P.S.
To Neil Johnson
Your words are one of the most sane here, and your self-restrain and decency are pretty good. I second your and Dr. Behe’s vision of the problem.
Thank all of you, gentlemen.

In other words, all the above arguments could be reduced to the simple fact that the powers of darkness are terrified beyond comprehension because they know that their time is short. In a last-ditch and desperate effort to undo all the good that God has done, they stir up the masses to protest anything worthy.

The gays protest the Prop 8 ban on gay marriage in California. The feminists protest all things male in general. The atheists protest Christianity and all forms of it. The macro-evolutionists protest the intelligent design proponents.

The shrill voices of hate and fear protest everything that even slightly suggests a coming end of the age, a return of Christ in power and glory, a final judgment of all the living and the dead. For the believer no fear is present in any of these events. For the one shackled to unbelief, all these events stir up terror and rage and hatred beyond control. This anger goes much further than the insanity of political correctness. These violent reactions are truly a spiritual battle between invisible forces: the powers of light against the powers of darkness.

In that sense, Bob is correct: no point exists in saying or responding to anything further. It’s a done deal, “over and out.”

I refuse to respond or comment further–it’s a waste of time and energy to dialogue with deliberate dishonesty. Over and out . . .

“Would anyone like to question this positive empirical evidence for the positively proveable ability of intelligence to create complex interactive mechanical systems.”

Would anyone like to explain the validity of employing an analogy as evidence and why creationists use analogies so often instead of real data?

By “these arguments” I mean closely parsing sentences like
a defense lawyer and coming up “gotchas” and some kind of contrived and convoluted arguments to claim the there are
still unexplained things.

Most of the die hard theists will accept these gotchas and
arguments however contrived and convoluted they are. But there
is this vast majority of people who are told “there is a
controversy, there are unexplained questions, there is some
doubt” and they take you at face value. These are not the
die-hard theists. Some of them will eventually dig in and
start examining the arguments. When they see how easily
ID falls apart and how vacuous it is, they will turn against
you. IDists are ceding and giving up on a vast majority of nominally committed Christians. The ID movement will turn
out to be a great detriment to Churches in general. See
what happened in Florida science standards public
comments. 80% of the respondents are supporting evolution.
If you are a theist and if you believe Church is needed
to provide a moral compass to the society, you must see how
damaging Behe will turn out to be for it in the long run.

Another ring species of some song birds.
Just abstracts are available on line.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6818/full/409333a0.html

So what do you think?
Does ID do any research like these evo-bio guys do?

Look at what the Discovery Institute wants YOU to believe.
There is this ruling orthodoxy of Darwinists. They
are ruthless. They brook no dissent. There is this large
group of people who believe evolution is all bunkum but
are forced to be silent by this evil overlords. That is what
they want you to believe. And these guys who spend their
lifetime studying salamanders or warblers or gulls are
so easily silenced? They work for a pittance. The salary
for these academics are a joke compared to what they can
make in the private sector. And they play along be silent?
Even at the height of persecution during the inquisition
in the middle ages, ordinary folk stood up, and expressed
their dissent and died for their beliefs. You think these
professors and grad students keep quiet? With tenured jobs?
After seeing that Behe was not fired by Lehigh? After seeing how much money Behe is raking in by pandering to the
gallery? Come on Neil, this conspiracy theory
is a bigger joke than the Wide Right Wing Conspiracy
Hilary Clinton talked about.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

Shows how every intermediary could be a biotic reality.
Of course all these show how the eye COULD evolve now how it DID. And that might satisfy a few die-hard theists.
But these arguments stretch the credibility of ALL
theists and you will be abandoning not-so-die-hard
believers who would have liked a non-confrontational spiritual religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Let me see if I can find the frogs quickly.

1. You are changing the goal posts. The fundamental argument of IDist like Behe was, “how COULD such a complex organ evolve?
I can’t IMAGINE how!”. Then Dawkins comes along and show how it COULD evolve. How one could IMAGINE such a evolution. Now suddenly, you don’t want how it COULD, but how it DID. You parse the sentences like a lawyer trying to somehow find a justification of “reasonable doubt”. I repeat again, even if you PROVE evolution is all hocus pocus, it still does not prove ID. There is nothing in ID. No religion, No science, No predictions.

