Why The Religious Minded Rule Science With Science

Viewing 20 reply threads
  • Author
    • #11662

      Here is a message now in Dover, PA (and number of other places) I know some here are going to like. It links to their Schools and Education forum where I answer some of the interesting comments but it is not a cross-forum, just where it had to be published so that the information makes it to the media and educators.


      All through time there has been a small portion of the human population who are perpetually driven to gather evidence for their personal scientific theory that somehow helps explain where we came from. It is inherent to their behavior, a born in talent for writing scientific theory that few have. And they always have a very healthy religious side that helped make them the legends they became by giving them the ability to see no limit to what science can discover, even our Creator.

      Charles Darwin attended divinity school on a mission to discover the Creator through science. He then found clues pertaining to our origin that were disturbing to his faith but still helpful to science so he none the less wrote about it. Now we honor with monuments this great scientist who actually had no scientific credentials at all, only a divinity degree. But in this case even Atheists can make an exception for him.

      Albert Einstein saw himself explaining how God works so he was well in touch with his religious side. Young religious school taught Galileo wanted to be a monk and clergy respected him, then in college his professors gave up on him which helped start an academia feud that reached the pope.

      Here below is the author of "Big Bang Theory" the Belgian Roman Catholic priest honorary prelate professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuven, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître all dressed up to look good for a science photo for the future to remember him by:


      We also have to remember Sir Isaac Newton, who expected the clergy to see his way of interpreting scripture or else he had to loudly protest until they at least pacified him.

      In Massachusetts there is the legend Dr. Reverend Edward Hitchcock who did not have a formal college education. But his self-learning very well educated him and he became president of still world-class Amherst College where he described dinosaur footprints and trace fossils like none had ever done in science before. This was way before modern paleontology and finding the deserts full of dinosaur skeletons so this is a large part of how the science of paleontology began in the Americas.

      Below you can see the modern museum/shrine Reverend Hitchcock earned to go with his statue (lower-right of center) with major trace-fossil collection in background at the even bigger and better Natural History Museum they built in his honor:


      Here we have a "liberal arts college" yet the most revered science legend of them all is a local reverend who had his own church and what he wrote pertaining to science and religion boils down to the search for the Creator in science that I often talk about. What they have of value is not something they believe one way or another, it is something that is discovered that produces scientific information that brings that human search a little further along the path they are traveling that leads to where all people want to go too. Scientists from all over the world come to what is essentially his shrine, to study his collection.

      There is no doubt we can keep the faith and still be a science leader. Science more than has a place for those who have a very religious way of seeing things. These are the people who science most admirably remembers and always will. Therefore those with a healthy religious side are not the exception, we still rule!

      And more proof of that is the link below to a topic in your schools and education forum where you will find a once thought impossible theory from the religious minded coming of age in science:


      Keep the faith, as well as your scientific curiosity…


    • #92414

      Even if one is extremely intelligent does not always mean they cannot be superstitious. In general, of course, the poorer and less-educated a person is or people are, the more likely they are to believe in gods or other imaginary creatures, but the abovementioned famous persons are exception to this general rule – though no doubt their "religious nature" is usually taken completely out of context.

      Fortunately as people become more civilized and educated by time these superstitions become more rare and have less impact on the functioning of societies. Luckily, nowadays, vast majority of talented scientists do not have imaginary friends that tell them what they should do and what not.

      It was definitely worse a couple of centuries ago and it’ll likely be much better in few centuries. Hopefully by 2200 we realise that Odin or Amon Ra are just as likely rulers of the universe as are Jahve or Allah… which means we can regard them as interesting parts of history, but also smile at the naivity of the people who believed in them so mach that they spent fortunes in building monuments and temples for them and killed and murdered and waged war in their name countless of times. A bit pity, though, that we are quite unlikely to live to see that day ourselves.

    • #92415

      From what I have found so far I am very certain that it doesn’t work that way. As is happening right now anti-religious scientists dwell on what cannot be done, the ultimate science-stoppers. Might make an OK lab technician or are able write papers maybe invent something, but a science changing theory requires going beyond where science leads into territory that at the time is considered "supernatural" or "religion" but is not. As a result, the only ones that dare going that far into the unknown for a theory that makes others obsolete must have a religious mind that sees no point sitting around writing pompous statements proclaiming all that is impossible to discover.

    • #92416

      There probably hasn’t been any other power in the world that has hindered science as much as religion. Biotechnology, genetics, stem cell research are all constantly being undermined by religious people, scientists among them. Before these fields the unfortunate targets of religious fanatics were areas such as astronomy and evolution, and I’d anticipate that in the future big advancements in AI development may be also held back by the same people.

