:thumb: For scientists to label something as a "theory" they have TONS of evidence supporting it.

...or tons of bias for promoting their chosen worldview.

 

Everybody seems to want to identify true scientists as unemotional and unbiased automatons interested only in logic, facts and reason ala Mr. Spock on Star Trek. Real life is just not that sterile. As long as scientists are human, they will be biased in some way or another.

...or tons of bias for promoting their chosen worldview.

 

Everybody seems to want to identify true scientists as unemotional and unbiased automatons interested only in logic, facts and reason ala Mr. Spock on Star Trek. Real life is just not that sterile. As long as scientists are human, they will be biased in some way or another.

 

AMEN!:thumb:

...or tons of bias for promoting their chosen worldview.

 

Everybody seems to want to identify true scientists as unemotional and unbiased automatons interested only in logic, facts and reason ala Mr. Spock on Star Trek. Real life is just not that sterile. As long as scientists are human, they will be biased in some way or another.

 

Every single scientific theory isn't about how he world was created. There are more theories than just the "big bang".

 

Also, do you have proof of these biases or are you just assuming they are biased?

All of the "evidence" and explanations you give for the Big Bang, common ancestors, and on and on are man's explanations. I choose to believe God's explanation as recorded in the book of Genesis. You have a right to believe as you wish. I also have the same right. I feel like you think you (and everyone else) has to explain everything scientifically or it appears they or ignorant or uneducated. I assure you I am neither ignorant no uneducated. I put my faith in God's explanation and not man's. We will continue to agree to disagree.

 

If that was aimed at me, I did not mean to be offensive to anyone. I only wanted to discuss the scientific evidence that everyone had been alluding to. Forgive me - for those that don't know, I am a chemistry, physics and astronomy teacher. The "teacher" in me sometimes comes out strongly on here. :thumb:

Also, do you have proof of these biases or are you just assuming they are biased?

Yes, Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck and even Einstein expressed faith in a Creator. (Although Einstein never confessed a belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.")

 

Clearly their belief in God influenced their interpretation of the evidence they examined. This belief would be identified as a bias by many today, but the fact that they believed in God and in his infinitely ordered creation, led them to significant breakthroughs.

 

On the other hand, there are many examples of contemporary scientists allowing their denial of God to color their interpretation of the evidence. Two interesting stories that parallel one another are the discovery of DNA and the discovery of Pulsars.

 

Francis Crick, was skeptical of organized religion, and referred to himself as a skeptic and an agnostic with "a strong inclination towards atheism". Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."

 

Following his identification of the DNA molecule, and the realization of its incredible complexity, he realized that it was unlikely to have formed spontaneously via random evolutionary processes. Because he refused to consider the possibility of God as creator/designer, he developed the concept of Directed Panspermia which in short is the spread of life throughout the universe by intelligent life forms using space travel technology. Aside from the virtual impossibility of any intelligent life form being able to construct a spacecraft capable of traversing interstellar space at the unimaginable speeds necessary, while simultaneously shielding the living cargo from deadly radiation, etc., etc., he merely shifted the problem of spontaneous generation of life on earth to some other place and time. This did nothing to solve the problems of a godless genesis, and only served to compound the difficulties of life. He realized this later in his life and made some retractions, but the fact is his bias against even the considering of God, led him in absurd directions.

 

Later, in July 1967 Cambridge scientists Jocelyn Bell (Burnell) and Antony Hewish observed a baffling transmission received by their radio telescope. Across the vast reaches of interstellar space came a seemingly unnatural regulated pattern of pulses that caused them to seriously consider they might be coming from an extraterrestrial civilization. They actually named their discovery LGM-1, for "little green men" and went so far as to decide that, if this proved to be correct, they could not make an announcement without checking with higher authorities. There was even some discussion about whether it might be in the best interests of mankind to destroy the evidence and forget it.

 

It was eventually discovered the pulses were coming from highly magnetized rotating neutron stars which emit a beam of electromagnetic radio waves. They were renamed Pulsars.

 

The irony here is that Crick discovered the most sophisticated code known to mankind in the form of molecular DNA, surpassing in many ways the binary code used in most computers today and determined, “Random Chance” but secretly requiring the intervention of intelligent life from distant planets... Whereas, the Cambridge scientists discovered an incredibly simple pulsing signal and immediately exclaimed, “Intelligent Life.”

 

Yes, there is considerable proof of bias by human scientists.

Yes, Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck and even Einstein expressed faith in a Creator. (Although Einstein never confessed a belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.")