2. I have not come across the term “biotic reality” in evo-bio books. Googled for it and found numerous hits on anti-evolution websites. This term appears to be nothing more than viability dressed up to sound more imposing for the benefit of ignorant laymen. It is not a huge hole found in Dawkins’ books. In fact, Dawkins talks about it extensively. He says that every intermediary must be a viable life form. It should be able to fight and survive and reproduce. Also the lack of foresight of Natural Selection is also extensively mentioned in all evo-bio books, including The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins has more conditions for the gentle slope on the “other side” of the cliff. The surface must be monotonic, always rising, never falling or dipping.

3. Some sections of Dawkins’ books are very difficult read for non science students/people. He talks about “spaces”, an abstract mathematical term, to discuss all possible sea shell shapes, all possible musical tunes etc. Dennett talks about the Library of Mendel and a library of ALL possible books. I am not saying you are dumb. But you need to put serious effort to understand these concepts. At a minimum you should have done and remember two college level calculus
courses and a statistics and probability course. I don’t mean to brag, I scored in the top 1% in every competitive examn I took. And even I find Dawkins a tough and demanding read.

4. Coming back to the concept of “biotic reality”: There are extant species living right now that show the gradual change from one species to another, with every intermediate stage viable and reproducing. 1. Two gull species in England form a chain of gradual changes and intermediaries. 2. Two species of frogs in a lake shore in California show this gradual changes with every intermediary being a “biotic reality”. Need to hunt to find the references. If I have the patience and time to do it, I will come back and post it. You can google for them and find it yourself too if you are inclined.

5. It appears to me, you just read creationist websites debunking evolution, instead of the original authors. In all your trawling through them, why have you not yet come across any credible reason why, under ID, humans could not synthesize Vitamin C?

I’m glad to be of service.

Frankly, if I was going to recommend reading for the layperson, I’d recommend Sean Carroll over Dawkins. He is much more literate in the field that is giving the most exciting data right now, that being evo-devo. But I think I already did recommend him to you here…

As for relying on Dembski (or Dawkins, or Wells, or Carroll, or anybody), I can only repeat what I said before. Evidence, not quotes. In all cases. But that’s just me; I understand that most folks involved in this discussion are more prone to philosophizing and less prone to considering new evidence. I wish that was not the case, but I recognize that it really is.

It’s a culture war, not a discussion over the science. If we concerned ourselves only with the science, it would not be a discussion at all… So we both have to talk both languages.

“You seem to be taking Dawkins to task for an overactive imagination about ALL of the biological world, and I can see that point.”

and

“You hopefully can understand that Dawkins’ overstatements about all things cannot be applied to this particular thing.”

and

“Ok, how about this? I have no bloody idea what he is talking about in that section. But even though that seems critical to you, it is completely irrelevant to me.”

It was important to me as a laymen who gets his information from books like “The Blind Watchmaker” to get a sense of whether or not a working scientist (which I assume you are) agrees with how Dawkins approached the topic of evolution in this particular instance.

I thought his arguments, or rather speculations, were way over the top. You seem to agree with that. And that’s all I wanted someone to say in this thread. I have already been admonished not to rely too much on Dembski. It seems I should heed the same advice regarding Dawkins.

I know that intelligent design is not a mechanism. I am guilty of using a quick phrase as a convenience, much like we personify natural selection when we say natural selection “chooses”.

I have gone back to re-read your previous posts and have discovered, much to my embarrassment, I have misread or completely missed some things. For example, I missed the link to the bacterial flagellum, because I didn’t recognize it as a link. For that I apologize. That means it’s time for me to take a time out. I thank you for the time you have taken to respond. These discussions are always interesting, if not always fruitful.

I think that this other statement also needs to be addressed.

You wrote: “One definition of conceive is “imagine”. So the above phrase is true at it stands, but it makes for a vacuous argument. What will an imagined evolutionary sequence tell us about a real evolutionary sequence? It might be a good first step, but eventually we ought to be interested in a real evolutionary sequence.”

Science works in this instance by hypothesizing (aka “imagining”) a possible sequence. On the basis of that hypothesis, and using known mechanisms (mutation, common descent, gene transfer) we can then proceed to test that hypothesis with actual experiments, the outcomes of which have been predicted based on those mechanisms. If the outcomes are as predicted, support is generated for the hypothetical sequence of events. If not, the results usually suggest another hypothesis, which can be similarly tested. So the “imagining” is a valid first step, AND it is not just an excuse for ignoring a “real evolutionary sequence”, as you imply. It is a pathway toward an understanding of that real evolutionary sequence.