      And how on earth you assume that a scientist has to believe in a god in order to make groundbreaking research, or that anti-religious scientists keep dwelling on what cannot be done? It is easy to see that as a general rule, the more religious a nation is the more backward it is: the Islamistic world and the Catholic lands are not only poorer (save from few oil countries) but also way behind in science when compared to more liberal western countries and Japan, where science does not tie people up.

      Below is a quote from one of many studies that indicate that scientists are significantly less religious than people in general. In brief:

      "(The authors) concluded that academics in the natural and social sciences at elite research universities are significantly less religious than the general population." (Ecklund, 2007)


      "Leading Scientists Still Reject God" (Newsweek, 1998)

      Almost whichever study you choose to look at, it is clear that in general scientists do not believe in god and elite scientists make no difference. Or should I say that most scientists are agnostics, because there is no way to disprove the existence of a god. Though there is no indication of the existence of any kind of god whatsoever so it’s rather irrelevant to try to categorise people as atheists or agnostics anyway…

      P.S. Has it ever occured to you that maybe these guys you mentioned in your original post either had to say they believed in god whether they actually did or didn’t (maybe just because their mom always said there is a god), or that there would’ve been other great scientists that didn’t belive in god as well, but they were suppressed by the church and their contemporary societies and thus never got their name to the books of history?

    • #92417

      Also, here’s a link to an article concerning that Ecklund’s study:

      http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story? … 576&page=1

      Forgot the original link to the article itself, but you’ll probably find it by Google. And note, the results concenr elite research scientists, namely those you Gary claimed that must be religious.

      "Almost 52 percent of the 1,646 scientists who participated in the study have no current religious affiliation compared with only 14 percent of the general population.

      More than 31 percent said they do not believe in God, and another 31 percent said they do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out — a whopping 62 percent of those surveyed.

      More than 56 percent did not attend a religious service during the entire year preceding the survey.

      Only 9.7 percent said they have "no doubts about God’s existence." "

      Also, if we think about biology (which this forum is about), you notice that biologists are probably the most atheist/agnostic group of scientists one can find.


      "Nearly all the scientists who said they believe in God, and have a current affiliation with a church, were raised in a home where religion was considered very important, [Ecklund] said. Thus, they conform to the same pattern seen in the population at large. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. "

      Religion is like an infectious disease as can clearly be seen. Unfortunately very difficult to cure as well, but luckily not impossible.

    • #92419

      Other than helping to understand science and the scientific issues, I have no affiliation with any church or follow one religion. Yet I am called a religious nutter, Bible-thumper and just about every religious insult that exists. I am now known as a "Creationist" even though my knowledge of the process of evolution is beyond those who gave me that label.

      Anyone care to explain why working in the newer "intelligence" fields of science causes that to happen to even university level professors?

    • #92420

      I thought that a small sample of what I have to endure (including from bigoted academic teachers) would help..


      gendo Posted: Today at 2:49 AM
      Negative To make up for tlocity

      tlocity Posted: Yesterday at 5:12 AM
      Positive Very good science. On here you know you are right when you get neg from all the bigots.

      TheDoc Posted: Aug 6 2009, 07:28 PM
      Negative –

      MjolnirPants Posted: Aug 1 2009, 04:45 AM
      Negative Enormous Anus.

      flyingbuttressman Posted: Aug 1 2009, 01:10 AM
      Negative Giant Anus.

      Granouille Posted: Aug 1 2009, 12:30 AM
      Negative Screw yourself, you troll.

      uaafanblog Posted: Jul 31 2009, 12:01 PM
      Negative Doesn’t know SQUAT about Nachos. Pitiful buggering dork.

      Grumpy Posted: Jul 31 2009, 11:18 AM
      Negative IDiot

      TheDoc Posted: Jun 5 2009, 12:56 AM
      Negative And here’s -70, you deluded wackoidiot.

      TheDoc Posted: May 16 2009, 05:08 PM
      Negative And here’s -70, you deluded wackoidiot.

      Grumpy Posted: May 15 2009, 06:55 PM
      Negative Pure Gibberish

      TheDoc Posted: May 9 2009, 01:02 AM
      Negative Goblin

      Grumpy Posted: May 7 2009, 12:13 AM
      Negative –

      uaafanblog Posted: Apr 19 2009, 02:38 AM
      Negative Because I haven’t given you neg for almost a year.

      TheDoc Posted: Apr 11 2009, 12:54 AM
      Negative You are an idiot.

      Geoff Mollusc Posted: Apr 4 2009, 07:58 AM
      Negative Immeasurably stupid fucknut.

      barakn Posted: Apr 4 2009, 06:35 AM
      Negative –

      TheDoc Posted: Apr 2 2009, 01:47 AM
      Negative Facepalm imminent

      gmilam Posted: Apr 1 2009, 12:48 PM
      Negative http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqhreQQ4glA

      Grumpy Posted: Apr 1 2009, 12:09 AM
      Negative IDiotic

      TheDoc Posted: Mar 25 2009, 07:51 PM
      Negative –

      Cusa Posted: Mar 9 2009, 05:27 AM
      Positive Hey Gary.