 

Clearly their belief in God influenced their interpretation of the evidence they examined. This belief would be identified as a bias by many today, but the fact that they believed in God and in his infinitely ordered creation, led them to significant breakthroughs.

 

 

I was interested in your blanket statements about the scientists above and did some digging.

 

Newton, thought professing Christianity, wasn't what you would call orthohdox.

 

http://www.isaac-newton.org/

 

Newton didn't believe in the Trinity (which is a standard orthodoxy for most Christians) nor did he believe in the devil.

 

While Galileo appears to have been an orthodox Christian in his life, his actions and words aren't necessarily some rising support of an evangelical model.

 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2001/jan05.html

 

Among other things, when Galileo was in demand and lured by big pay to Tuscany he abandoned his wife and put his daughters in a convent. Galileo's defense of his study to the church was: "The Bible teaches men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

 

I really don't believe Einstein is the candidate you are looking for to prove your point either.

 

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/

 

He did not pray and stated: I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

 

It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished.

 

Again, I don't see this man as an example of your point.

 

While Descartes and Bacon among others are deeply students of the approach to science that "science purpose is to reveal God," clearly not all of those you list or history knows are as orthodox or close to what some see as the notion of a "Christian perspective" in they way they approach science. For many, the Renaissance and later "age of enlightenment" held as much sway as traditional Christian orthodoxy.

Again, I don't see this man as an example of your point.

My point was not that any of these men should be considered giants of Christianity, but merely that they acknowledged the need for and/or the existence of God, which formed the worldview with which they interpreted the evidence before them... thus revealing a "bias" in their viewpoint.

 

The same "bias" is found in Crick and the Cambridge scientists, albeit from another perspective.

 

My point is simply that all humans are "biased" in one way or another.

 

Do you really intend to dispute that?

My point was not that any of these men should be considered giants of Christianity, but merely that they acknowledged the need for and/or the existence of God, which formed the worldview with which they interpreted the evidence before them... thus revealing a "bias" in their viewpoint.

 

The same "bias" is found in Crick and the Cambridge scientists, albeit from another perspective.

 

My point is simply that all humans are "biased" in one way or another.

 

Do you really intend to dispute that?

 

 

I'm sorry Fastbreak but ANYONE can acknowledge an existence of God. That doesn't mean it had an influence on their science. Did you read any of the links I provided? These that I mentioned were far from defensible points.

 

I'm not arguing the "bias" of an athiest as a science but your post said their "belief in God" influenced their interpretation. I don't think the evidence I've shown reveals that to be true.

 

I agree we are all "biased" to some extent but your post very much appeared to paint classical scholars as a "faith based" group that led them to their conclusions. I don't see that evidence in their lives, their writings or their teachings.

Hatz, I will admit that I often present a distinct set of conservative Christian beliefs grounded in the Bible, which I openly confess I believe to be the inerrant Word of God. This perspective strongly colors my worldview, with which others are free to agree or dispute. I offer no pretext denying that this is who I am and how I choose to think and believe. That being said, I believe you are reading more into post #305 than I actually said or intended, and are taking me down a rabbit trail I did not suggest.

 

There is no historical dispute that every one of the scientists named above expressed a distinct belief in God. Whether their belief fell within accepted Christian orthodoxy or merely acknowledged the need for an intelligent design force that set the universe in motion, their belief in God strongly affected their presuppositions and ultimate interpretation of the evidence before them.

 

I don’t have the time to fully delve into the specific beliefs of every scientist of note throughout history. I am willing to nibble a bit further into one of the more recent giants of science who was not a professing Christian, but clearly expressed a belief in God.

 

Einstein’s own words clearly reveal the role of God in his worldview. He may not have believed in the “personal” God of the Christian Bible, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." But it is clear that he did believe in God as Master Designer and Creator, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

 

He was clearly not an atheist, and was actually angered by those who used his words and work to forward an atheistic agenda, "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."

 

Einstein’s belief that God reveals himself in the harmony and logical beauty of the universe, led him to cultivate a distinct sense of wonder and awe through his scientific and mathematical pursuits. Einstein made numerous statements about science, religion, and God. The following statement comes from his 1939 address to Princeton Theological Seminary:

 

“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."

 

He is often quoted for stating, “God does not play dice with the universe.” This statement provides an excellent summary or his belief that because God exists, and God is responsible for the order we witness from the breadth of the universe down to subatomic structures, God did not leave His creation to random chance. It is this “bias” or worldview that influenced his confidence in formulating predictable mathematic equations that help explain the functions and design of God’s creation.