More critically, this only works if you have mechanisms to use for the predictive stage. We know many of the mechanisms of genetics. We know how descent works. We know how lateral gene transfer works. We can use that knowledge of the mechanisms to make predictions, e.g. IF this gene mutated in organism X at time Y, the results should be visible here as gene product Z. Absent mechanism, no predictions are possible. So if, as you claimed before, “the mechanism is intelligent design” (which is, by the way, not a mechanism), how do you proceed? Any sequence is possible. None can be predicted.

So when you say “eventually we ought to be interested in a real evolutionary sequence”, I would agree, but I admit that I also wonder if you really are interested in that sequence, or just in debunking the current best way to get there. Because if the latter is true, it will be incumbent upon you to give us a better method for gaining that understanding, and it is quite clear that ID is not that method.

You wrote: “For some reason you refuse to criticize Dawkins directly.”

Ok, how about this? I have no bloody idea what he is talking about in that section. But even though that seems critical to you, it is completely irrelevant to me.

Quotes, no matter how eminent the quotee, are not gospel truth, nor are they data. I honestly don’t care about quotes; I care about evidence.

And then there is this goal-post switch. You seem to be taking Dawkins to task for an overactive imagination about ALL of the biological world, and I can see that point. But then, even though you write “The subject is not the bacterial flagellum”, you return to the bacterial flagellum, about which we know a lot and don’t have to imagine much, to say “I absolutely agree with you that there is simply not enough information to give an hypothetical pathway of the detail we have for the bacterial flagellum.” That is simply wrong; I didn’t say that AFAIK, and I don’t believe it. Did you read that article on the bacterial flagellum that I linked to in a previous post? If you did, and if you paid attention to the EVIDENCE there, you hopefully can understand that Dawkins’ overstatements about all things cannot be applied to this particular thing.

Let me know when you have digested that article, and see if there are still concerns. If it still bothers you that we don’t KNOW every step in the sequence, I can’t help you, and you will never be satisfied.

But if that is the case, please apply that standard to your own explanation, whatever it is. What was the exact sequence by which the designer made the bacterial flagellum?????

It’s becoming apparent that we are beginning to talk past each other. I’ll try to explain where I am coming from one more time.

I have always considered Dawkins to be the premiere expositor of the theory of evolution of our time. If he can’t explain it so the layman can understand it, no one can, or so I thought.

So when I came upon those paragraphs where he summarized the theory, I was frankly suprised at the specultive nature of his arguments to the extent that I wanted to discuss my critique here. To put it another way, if you were an editor reviewing that particular text, what suggestions would make to change it or improve it or would you accept it as it is?

The subject is not the bacterial flagellum; the subject is Dawkins’s claim that prompted me to use that as an example.

Once more I consider the phrase “it is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between [a beginning and an end point in an evolutionary sequence]“.

“[I]t is always possible to conceive…”

One definition of conceive is “imagine”. So the above phrase is true at it stands, but it makes for a vacuous argument. What will an imagined evolutionary sequence tell us about a real evolutionary sequence? It might be a good first step, but eventually we ought to be interested in a real evolutionary sequence. And can we really divide any evolutionary sequence into infinitesimally graded intermediates?

According to you, I am asking the impossible. “For many many many things in the natural world, there is simply not enough information to give an a hypothetical pathway of the detail that we have for the bacterial flagellum.”

I absolutely agree with you that there is simply not enough information to give an hypothetical pathway of the detail we have for the bacterial flagellum. That is why I criticized Dawkins’s statement.

For some reason you refuse to criticize Dawkins directly. I seem to have become your proxy for Dawkins and you redirect your criticism to me instead. This may not be your intent but this is how it appears to me.

The comment on “oracular” pertains to the realities of discussions with creationists, their fixation on quotes instead of data, and the fact that quotes, no matter how prestigious the person being quoted might be, are not data. I was trying to focus (again) on the data re the bacterial flagellum, which was, I think, mentioned in your comment. Sorry if that seemed as if i was trying to change the subject; as far as I understood it, the bacterial flagellum WAS the subject.

Furthermore, I did comment on the specifics of your critique of Dawkins. I pointed out that in the specifc case of the bacterial flagellum (about which we know quite a bit), your invocation of non-biological reality is inaccurate. We know what the intermediates probably looked like, because such organisms still exist. They have secretory systems but not flagella (a conclusion derived from actual data); the proteins are homologous (a conclusion derived from actual data), and indeed it is “possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between them” (a hypothesis which can lead to predictions, experiments, and more actual data).

