For an informative exchange correcting many popular stereotypes about the warfare between Christianity and science, read the interview with Ron Numbers.
It appears that Numbers has the wrong numbers: quote QUESTION: Are scientists in general atheistic?
MR. NUMBERS: The public often gets the impression that most scientists are non-believers. But, that's not true. Just within the past year the journal Nature published a study that revealed even today roughly the same proportion of scientists believe in God as did 75 years ago. [The figure is almost 40%] end quote
Um, Numbers just told us that it's "not true" that "most scientists are non-believers" while simultaneously admitting that 60% of us are. Hmmm...60% is not "most"??
Yeah, I'd really take this guy seriously if I were you. He's obviously a friggin' genius.
By the way, he isn't mentioning the finding that among "greater" scientists, the percentage of disbelievers/doubters rose significantly from 1914 to 1996. In 1996, only 7 percent of the NAS members believed in a personal God. Seven freakin' percent.
Sorry, but yes, science does induce skepticism. I know of virtual NONE of my colleagues who believe in "miracles" or anything of the sort.
Dan said: --- I know of virtual NONE of my colleagues who believe in "miracles" or anything of the sort. ---
Oh yes, the old "Every car I've seen broken down on the side of the road is a Ford, therefore Ford is the worst car company" trick.
Naturally we could ask what percentage of scientist Danny knows personally, but I'm thinking that would be far less than "seven freakin' percent" even.
Dan wrote: --- Um, Numbers just told us that it's "not true" that "most scientists are non-believers" while simultaneously admitting that 60% of us are. Hmmm...60% is not "most"??
Yeah, I'd really take this guy seriously if I were you. He's obviously a friggin' genius. ---
On the other hand, I don't take you seriously since you don't have the ability to read people charitably when they speak in an interview. I'm sure what Numbers meant by his comment is that people assume there are hardly any believers amongst scientists, but this study showed that 40% of them believe in God, which is way more than most people say. I'm sure if he was writing an essay on it instead of being involved in an interview, he would have been more exact in the words he used.
Dan wrote: --- By the way, he isn't mentioning the finding that among "greater" scientists, the percentage of disbelievers/doubters rose significantly from 1914 to 1996. ---
And you're not mentioning the finding that among "greater" imbiciles, the percentage of disbelievers/doubters rose significantly from 1914 to 1996.
But of course when we get to ad hoc defined "greater" and "scientist" why any result can mean whatever we want it to say....
Honestly, I don't follow the "might is right" approach to anything, and I don't expect theists to do the same. I don't think that because most scientistsdo indeed disbelieve or doubt, that they are right by virtue of their majority status.
I do think that when someone is interviewed on "science and religion", they should get their major points logically correct.
Anyway, I will stop being an a** if you all will...deal?
Steve, I don't think you're gay for liking Cary Grant. Maybe in poor taste, but hey, I like Homer Simpson. ;)
Numbers does point out something I find very distressing, and that has had far-reaching consequences. During the 19th century a large number of theologians were promoting Darwinism, and they weren't all liberals. Charles Hodge was an old earther who eisegetically inserted "millions of years (now billions)" into the days of Genesis. This has done untold damage to many young believers and has seriously undermined the respect for the authority of scripture in the general populace. The truly sad part is there was no reason to compromise scripture to accommodate the fallible opinions of man. Despite the claims of the religious scientism advocates evolution is not a fact, nor even a theory. If you examine any area of current evolutionary cosmology, geology, or biology what you find are a host of unfounded and unproven foundational philosophical assumptions. Evolutionary science in all its various forms is not really science, it's philosophy masquerading as science. It's also a poorly constructed hypothesis, not a theory. There may be a conflict between evolutionary scientism and Christianity, but not between true science and Christianity. Those who say otherwise do so not from a love of truth, but from a desire to believe anything but scripture.
First, let me ask: how many of you [dirty ol' Trilly-boogers] subscribe to a young earth? To special creation? To God-guided common descent? To God-free common descent, with the only "miracle" in the initiation of the universe? I hope there are at least a few of you in the latter two camps.
During the 19th century a large number of theologians were promoting Darwinism, and they weren't all liberals. That's right! In fact, I was surprised to learn of this fact myself. Who did I learn it from? Where? Well, the article, "Darwin's Forgotten Christian Defenders" by Ed Babinski, of course. It's worth reading and thinking over. I was most surprised to learn that "The Fundamentals" included essays written by evolution-friendly theologians.
The truly sad part is there was no reason to compromise scripture to accommodate the fallible opinions of man. To make the creation myth more amenable to reality? I especially enjoyed reading Glenn R. Morton, Christian evolutionist, shredding the misconceptions of persons like yourself, who claim that the Bible has to be "perverted" to incorporate an evolutionary interpretation of the Hebrew creation myth: 1) Plain Reading of Genesis 1 2) Does the Bible Teach Evolution?
Despite the claims of the religious scientism advocates evolution is not a fact, nor even a theory. So, do we just take this on your say-so? Who gets to define terms like scientific "theory" in your world: religionists or the scientific community itself? Because it's pretty clear that the latter decided long ago that evolution is a historical fact and a theory. And, it sure does seem that they have evidence to substantiate their claim...what is your scientific theory of creationism? I've yet to find one. I've found all kinds of conjecture and speculation, but never, once, a single, coherent, rational framework within which explanation is cogently argued from the evidence to support YEC or anything resembling.
Ron Numbers certainly has the right number on this score! :-) Thanks for the link, Evan.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that Numbers has the wrong numbers:
ReplyDeletequote
QUESTION: Are scientists in general atheistic?