      Physfan Posted: Mar 8 2009, 09:25 PM
      Negative Lives in fantasy land with the rest of that ethnic group, Fucktards.

      Grumpy Posted: Mar 8 2009, 06:57 PM
      Negative IDiot.

      Geoff Mollusc Posted: Feb 27 2009, 06:34 AM
      Negative Gary Gobshite.

      Grumpy Posted: Feb 26 2009, 11:22 AM
      Negative Religious nutbag who thinks wearing a labcoat makes him a scientist.

      TheDoc Posted: Feb 14 2009, 03:26 AM
      Negative Gary Goblin

      TheDoc Posted: Jan 30 2009, 09:06 PM
      Negative –

      Grumpy Posted: Jan 28 2009, 02:01 AM
      Negative Terminally Stupid is a terrible thing to be.

      ASTERIX* Posted: Dec 28 2008, 07:20 AM
      Negative Outta this world, off his tits insanity.

      Grumpy Posted: Dec 27 2008, 05:31 PM
      Negative Back to dump another steaming pile, I see. I guess it takes all kinds, even the totally useless and Terminally Stupid.
      TS is a terrible thing to be, sometimes it is just incurable. Sad.

      TheDoc Posted: Dec 20 2008, 05:24 AM
      Negative –

      Physfan Posted: Nov 24 2008, 08:45 PM
      Negative A fool who doesn’t know it (but would a fool recognise their foolishness)? I hope his brand of sky fairy loves him because no one else does.

      TheDoc Posted: Sep 8 2008, 12:09 AM
      Negative Here’s another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.

      Grumpy Posted: Sep 6 2008, 08:52 AM
      Negative Begins his "scientific" inquiries with an answer(A Creator) and then goes looking for evidence to support that answer.
      A preconceptual scientist.

      MjolnirPants Posted: Sep 5 2008, 02:09 PM
      Negative You’re still a ‘tard…

      vkamath Posted: Aug 22 2008, 05:02 AM
      Negative Sarcastic idiot

      Krieger der Wahrheit Posted: Aug 21 2008, 10:45 PM
      Negative Why do you post your theory in every single thread?

      MjolnirPants Posted: Aug 21 2008, 09:34 PM
      Negative Jesus may love ya, but the rest of us think yer a ‘tard…

      Grumpy Posted: Aug 21 2008, 09:07 PM
      Negative The Idiot is YOU

      Dr Fred A Wolf Posted: Aug 21 2008, 08:03 PM
      Negative Mindfucked retard.

      Trippy Posted: Aug 19 2008, 10:20 AM
      Negative Delusional handjob by-product.
      Oh, and it seem’s we’re still here.

      N O M Posted: Jul 26 2008, 09:36 AM
      Negative –

      Masked Marauder Posted: Jul 15 2008, 01:01 AM
      Negative For being a bible thumper

      N O M Posted: Jul 14 2008, 08:29 PM
      Negative –

      Dabeer Posted: Jul 13 2008, 12:25 PM
      Positive Surprised to see good things said by this poster about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

      Delia Posted: Jul 12 2008, 03:23 AM
      Negative Here’s another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.

      Grumpy Posted: Jul 7 2008, 08:50 AM
      Negative Begins his "scientific" inquiries with an answer(A Creator) and then goes looking for evidence to support that answer.
      A preconceptual scientist.

      Dr Fred A Wolf Posted: Jul 6 2008, 05:50 PM
      Negative Downs Syndrome playing-up again?

      N O M Posted: Jul 6 2008, 03:44 AM
      Negative boob

      TheDoc Posted: Jun 30 2008, 02:03 AM
      Negative Here’s another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.

      TheDoc Posted: Jun 7 2008, 05:44 PM
      Negative Here’s another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.

      TheDoc Posted: May 27 2008, 02:43 AM
      Negative Here’s another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.

      photojack Posted: May 14 2008, 07:00 AM
      Negative This seems to be the level of intellect from Gary! "I smell cheese. Or was that someone passing gas? Har!" Seriously delusional and needs to learn about the scientific peer-review process before he puts his foot in his mouth again! (()) Only a few more days until uaafanblog’s next negative!

      <Max> Posted: May 13 2008, 01:01 AM
      Negative -29

      Beer w/Straw Posted: May 12 2008, 12:22 AM
      Negative look a neg

      Grumpy Posted: May 10 2008, 01:23 PM
      Negative Seriously delusional jerk.

      uaafanblog Posted: May 10 2008, 02:53 AM
      Negative This is simply another in a long future list of making up for my mistaken pos rep. As long as you are here you’ll see this weekly from me. Your hypocrisy and ignorance deserve nothing less.

