, I know there’s Fred Hoyle (who was still deserving of the title ’scientist’ for his work in astronomy, yes). There aren’t many others, though.

Forrest,

I use antibiotics and pray. The stuff you’re talking about I don’t disagree with. Observational science I have no problem with. Its the origin or historical science I have problems with. I don’t know of any double-blind studies covering the creation of the universe – can you name any repeatable studies? We didn’t observe the physical universe being created any more than we did the creation of life. I think its reasonable to question Darwinism based on scientific concerns because is not observational science.

I never declared war on science, just the censoring of discussion of science:)

Lynet,

Its funny, I was just sitting in my living room with a live Phd (molecular/microbiology) who believes in God, God’s creation of life, and has problems accepting Darwinism. Now, I know I draw a different crowd, being Christian and interested in these things, but you gotta admit that’s funny. It doesn’t prove anything, but its funny.

I think that believing in Darwin’s theory is not and should not be a prerequisite for being considered “scientific.” Newton believed Creationism and this belief did not impede his scientific research. Why is it that now anyone who doesn’t believe in Darwinism can’t be a scientist or is at best characterized as anti-science? I don’t buy it.

OC

Before Darwin, if you believed in Creation, it wasn’t science, but nor was it in direct contradiction to a well-supported scientific theory. By contrast, someone who could not be moved to look upon the conciseness and power of the idea of natural selection and the stunning agreements between theories mapped out prior to the study of animal genomes and the evidence given by the genomes themselves seems, well, perhaps lacking in scientific sensibility.

That said, as my comment about Fred Hoyle implies, I’m not saying it’s impossible to be a scientist and think evolution unlikely. I’m just saying creationism isn’t a scientific position, and evolution is a powerful and well-tested theory. As a result, those who would like to pretend that creationism is science are a threat to science because they try to erode the notion of science to the point where it no longer becomes synonymous with empirically supported ideas.

No, we only observed the moment one second afterwards when the Cosmic Microwave Background was produced

Similarly, I wouldn’t call it anti-scientific to think that God caused the Big Bang. I just wouldn’t call it science, either. Doubting the Big Bang itself, on the other hand, is permissible but it’s best if you have an alternative theory supported by better evidence than ‘this book says so’. And don’t try to teach it to little kids in science class until you do.

(Mind you, the initial ‘big bang’ part of it is the least well supported part of what gets referred to as the Big Bang theory. Let’s just say there will be mutterings if you try to dispute our picture of what happened after the first 10^(-40) seconds after the hypothesised big bang without some good reason).