 

I resubmit my assertion that Einstein’s belief in God directly influenced his interpretation of—and actions as a result of—the evidence. I fully believe that similar examples could easily be drawn in regard to the biases of other scientists.

 

How can anyone deny this?

Interesting discussion...

 

Also, consider Nicholaus Copernicus, a Catholic cleric, who went against church doctrine and wrote a book, De Revolutionibus (On the Revolution of Heavenly Spheres...), in which he supported the heliocentric theory. Of course, the book was not published until he was dying. He actually dedicated the book to Pope Paul III. It is interesting that he was secure enough in his religious beliefs to go against the church's teaching and not let it interfere with the scientific evidence proving that the earth was not the center of the universe.

 

Sometimes it is what we do not let bias us that is most important.

Interesting discussion...

 

Also, consider Nicholaus Copernicus, a Catholic cleric, who went against church doctrine and wrote a book, De Revolutionibus (On the Revolution of Heavenly Spheres...), in which he supported the heliocentric theory. Of course, the book was not published until he was dying. He actually dedicated the book to Pope Paul III. It is interesting that he was secure enough in his religious beliefs to go against the church's teaching and not let it interfere with the scientific evidence proving that the earth was not the center of the universe.

 

Sometimes it is what we do not let bias us that is most important.

I admire those who stood up for what they knew and/or believed with all their heart and mind was the truth. This is why I admire Copernicus and Galileo and Martin Luther… and also why I don’t fit in with a lot of churches more embedded in religion, legalism and the process than the simple truth of the Gospel and encouraging a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Hatz, I will admit that I often present a distinct set of conservative Christian beliefs grounded in the Bible, which I openly confess I believe to be the inerrant Word of God. This perspective strongly colors my worldview, with which others are free to agree or dispute. I offer no pretext denying that this is who I am and how I choose to think and believe. That being said, I believe you are reading more into post #305 than I actually said or intended, and are taking me down a rabbit trail I did not suggest.

 

There is no historical dispute that every one of the scientists named above expressed a distinct belief in God. Whether their belief fell within accepted Christian orthodoxy or merely acknowledged the need for an intelligent design force that set the universe in motion, their belief in God strongly affected their presuppositions and ultimate interpretation of the evidence before them.

 

I don’t have the time to fully delve into the specific beliefs of every scientist of note throughout history. I am willing to nibble a bit further into one of the more recent giants of science who was not a professing Christian, but clearly expressed a belief in God.

 

Einstein’s own words clearly reveal the role of God in his worldview. He may not have believed in the “personal” God of the Christian Bible, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." But it is clear that he did believe in God as Master Designer and Creator, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

 

He was clearly not an atheist, and was actually angered by those who used his words and work to forward an atheistic agenda, "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."

 

Einstein’s belief that God reveals himself in the harmony and logical beauty of the universe, led him to cultivate a distinct sense of wonder and awe through his scientific and mathematical pursuits. Einstein made numerous statements about science, religion, and God. The following statement comes from his 1939 address to Princeton Theological Seminary:

 

“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."

 

He is often quoted for stating, “God does not play dice with the universe.” This statement provides an excellent summary or his belief that because God exists, and God is responsible for the order we witness from the breadth of the universe down to subatomic structures, God did not leave His creation to random chance. It is this “bias” or worldview that influenced his confidence in formulating predictable mathematic equations that help explain the functions and design of God’s creation.

 

I resubmit my assertion that Einstein’s belief in God directly influenced his interpretation of—and actions as a result of—the evidence. I fully believe that similar examples could easily be drawn in regard to the biases of other scientists.

 

How can anyone deny this?

 

 

I'm not going to go "this for that" with you. I respect your convictions but please understand that in my mind you are making blanket generalizations about the driving thought processes of certain people you listed. I do not believe all those generalizations to be accurate and have chosen to try and point out such.

 

It does bother me when someone begins with telling me how their belief in inerrancy is somehow the greatest rule of faith and thumb. I will hold my faith and my conviction in God and God's word against anyone's and yet I will not declare it or my belief to be inerrent. Mainly because I have yet to find an inerrentist who will tell me which Bible is the one that is inerrant so we may talk about it and all have one place of conversation. (see KJV discussion to see where I'm coming at.)

 

I won't keep up my arguments on this matter. Thanks for responding Fastbreak and I will agree to disagree.

Yes, Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck and even Einstein expressed faith in a Creator. (Although Einstein never confessed a belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.")

 

Clearly their belief in God influenced their interpretation of the evidence they examined. This belief would be identified as a bias by many today, but the fact that they believed in God and in his infinitely ordered creation, led them to significant breakthroughs.