MR. NUMBERS: The public often gets the impression that most scientists are non-believers. But, that's not true. Just within the past year the journal Nature published a study that revealed even today roughly the same proportion of scientists believe in God as did 75 years ago. [The figure is almost 40%]
end quote
Um, Numbers just told us that it's "not true" that "most scientists are non-believers" while simultaneously admitting that 60% of us are. Hmmm...60% is not "most"??
Yeah, I'd really take this guy seriously if I were you. He's obviously a friggin' genius.
By the way, he isn't mentioning the finding that among "greater" scientists, the percentage of disbelievers/doubters rose significantly from 1914 to 1996. In 1996, only 7 percent of the NAS members believed in a personal God. Seven freakin' percent.
Sorry, but yes, science does induce skepticism. I know of virtual NONE of my colleagues who believe in "miracles" or anything of the sort.
Congratulations Dan, I guess that means you're right. I mean only 7%, wow. Why even debate the issue any more?
ReplyDelete--Jon Unyan
All I can say is Hail Satan.
ReplyDeleteOh, Cray Grant was gay as well.
In a live interview, people sometimes misspeak. That does not subtract from the substance of Numbers' historical overview.
ReplyDeleteDan said:
ReplyDelete---
I know of virtual NONE of my colleagues who believe in "miracles" or anything of the sort.
---
Oh yes, the old "Every car I've seen broken down on the side of the road is a Ford, therefore Ford is the worst car company" trick.
Naturally we could ask what percentage of scientist Danny knows personally, but I'm thinking that would be far less than "seven freakin' percent" even.
Dan wrote:
---
Um, Numbers just told us that it's "not true" that "most scientists are non-believers" while simultaneously admitting that 60% of us are. Hmmm...60% is not "most"??
Yeah, I'd really take this guy seriously if I were you. He's obviously a friggin' genius.
---
On the other hand, I don't take you seriously since you don't have the ability to read people charitably when they speak in an interview. I'm sure what Numbers meant by his comment is that people assume there are hardly any believers amongst scientists, but this study showed that 40% of them believe in God, which is way more than most people say. I'm sure if he was writing an essay on it instead of being involved in an interview, he would have been more exact in the words he used.
Dan wrote:
---
By the way, he isn't mentioning the finding that among "greater" scientists, the percentage of disbelievers/doubters rose significantly from 1914 to 1996.
---
And you're not mentioning the finding that among "greater" imbiciles, the percentage of disbelievers/doubters rose significantly from 1914 to 1996.
But of course when we get to ad hoc defined "greater" and "scientist" why any result can mean whatever we want it to say....
Calvindude,
ReplyDeleteNow, now, play nice.
Honestly, I don't follow the "might is right" approach to anything, and I don't expect theists to do the same. I don't think that because most scientists do indeed disbelieve or doubt, that they are right by virtue of their majority status.
I do think that when someone is interviewed on "science and religion", they should get their major points logically correct.
Anyway, I will stop being an a** if you all will...deal?
Steve, I don't think you're gay for liking Cary Grant. Maybe in poor taste, but hey, I like Homer Simpson. ;)
Numbers does point out something I find very distressing, and that has had far-reaching consequences. During the 19th century a large number of theologians were promoting Darwinism, and they weren't all liberals. Charles Hodge was an old earther who eisegetically inserted "millions of years (now billions)" into the days of Genesis. This has done untold damage to many young believers and has seriously undermined the respect for the authority of scripture in the general populace. The truly sad part is there was no reason to compromise scripture to accommodate the fallible opinions of man. Despite the claims of the religious scientism advocates evolution is not a fact, nor even a theory. If you examine any area of current evolutionary cosmology, geology, or biology what you find are a host of unfounded and unproven foundational philosophical assumptions. Evolutionary science in all its various forms is not really science, it's philosophy masquerading as science. It's also a poorly constructed hypothesis, not a theory. There may be a conflict between evolutionary scientism and Christianity, but not between true science and Christianity. Those who say otherwise do so not from a love of truth, but from a desire to believe anything but scripture.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me ask: how many of you [dirty ol' Trilly-boogers] subscribe to a young earth? To special creation? To God-guided common descent? To God-free common descent, with the only "miracle" in the initiation of the universe? I hope there are at least a few of you in the latter two camps.
ReplyDeleteDuring the 19th century a large number of theologians were promoting Darwinism, and they weren't all liberals.
That's right! In fact, I was surprised to learn of this fact myself. Who did I learn it from? Where? Well, the article, "Darwin's Forgotten Christian Defenders" by Ed Babinski, of course. It's worth reading and thinking over. I was most surprised to learn that "The Fundamentals" included essays written by evolution-friendly theologians.
The truly sad part is there was no reason to compromise scripture to accommodate the fallible opinions of man.
To make the creation myth more amenable to reality? I especially enjoyed reading Glenn R. Morton, Christian evolutionist, shredding the misconceptions of persons like yourself, who claim that the Bible has to be "perverted" to incorporate an evolutionary interpretation of the Hebrew creation myth:
1) Plain Reading of Genesis 1
2) Does the Bible Teach Evolution?
Despite the claims of the religious scientism advocates evolution is not a fact, nor even a theory.
So, do we just take this on your say-so? Who gets to define terms like scientific "theory" in your world: religionists or the scientific community itself? Because it's pretty clear that the latter decided long ago that evolution is a historical fact and a theory. And, it sure does seem that they have evidence to substantiate their claim...what is your scientific theory of creationism? I've yet to find one. I've found all kinds of conjecture and speculation, but never, once, a single, coherent, rational framework within which explanation is cogently argued from the evidence to support YEC or anything resembling.