      TheDoc Posted: May 9 2008, 03:34 AM
      Negative -25

      <Max> Posted: May 5 2008, 09:05 PM
      Negative -24 you freaking retard

      BigDumbWeirdo Posted: May 5 2008, 02:51 PM
      Negative completely ignorant of science, the scientific method, and even the particulars of his own belief system.

      Grumpy Posted: Apr 29 2008, 12:03 PM
      Negative What a Freaking Fool!!!

      uaafanblog Posted: Apr 28 2008, 11:38 AM
      Negative I’m still bummed that I hit the pos button mistakenly last week. It will take a long time for me to undo that error statistically but I’m determined to make it happen.

      <Max> Posted: Apr 28 2008, 07:58 AM
      Negative -20

      uaafanblog Posted: Apr 18 2008, 11:20 PM
      Positive OK … so I’m jumping the gun here. It’s obvious to me that "the rapture" isn’t happening today as you promised. This is really the only method I have for expressing my disappointment. Expect regular weekly negs from now until the rapture actually does happen at which time I’ll give you a pos since I’ll still be here.

      <Max> Posted: Apr 17 2008, 11:12 AM
      Negative -20

      TheDoc Posted: Apr 13 2008, 05:41 AM
      Negative -19

      Grumpy Posted: Apr 10 2008, 02:24 PM
      Negative ID’ers will certainly know I’m one of them now!
      I wondered how you Idiotic Deniers recognized each other in order to mate.

      Sandra doliak Posted: Apr 10 2008, 08:03 AM
      Negative Incoherent gibberish maker.

      N O M Posted: Apr 10 2008, 02:45 AM
      Negative idiot

      <Max> Posted: Apr 7 2008, 07:39 AM
      Negative –

      Moomin Posted: Apr 5 2008, 08:23 AM
      Negative Godswallop.

      TheDoc Posted: Apr 5 2008, 02:46 AM
      Negative –

      uaafanblog Posted: Apr 4 2008, 03:26 PM
      Positive I’m giving you a pos not because you have earned it. But instead because I’m happy to know that Yahweh is FINALLY gonna make all you idiots disappear. Man oh man … I sure hope you aren’t wrong. If you are wrong then I’m neg repping you on April 19th.

      BigDumbWeirdo Posted: Apr 4 2008, 01:26 PM
      Negative religious psychotic nincompoop. Jesus may love you, but everyone else thinks you’re a ‘tard.

      Sapo Posted: Apr 4 2008, 12:53 PM
      Negative Grumpy said it so well! I’m laughing too hard to be original…

      Grumpy Posted: Mar 31 2008, 02:37 PM
      Negative Back to dump another steaming pile, I see. I guess it takes all kinds, even the totally useless and Terminally Stupid.

      <Max> Posted: Mar 31 2008, 04:27 AM
      Negative –

      N O M Posted: Mar 31 2008, 01:26 AM
      Negative terminally stupid

      N O M Posted: Mar 16 2008, 03:53 AM
      Negative nutter

      N O M Posted: Feb 24 2008, 07:49 AM
      Negative Happy Neg Day

      N O M Posted: Feb 15 2008, 12:59 AM
      Negative –

      N O M Posted: Feb 6 2008, 08:36 AM
      Negative non-random negative

      rethinker Posted: Feb 1 2008, 11:19 PM
      Positive I think your feedback could use the Intelligence Detector

      N O M Posted: Jan 28 2008, 06:14 AM
      Negative –

      photojack Posted: Jan 23 2008, 04:56 PM
      Negative For consistent MISREPRESENTATION of legitimate science as supporting ID. Needs to learn about the peer-review process and how it weeds out hogwash like cell "intelligence" as he interprets it! And for thinking creationresearch.org has valid science on its site. My rebuttal to their lichen article proved their bogusness! (())

      Grumpy Posted: Jan 21 2008, 05:56 PM
      Negative For consistent representation of legitimate science as supporting ID.
      And for accepting comedian and right wing wingnut Ben Stein as an authority on science!!! What’s next, "Horse face" Coulter as a historian???

      Cecil P Abstract Posted: Jan 19 2008, 07:59 AM
      Negative Neg Slaughter – Episode #1

      StevenA Posted: Jan 18 2008, 07:42 AM
      Positive I see the troll couldn’t handle having it’s cage rattled
      Nothing like a good outside-of-the-box discussion to rile them up. Good work!

      Alpha Posted: Jan 18 2008, 02:04 AM
      Negative Feedback Massacre – Part 1

      N O M Posted: Jan 17 2008, 09:01 AM
      Negative Neg generator – test 1

    • #92422

      It’s a real shame that professionals who are supposed to be "unbiased" clearly have a bias against those who choose to believe in God or creationism. Scientists who believe in God are no less professional than those who don’t. Insulting them for their beliefs is akin to racism. There’s no reason that belief in God and the study of science cannot coexist. You don’t have to believe in God, but leave the people who do alone. Keep your ego to yourself.