If you are talking about all biological structures that seem designed when you say “If it is always possible, then show me!”, I submit that you are asking the impossible. for many many many things in the natural world, there is simply not enough information to give an a hypothetical pathway of the detail that we have for the bacterial flagellum. And even in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there are PLENTY of unanswered questions. So I would interpret Dawkins as saying that as science continues to progress, it should be possible to explain many more things than we can currently explain.

Hope this helps.. Now please give me some details about the mechanisms, apparently not involving finely graded intermediates, that you invoke with this quote – “The mechanism is called intelligent design”. Per usual, I would appreciate explication of testable hypotheses based on this “mechanism”, with the predicted results being different than those of evolutionary theory.

thanks in advance.

So when you say that I cannot consider Dawkins’s quotes oracular, are you referring only to the video interview, or do you include his summary in “The Blind Watchmaker” as well?

You change the subject and start talking about quotes and demanding detailed evidence and predictions from ID proponents.

I have yet to get your take on the substance of Dawkins’s summary, which is the subject of my recent posts. Obviously, I found his summary lacking. What can I infer from the fact that you have not commented specifically on the problems that I saw in the summary?

Without specific comments I will go away asuming that my critique of the summary is essentially correct.

Dawkins’ quotes, especially those gleaned from a source like arn.org, cannot be considered to be oracular. Ditto for Behe quotes, or Dembski quotes, or anybody’s quotes. It is a curious habit of creationists to treat quotes as if they were the only item on the menu; this must come from apologetics, where quotes ARE the only item on the menu. Reacting to quotes, from either side, is almost inevitably unsatisfying.

The relevant item on the menu is the evidence. There is good evidence that the bacterial flagella arose from a secretory system. This evidence leads to testable hypotheses, which can lead to more evidence. On the ID side there is no evidence, there are just god-of-the-gaps arguments. So quotes are supreme.

I’ll stick with the evidence, and with testable predictions. I don’t think it is unreasonable for me to demand evidence and testable predictions from the other side. This is particularly true if I see a double standard on that side, where minutely detailed evidence is demanded for one explanation, and no evidence at all is demanded for the other.

What testable hypotheses derived from ID theory, leading to predictions of results which would be different than those predicted by evolutionary theory, have been proposed? I am aware of none.

But I am aware of a lot of quotes…

My post was a critique of Dawkins’s statements. It is he who is claiming that “it is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates.”

(And it is he who got me to revisit natural selection when he said, “…only if there is a mechanism for guiding each step in a some particular direction…”)

First of all I reacted to the word “conceive”. In our imaginations we can conceive of lots of things, but sooner or later if these imaginings don’t represent biotic reality, they are scientifically meaningless. I have no problem with how scientific analyses begin. “Wild thoughts” can sometimes beget fruitful ideas. I do have a problem with where they end up.

Second, I had a problem with “infinitesmally graded intermediates”. This suggests that evolutionary steps can be divided into smaller and smaller parts without limit. I chose the easy example of the bacterial flagellum to ask “Well, if that is your claim, what about this?”

Dawkins did not use any qualifying words that would suggest any reservations on his part. He flat out said, “It is always possible…” If it is always possible, then show me!

Bottom line:

I was not demanding a level of detail from evolutionary biology that I do not demand from ID. I was challenging Dawkins to live up to the claim he made.

And you implicitly agreed with the point I was trying to make when you said, “Obviously it will never be possible to explicitly describe every step of this evolutionary pathway in the detail that you seem to be demanding”.

Bottom line #2:

I realize I am forming an opinion from an extremely small sample of Dawkins’s writing, but if the above is typical of his arguments then his arguments do little to change my mind. In fact just the opposite effect is acheived. His arguments are really just superficial speculations with no concrete numbers to back them up such that they tend to confirm my skepticism of the theory of evolution.

Then there is the 2 minute interview on arn.org where Dawkins says “Natural selection… well I suppose that is a sort of matter of faith on my part since the theory is so coherent and so powerful.” Faith, indeed.

Two quick comments.