 

On the other hand, there are many examples of contemporary scientists allowing their denial of God to color their interpretation of the evidence. Two interesting stories that parallel one another are the discovery of DNA and the discovery of Pulsars.

 

Francis Crick, was skeptical of organized religion, and referred to himself as a skeptic and an agnostic with "a strong inclination towards atheism". Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."

 

Following his identification of the DNA molecule, and the realization of its incredible complexity, he realized that it was unlikely to have formed spontaneously via random evolutionary processes. Because he refused to consider the possibility of God as creator/designer, he developed the concept of Directed Panspermia which in short is the spread of life throughout the universe by intelligent life forms using space travel technology. Aside from the virtual impossibility of any intelligent life form being able to construct a spacecraft capable of traversing interstellar space at the unimaginable speeds necessary, while simultaneously shielding the living cargo from deadly radiation, etc., etc., he merely shifted the problem of spontaneous generation of life on earth to some other place and time. This did nothing to solve the problems of a godless genesis, and only served to compound the difficulties of life. He realized this later in his life and made some retractions, but the fact is his bias against even the considering of God, led him in absurd directions.

 

Later, in July 1967 Cambridge scientists Jocelyn Bell (Burnell) and Antony Hewish observed a baffling transmission received by their radio telescope. Across the vast reaches of interstellar space came a seemingly unnatural regulated pattern of pulses that caused them to seriously consider they might be coming from an extraterrestrial civilization. They actually named their discovery LGM-1, for "little green men" and went so far as to decide that, if this proved to be correct, they could not make an announcement without checking with higher authorities. There was even some discussion about whether it might be in the best interests of mankind to destroy the evidence and forget it.

 

It was eventually discovered the pulses were coming from highly magnetized rotating neutron stars which emit a beam of electromagnetic radio waves. They were renamed Pulsars.

 

The irony here is that Crick discovered the most sophisticated code known to mankind in the form of molecular DNA, surpassing in many ways the binary code used in most computers today and determined, “Random Chance” but secretly requiring the intervention of intelligent life from distant planets... Whereas, the Cambridge scientists discovered an incredibly simple pulsing signal and immediately exclaimed, “Intelligent Life.”

 

Yes, there is considerable proof of bias by human scientists.

 

I meant relating to the specific topic at hand. As in the Big Bang Theory, or evolution.

 

Also, there are many scientists who believe in a God and believe in the theories of science.

I'm not going to go "this for that" with you. I respect your convictions but please understand that in my mind you are making blanket generalizations about the driving thought processes of certain people you listed. I do not believe all those generalizations to be accurate and have chosen to try and point out such.

 

It does bother me when someone begins with telling me how their belief in inerrancy is somehow the greatest rule of faith and thumb. I will hold my faith and my conviction in God and God's word against anyone's and yet I will not declare it or my belief to be inerrent. Mainly because I have yet to find an inerrentist who will tell me which Bible is the one that is inerrant so we may talk about it and all have one place of conversation. (see KJV discussion to see where I'm coming at.)

 

I won't keep up my arguments on this matter. Thanks for responding Fastbreak and I will agree to disagree.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree with you Sir. I respect your opinion and know better than to think I am going to radically shake your convictions. I was in no way asserting that my particular beliefs are inerrant or to be heralded as anyone's "rule of thumb" other than myself. Nor was I asserting any superiority of belief on my part. I was merely pointing out how my particular convictions influence my worldview and my interpretation of the evidence. It is merely my contention that we all do this to some extent. :thumb:

I meant relating to the specific topic at hand. As in the Big Bang Theory, or evolution.

 

Also, there are many scientists who believe in a God and believe in the theories of science.

 

SO LET ME RE-CAP

 

There are a few on here who believe that God created the earth through the science that we know, and they have no problem reconciling science and scripture

 

There are a few on here who think there is no truth in the science and the only truth lies in the scripture.

 

TFRF is, at best, not sure

 

My conclusion

 

The first group is trying to rationalize all they don't know about God, by bringing science into the equation

 

The latter group thinks the devil is trying to trick us with all of this science so that we will turn away from God. The devil makes the earth look old and gives us false fossils so we won't believe in God.

 

Is that correct?

 

Of course not, but where we are is this . . .

 

Nearly everyone posting here believes in God and that God created the heavens and the earth. The only real disagreement is when and how he did it and that question turns squarely on whether or not you believe a literal interpretation of the scripture.

 

I personally think that to hold the scripture up like that is idolatry since Jesus/God is all that is perfect.