    • #92423

      There’s something to be said about someone who’s entire profession is based on collecting evidence and then basing conclusion on that evidence and that alone, but will then go home and believe something that doesn’t have one shroud (pun intended) of evidence whatsoever. This statement applies to every religion, eastern and western.

      If you’d like to believe in some sort of supernatural being or whatever else that cannot be proven at all, then don’t be surprised when you’re mocked in a community whose sole purpose is to derive conclusions based on evidence.

    • #92424

      You shouldn’t be mocked for a personal belief or choice that has nothing to do with your career. It’s discrimination. Period.

    • #92425

      In a professional setting I would say it is entirely inappropriate; if it compromises someone’s ability to succeed or advance in their job I would consider it discrimination. If it happens outside of work and doesn’t advance to anything serious I would say that it is a matter of free speech.

      I won’t say an "eye for an eye" necessarily, but religious people don’t necessarily tend to speak so kindly of science, particularly things that tend to disagree with their religious teachings. If you’re trying to speak or act in any scientific field, leave the religion out of it.

    • #92426

      Additionally, Einstein did not define his god by the traditional Judeo-Christian sense. His god was "nature" and its happenings.. not a personal god who dealt with sins and punishment.

      Galileo was not religious as far as we can actually tell. He was religious because you HAD to be in his day and age where he lived… if you wanted to stay alive. Try publishing something in the 15- and 1600s without being a devout Catholic. Not a chance.

      To say that you can only advance science by full-on believing something that is, for lack of evidence, false is a totally speculation that can only come from somebody with a religious background in the first place. It is clear that you don’t have an understanding about how scientific research and the scientific community in general works.

    • #92427
      quote :

      Doesn’t know SQUAT about Nachos. Pitiful buggering dork.
      quote :

      Immeasurably stupid f***nut
      quote :

      Back to dump another steaming pile, I see. I guess it takes all kinds, even the totally useless and Terminally Stupid.
      TS is a terrible thing to be, sometimes it is just incurable. Sad.

      HILL-arious!! Say what you want, those guys can come up with some clever put-downs. "Doesn’t know squat about nachos?" Come on… That’s golden!! Where’s the quotes thread when you need it??? 😀 😀

      I suppose I should say something worthwhile to make up for my jockish reaction above…

      Eh.. nah.

    • #92429

      GaryGaulin, I did not (at least I hope) call you a religious nutter or with any other names. All I posted considered your initial post and your claim that a top scientist needs to be religious. Also, I mentioned that religion is like a contageous disease, because it gets passed on from people to people and has many bad effects. This either wasn’t aimed at you personally, since I didn’t know what your religious views were (if there were any).

      Then, to Biomom, I think that if a university level professor belives in god it just displays some degree of lack of judgement and rational thought, but doesn’t necessarily prevent the professor from doing their job properly. However, if such a professor believes in creationism, that is an outright sign of complete incompetence and such a person should never hold such an important position. This is especially true with professors of natural sciences, but applies to any professor-level scientist and teacher. Like Jyaron already mentioned, if a researcher of that level manages to a) ignore all the evidence pointing towards natural selection and evolution and b) chooses to belive in something that has no evidence whatsoever, they are not worth called a scientist at all, and should never hold a professorship (regardless of their field).

    • #92430

      Thank you for such civil replies! This is a more serious forum anyway. Place for me to get away from where it is always total chaos to help restore me back to some sanity.

      The hard part of eliminating biases is showing where it exists which of course makes one somewhat of an outcast in some science circles like the one above where I was even banished for two weeks for not stopping my insisting that even though it is as ID as it obviously is the theory I have been working on for just about all of my life is scientific.

      When all religious bias is removed for either side the phrase "intelligent cause" is limited to what evidence supports such as "emergence" what the Discovery Institute stated as the premise of the "Theory Of Intelligent Design" very well describes what is on the blog that follows to evidence that kind of "intelligent cause" not a magical Santa Claus sort of thing.

      Ultimate goal that goes into how consciousness works and beyond, which keeps it going on and on into the future. Which is good for a theory to have.

      Where I rename the theory to something else then write out what the premise adds it becomes sneaking ID into the classroom under another name. I seriously had only had one choice what to do, accept that I was writing the intelligence theory the ID movement described in their premise even though I didn’t know about it until the Kansas School Board hearing gave the Discovery Institute what it needed to start the controversy.

      In the scientific method that I use and teach to others on the internet as far as science is concerned there is no unexplainable "supernatural" there is just the "unknown" all of which can in time be understood in enough detail that we can better answer the "big questions" we all have. Invoking forces beyond scientific investigation is here impossible, there are none to begin with.