1) You write “Only if the intermediates aren’t constrained to represent biotic reality. What is the series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between a bacterium without a flagellum and a bacterium with a flagellum?” Those intermediates are known, and some are still extant. The proteins of the flagellum are derived from proteins used in other situations, and in particular from proteins used for a bacterial secretory system. Such systems are used by bacteria to secrete toxins; many of the components of such systems are homologous to flagellar proteins. So, to answer your rhetorical question, a bacterium without a flagellum would look like a bacterium with only a secretory system. Obviously it will never be possible to explicitly describe every step of this evolutionary pathway in the detail that you seem to be demanding, but a plausible pathway has been proposed, and people are testing its predictions. Which brings me to the second point…

2) Isn’t just a tad hypocritical to demand such a level of detail from evolutionary biology while at the same time demanding no detail and no predictive hypotheses from your chosen notion, intelligent design? Scientists are hard at work testing their predictions about the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, in part to satisfy the likes of you, but mostly because it is a useful intellectual endeavor. IDists like Behe are doing nothing at all, and yet you accept their untestable “explanations” uncritically.

“You are almost there.” (regarding my understanding of natural selection.)

“The power is in the selection, and how long the selection process is running. Even in trivial examples of the deck of cards you are able to immediately grasp that fact. It is the selection.”

Yes, I was almost there but as luck would have it I discovered that the text of “The Blind Watchmaker” is available online at amazon.com. I was searching for a quote from a book I was reading and the search led me to Dawkins’s summary at the end of the book. The following is from that summary on pages 317 – 318.

“No matter how improbable it is that an X could have arisen from a Y in a single step, it is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between them. However improbable a large-scale change may be, smaller changes are less improbable. And provided we postulate a sufficiently large series of sufficiently finely graded intermediates, we shall be able to derive anything from anything else, without invoking astronomical improbabilities. We are allowed to do this only if there has been sufficient time to fit all the intermediates in. And also only if there is a mechanism for guiding each step in some particular direction, otherwise the sequence of steps will career off in an endless random walk.”

This is my layman’s take on the points in this section.

>It is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates.

Only if the intermediates aren’t constrained to represent biotic reality. What is the series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between a bacterium without a flagellum and a bacterium with a flagellum?

>Each smaller change is less improbable than a single larger change.

True. The question is what is the total improbability of the smaller changes when compared to the single improbability of the larger change? Without actual values we don’t know.

>We can derive anything from anything else without invoking astronomical improbabilities.

Of course we can, if we are not constrained to represent biotic reality.

>We can do all this if we allow enough time.

Of course we can, if we are not constrained to represent biotic reality.

>There must be a mechanism for guiding each step in some particular direction, or the sequence of steps will careen off in an endless random walk.

The mechanism is called intelligent design. And I doubt that the walk would be endless if there are more deleterious mutations than beneficial ones.

But I digress. As I understand it, evolution is an unguided process with each step in that process mostly independent of the step that came before and independent of the step that follows. Natural selection cannot look ahead and decide to preserve a current variation because it will eventually be needed. I say mostly independent of the step that came before because no doubt the current genome of the organism would have some effect on what mutations are lethal and what mutations are not.

Natural selection is therefore constrained to “choose” only those variations that allow the organism to survive. Some of the variations will be neutral and some of the variations will provide an advantage.

The next variation that occurs is subject to the same rule. A variation is chosen because it allows the organism to survive and not because it is a step in prescribed sequence leading to a biological innovation.

As I see it, the sequence of steps that is chosen based solely on survivability would career off in an endless random walk.

So the analogy with the deck of cards fails. To make the analogy more closely reflect what I see happening I would change it as follows.

I would need a coin to toss and a die to roll.

Randomly draw a card from the deck.

Roll the die. If 2 – 6 is rolled, throw the card away. It died!

If a 1 is rolled, the card survived. Toss the coin. If heads, put the card on top; if tails, put the card on the bottom. After all, if natural selection knows where to put the card it is making a choice based on a criterion other than survivability.

I am sure you will correct me, but this is how I see it, and I see nothing but randomness in the entire sequence.

In the introduction on page xv Dawkins said this:

“Since living complexity embodies the very antithesis of chance, if you think Darwinism is tantamount to chance you’ll find it very easy to refute Darwinism!”

I see your point that brilliant scientists did not think
it was absurd to believe in God. The word God meant
something to Einstein and something completely different
to most “God fearing folks”.

In practice most people who believe in God in the abstract
sense as Einstein did, are not the typical bellicose
belligerent types who run stealth candidates to school
boards, work behind the scenes to dilute science
standards and definitions and work in general to impose
their particular version of God and scriptures on to others.
Such people will provoke a strong reaction from those on
whom such views are thrust.