      Eastern culture has Prophet Muhammad describing how learning how living things work keeps everyone in search of the Creator without harming religion. This scientific method is literally sacred to Islam, so there is no problem at all explaining it to their scientists. PNAS is now a hero for a couple of very science shaking papers that brought it back to religion winning the science battle for a change which proves science is actually keeping the search for the Creator going for Muslims too. We otherwise get more dead in Nigeria and beyond against "western science" that is being represented by what you saw in my swear filled sample I showed of it. Thankfully some of the creativity is kinda hilarious in a way that it is easy to see they sure did not win any points hurling such poop.

      The rest of the scientific method I explain makes the best of all the peer-review possible to keep the theory getting stronger all the time. Some of the best ideas came from the Physics forum where along with the rest have to proudly display the negative rating and endure the abuse. Can say, it proves that the scientific method uses their enemy to their own demise without anyone getting physically hurt but severe humiliation may occur which forces them to reason. As long as we learn from our mistakes then search on like responsible scientists being wrong is easily forgiven, although some may have to work hard to make amends after representing science in a way that real scientists detest.

      I have had my times where I doubted ever finding anything of a Creator through science and like Albert Einstein saw it as teaching religion a thing or two too, because it does. But none really miss the details that no longer make sense after knowing so we win, with in time world clergy glad we did. Having this struggle going on worth writing about right there shows the religious side is working on them. Swings of uncertainty are expected. We change with time from what we learn. Have to look at all they write to find what took great courage for a scientist to say even back then.

      When properly explained the religions of the world wants to look over the biologist’s shoulder taking notes. And I know PNAS and all here would rather that than war against it. So at least the NAS looks good and I have to say appreciate their papers being online open access. When it is what Islam likes then with the click of a mouse is light-speed on the way to Mecca. Or Dover where it is the same search for the Creator there too. End up with PNAS papers and all sorts of other good research on its way to Sunday School teachers where from there even grade school students will all know that ahead of their teasing peers they will soon have to face when school begins again soon. Have to hope they can actually prove they are the ones to rule their science classroom, with science. Unprepared teachers should have a hard time keeping up with them.

      All in all there is no "science-stopper" in religion that I know of. Sometimes it advances science. The religious minded might even soon show where the stoppers really were. Which helps show why religion is not all bad for science like some think it is and why so many theories come from the religious minded.

    • #92432

      Ok, I’ll rephrase. Religion per se does not necessarily hinder science, but how people interprepet it very often does – that is what matters and that is what religion is all about in the end. Examples of this can include cases such as claiming that a ten-cell embryo has a soul and as such cannot be used for scientific purposes, or muslim religious leaders suppressing the freedom of speech and women’s rights so badly that they outright affect negatively to the capability of those nations to do top-notch science, or, in history, Christian church trying to burn everyone alive who dared to oppose them – Galileo was just a famous example.

      What comes to the search for a creator of some sort: that in itself is not unscientifical, of course. It is completely fine to try to look for alternative ways to explain how life begun, for example, and one can even doubt evolution if they want. But a true scientist should admit that whith current knowledge and evidence we have the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly supported, the chance that we or our ancestors or life on Earth was created by aliens is diminishingly small, and that the claim that a god has created us has no scientific basis whatsoever, as it is completely untestable anyway.

      So, it is good that some people think about alternative ways to explain our existence as long as they don’t claim evolution to be a lie or deliberately mislead people. It is arrogant to not not give credit to the evidence evolutionary scientists have gathered, whether a person themselves was looking for alternative theories or not. Although in my opinion the evidence of evolution is nowadays about as solid as evidence of gravity, and not too many persons anymore find it necessary to try to find alternative explanations for falling apples… but it’s not unscientifical to try to look for one, as long as the explanation isn’t simply "god made it so".

    • #92435

      Biohazard, I agree with what you are trying to say but what I found shows Galileo was caught up in a very academia related power struggle feud than most think especially with philosopher Bruno like daring the pope to martyr him for beating the church up with with Galileo worked on too.

      I also have to add that "Evolutionary Theory" is no longer just "random mutation and natural selection" there is a "Modern Synthesis" with over a half dozen things working together with epigenetics and other things expected to change it even more. That is fine for the area of "evolution", so where it is taught just teach it properly.