Science is quite neutral about the personal lives of
great scientists. I know the character flaws of Newton
and I still respect him as a scientist. Will you be as
proud of Newton’s religion, once you acknowledge his moral
failures? Despite all his belief in God, he felt no
guilt in hounding poor Leibnitz. He hand picked the
committee to investigate the priority claims of Leibnitz,
and then he himself ghost wrote the committee report
giving himself the sole credit for inventing calculus and
declared Leibnitz to be a plagiarist. And there were
hundred such incidents of meanness and vindictiveness.

Theists should really be glad scientists are not focusing
on Newton’s religious beliefs. Religion has utterly failed
to instill any sense of charity or humility or kindness in
Newton. Newton was a great scientist, probably the greatest
scientist. But, as a man he was a very highly flawed
on the ethical and moral fronts. His endorsement of
God is not something to crow about.

Thanks for your response. I really have no opinion of Einstein’s or Newton’s personal views on God. The only point I was trying to make is that these scientists whom everyone agrees were genius did not think it ridiculous to believe in a God (of one kind or another).

Regarding Einstein, he is also quoted as saying:

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

Again, whatever Einstein’s or Newston’s personal religious beliefs were is neither here nor there. I do not consider them to be any kind of theological authority. Just pointing out that these brilliant scientists did not consider it absurd to be believe in a God.

W.

I am curious about the theists’ attitude towards Einstein and Newton. Einstein very clearly and unambiguously stated that he did not believe in a personal God.

“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)”

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)”

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

About Newton, you are correct in saying he believed in God,
Biblical God to be specific. He spent better part of his
life trying to prove the chronology as specified in the
Bible. In fact almost all his scientific achievements were
essentially “done” before he turned 40 and he spent some
thirty years researching the Bible.

The admiration the Church and theists have for Newton is
with a large measure of hindsight. When he was alive the
Church did not consider his religious views to be anything
great. In fact in the last 300 years no significant
religious research has been done to continue his Biblical
research. No theistic or philosophical school has been
founded based on religious principles of Newton. It is
because scientists venerate Newton, and consider him to be
of extraordinary intellect, Church points out that he was
religious and he kowtowed the line drawn by the Church.
All the theists want from scientists is to follow Newton’s
example, and be obedient to the Church.

The Church admires Newton’s obedience. Not his intellect. Science respects Newton, despite all his flaws. By flaws
I don’t mean his religiosity. He picked up quarrels with
many about priority (who invented this or that first), was especially cruel to the penniless pauper Leibnitz, the co
discoverer of Calculus. He was very petty and was quick
to take offense. But science ignores all these character
flaws and respects him. And the Church ignores what he said,
what he achieved, how he behaved in personal life and just
points out his obedience to others.

I didn’t say that “a belief in God negates any need for science.” That may be your interpretation of what I said, but it is incorrect.

There is a difference between “a belief in God” and the science-stopping notion that God did it, and there is no more necessity for exploring the phenomenon. Lots of scientists believe in God today, lots don’t. All of them do science just fine. Those are facts that point out one thing – a belief in God is not a relevant parameter when you are discussing science.

But if you allow that belief to blind you to reality, or to stop you from doing experiments in abiogenesis because you are convinced that God did it and there is no reason to invoke abiogenesis, then you have trouble. Facts will remain facts even if you shut your eyes to them. Science will continue to ask questions, even if the answers are disturbing to some.

Thanks again for responding. I disagree that a belief in God negates any need for science. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein both believed in God and were among the greatest scientists who ever lived. In fact, Newton was an intensely religious individual.

One might even argue that the belief in God has inspired scientic discovery. For example, if Einstein had simply bought into the consensus view that the universe had always existed he might not have discovered that the universe, DOES, in fact, have a beginning!

It would seem to me that many people are convinced that there is NO God and will go to any length to cling to that belief. They are emotionally invested in this and anything that challenges that view is viciously attacked. Science fiction type theories of life originating from outer space and multiple universes are examples of the lengths many will go to in order to avoid having the face the concept of a divine Being that they may be accountable to.

In short, I don’t see belief in God and the advancement of science as incompatible. And I enjoy discussions about the origin of the universe and life. The vitriol and personal attacks I see coming from the atheists are highly inspiring to me as this indicates that they see intelligent design as a serious threat.

W.