      My work is in the area of "intelligence" as is Intelligent Design, a whole other science field that just so happen to need an intelligence theory like that. Evolutionary theorists will not care where the ID movement goes annoy the scientists over there anyway, as long as they leave their theory alone. And the scientists there are almost prophets like here Guenter also honored at ARN where the ID Forum is where beginning work on the theory of ID began and now his online work is referenced from it like this:

      [6] Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Robert Laughlin Rea, "Cell Intelligence", Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago.
      http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-bue … llint0.htm

      Have to show what is already there and the kind of theory that is possible by following a rather simple time proven scientific method, that you use too but is here adapted for our needs where there are no limits at all in science. The lectures on where science cannot go, is what needs to go because it is another science-stopper. Be more class time spent teaching how things work by skipping the boring class lecture and discussion on a philosophy based political statement that does not help understand our origins any better. Or helps anyone get a proper explanation of modern evolutionary theory, like I agree is necessary. But my field is "intelligence" so I’m leaving the "evolution" theory to those who like working on that one instead. ID theory has to develop a new area of science, not rewrite one already there.

    • #92436
      quote GaryGaulin:

      I also have to add that “Evolutionary Theory” is no longer just “random mutation and natural selection” there is a “Modern Synthesis” with over a half dozen things working together with epigenetics and other things expected to change it even more. That is fine for the area of “evolution”, so where it is taught just teach it properly.

      As is with gravity, we certainly don’t yet understand everything about evolution. Epigenetics is a good example of the fact that new knowledge can always change old beliefs (here: that acquired traits cannot be inherited, which is of course a big thing when it comes to the theory of evolution, but epigenetics adds to it instead of invalidating it).

      And like with all science, it is or at least should be taught according to the latest knowledge without forgetting to mention possible contradictions, alternative theories and things that are still unlcear.

    • #92438

      Yes so much is changing so fast that the evolutionary theory that was being fought over no longer really even exist in science anymore. Evolutionary theory now has human chromosome speciation to better include, and I am glad I got off easy on that one in the intelligence theory with it already a place in the logic structure for that. Epigenetics was the missing part of the circuit schematic of the intelligence system for addressing memory action Data such that the genome looks like this when drawn as an electronic circuit schematic.


      Science keeps falling in place, while evolutionary theory seems to be becoming increasingly complicated and harder to teach and learn with time. Maybe it is me but when you rearrange the logic around it might end up looking like the intelligence theory way of explaining speciation. It’s not that the evolutionary theory cannot adapt to new evidence, it is what happens in time when it has to include intelligence making mate selection choices that makes it look a little like another ID theory starting to spruot inside a theory already there but I have reason to be the optimist on that happening! 😀

    • #93616

      Greetings all… I am the MjolnirPants of Gary’s feedback comments, and I have a few things to say about this….
      First, the comments I and most of the others posted had nothing to do with Gary’s religious beliefs, but rather his insistence upon the truth of intelligent design, and his utterly misguided attempts to create his own version of the theory (which varies between being almost identical to evolutionary theory and almost identical to ID, depending upon his mood).

      Second, I myself believe in God. However, I acknowledge without reservation that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of God’s existence. Every question we have about the universe has either been answered through natural processes, or is so likely to be answered through them that it’s not worth considering the whole "godditit" angle.

      Gary is known on the forum from whence those comments came for unintelligent, ignorant posts and ridiculous claims to credibility. He has allowed his religious beliefs to color how he views the natural world, and as such, has faced ridicule and mocking when he attempts to pawn his views off on others.

      The following link evinces everything I’ve said thus far (excepting my own religious beliefs) for anyone who doubts me, and also serves as an example of something Gary should spend more time doing: proving his claims.

    • #93745

      Hi MjolnirPants who in feedback elsewhere said I am an "Enormous anus"!

      If that is true then you must be very careful what you feed me. Never know what will come splattering out the other end. Hehehe…

      It’s great to see you admit to having a religious side too. But you don’t have to torture yourself that much on my anally account. In this forum the discussion led to my somehow needing to evidence my experience without getting personal or being misunderstood, and all the manure in the online feedback was an ideal representative sampling of what I needed to document.

      I would say that the consensus was that it is just the usual stupid crap that should not exist but unfortunately goes with the territory. And I agree with that conclusion, was not acting all hurt and religiously persecuted. My religion is more like what the sum of the world’s religions is searching for, that I search for through science. Someone calling me a Bible thumper only shows how out of touch with reality some of my critics actually are. From the somewhat truthful complaints I get it’s my theory-thumping that gets annoying but that only happens where studying a theory before commenting is not considered important.

      Honestly, your becoming included in Biology-Online’s definition of an "anus" is possibly the funniest thing I ever saw! Googling "enormous anus" is good too.

      And to clear the air here from the stench of what you hurl over there I hope you don’t mind me answering this one right now:

      quote MjolnirPants:

      You’re claiming your ideas were published in a peer-reviewed journal, now?
      ROFLMAO Keep lying through your teeth, it’s sooooooo funny on my end.

      How I introduced K12 to "self-assembly" like that of cell membranes is now in encyclopedias. Google "gary gaulin self-assembly of cell membrane" for a sample of how far that NSTA journal peer-reviewed experiment has gone, so far. In science education it’s the "PNAS" or "Nature" and hard to get published in. But I was certain they needed the experiment and as it turned out it was a big help for an upcoming issue that introduces (nonrandom) "self-assembly" to science teachers.

      All of the elements of the theory are in one way or another going into science all the time. For example the "Intelligence Generator/Detector" tutorial works where genius programmers go for ideas PlanetSourceCode which is where it needs to be because in this case it is impossible to download source code from a paper journal it has to be published online on a major peer-reviewed information service for programmers. And I just remembered that the rating it received in initial review is shown, which is here 5 out of 5 stars.

      Now try googling for something stupid about the ID "intelligence detector" to see whose smiling back at you again. 😀

      Best place to be is everywhere. So I work towards that goal. Metaphorically speaking worlds I can now goggle you too is entering the twilight zone where "intelligence" controls both your horizontal and vertical. And since what you are seeing is reality there is absolutely no way out.

      Like it or not since at least the 70’s robotics has been applied to biological systems. Now that biology is at the molecular level it’s becoming even more valuable. There is now "systems biology" trying to understand such system behaviors where some qualify as "intelligent" which makes it possible to study living things from the perspective of intelligence, regardless of what you brown-nosers say.

      To explain the theory in regards to "evolutionary theory" I will show the primary "logical construction" where you can see that it is not primarily a two part randomness/selection like the current model of evolutionary theory there are 36 interrelated places for what is under study can be sorted to. There is "Electronic Intelligence" of computer models followed by 5 levels of emergent causation biological intelligences:

      quote :

      Logic structure of: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

      Electronic Intelligence
      – Clock Cycles
      – Detection Method

      UniMolecular Intelligence
      – Clock Cycles
      – Detection Method

      Molecular Intelligence
      – Clock Cycles
      – Detection Method

      Where something ends up having to be sorted to explains its primary function. For example I was recently working with egg-yolk/red-cabbage coacervates which produces motion/propulsion. That was easily found to be "REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 – SOMETHING TO CONTROL" and it would be extremely hard to argue that it belongs anywhere else. So now I know that the most important thing for teachers to explain about what is being seen is how the motion is produced and how it’s the same sort of thing that turns flagella motors, muscles and other things that move. It’s otherwise just showing students something moving around while suggesting it’s somehow coming to life, when it’s actually more like a body in need of a brain just twitching around which is kinda the same thing but at least how the experiment relates to the origin of life is much better explained.

      The coacervates in turn brought into question the ordering of the remaining three requirements in time, to show what came next after the other. There is little doubt that #1 must be there first. Here we find the coacervates twitching around full of the simple molecules that when properly combined produces a chicken and other things. Which also answers the "What came first the chicken or the egg?" question by first predicting "egg-yolk". Which is found in both the chicken and the egg. But the chicken doesn’t need the egg to survive or the egg necessarily need the chicken which in turn predicts the egg came first.

      How to order the remaining three requirements were not as obvious, so I left it in the order I started with until what needed to be done became noticeable. And now I can see that a coacervate controlled by #3 Feedback could do something interesting. But having #2 Memory would seem to be useless at that point in time. Which indicates that #2 and #3 can be swapped so that after something to control it needs feedback. First there would be a muscle to control, which we know has two connections one to control "motor" action to make it move as commanded and a "feedback" back to the brain to sense what the muscle is actually doing. The electronic intelligence also needs motor control and feedback for it to work properly.

      The logical construction of this theory makes predictions as individually testable hypotheses are added which in turn refine the logical construction of the theory itself, but there are definitely four requirements only their final ordering is left in question. It’s what the theory self-corrected to, starting with just a few paragraphs with the whole idea but nothing like the logic structure it now has that was a long step by step assembly process.

      The logical structure of Darwinian evolutionary theory is not comparable to the logical structure of an Intelligent causation origins theory. One covers "evolution" but not "origins" while the other covers "origins" while evolution is a concept from another theory that is more precisely a form of "learning" therefore that word must be used because that’s how robotics intelligence science works. So logically, there is no doubt at all that they are two completely different theories, each with their unique terminology.

      But when the wind blows the other way there comes what teachers actually teach in science class when they present their knowledge of "evolutionary theory" which will have origins science mixed in even though evolutionary theory is not supposed to cover that. And since origins theory is already there in the class time that’s most likely where the other theory will be taught too. Might later rename it "origins theory" to reflect science teachers being beyond explaining just evolution. So even though the two theories are very different "evolutionary theory" that is taught in school includes origins theories along with it that combines the two like they are one.

      The intelligence theory can cover "evolution" because it covers all of origins by using a different logical construction. Even though MjolnirPants and other noodle-heads bend over forward to try to tell you otherwise.

Viewing 20 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.