Can Someone Please Tell Me the Difference

_{Barry Arrington

August 19, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Between these following:

Scenario 1:

Galileo: The earth orbits the sun

Galileo’s opponent: Idiot. Ptolemy established that the sun orbits the earth 1,500 years ago and that theory has served us well ever since.

Scenario 2:

ID proponent: The best explanation for the existence of complex specified information in living things is “act of an intelligent agent.”

ID opponent: IDiot. Darwin proposed a chance/necessity mechanism to explain everything about all aspects of living things 150 years ago, and that theory has served us well ever since.

The only difference I can see is that Galileo’s opponent seems to have a better argument, because the theory he was defending had been around 10 times longer.

Comments

Newton's religious beliefs are completely irrelevant to whether or not his science was true or not. Or to put it differently, Newton's three laws are either true or not true, irrespective of whether your particular god exists. When you you get your head around that particular truth, you will understand why I can respect Newton's genius as a physicist without giving any respect at all to Newton's ideas about religion.timothya_{August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

So in your view of Newton, timothya, it is possible for him to not be considered a 'devout' Christian and yet for him to hold that the second coming of Christ was a literal, real, event, that was prophesied in the Bible??? Yes, thanks for clearing that up timothya! For those not accomstomed to such logic, welcome to the ever flexible world of neo-Darwinists where things mean whatever you want them to mean, whenever you want them to mean what you want them to mean, just so as to avoid, at all cost, ever admitting that atheism is completely ludicrous!bornagain77_{August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Bjornagain posted this: "Well timothya, you claimed Newton wasn’t a Christian". No I did not. Read for comprehension. I posted this: "Oh, and by the way, you would have to draw an awfully long bow to claim Newton as a “devout” Christian." Note the adjective. Newton was a loony about some things, but he never let his "Christianity" get in the way of the conclusions he drew from the observations he made. That is a good lesson in my view.timothya_{August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Well timothya, you claimed Newton wasn't a Christian, yet when I showed you he was not only a Christian but that he was one of those 'crazy Christians' who had the audacity to actually take the bible literally as to Christ's return, and your response is to call me a numerologist??? Well so be it, I really don't know how much stock to put into this whole 'date setting thing' and am somewhat averse to the whole concept (no one knows the day or hour), but this whole prophecy thing that Newton was 'into', that you so quickly derided as mere pseudo-scientific numerology, actually has far more going for it, as to a firm mathematical basis, than one would be predisposed to believe at first glance:
Restoration Of Israel and Jerusalem In Prophecy (Doing the math) - Chuck Missler - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8598581
Moreover timothya it is funny that you would, as a neo-Darwinist, be so quick to label something, anything, as psuedo-scientific (i.e. such as numerology),,, all I can say in response to you doing as such, just to avoid admitting you were wrong about how devout Newton was as a Christian, is 'take a good, close, hard, look in the mirror':
Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences - astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin(ism) can be described as scientific" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerating science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit C.S. Lewis: creationist and anti-evolutionist Excerpt: "In 1951 C S Lewis wrote that evolution was “the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives” and modern civilization. Evolution, Lewis explained, is a picture of reality that has resulted from imagination and is “not the logical result of what is vaguely called ‘modern science’.” http://creation.com/c-s-lewis Evolution Is Religion--Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D. Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Philosopher Anti-Science Irony (Who is really anti-science?) - October 2011 Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” Darwin was “anti-Science”. When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.,,, Just two weeks before the (re)lease of The Origin of Species, Erasmus Darwin, his brother, consoled him in a letter: “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/
The following is a humorous cartoon reflecting Erasmus's, and present atheists/Darwinists, total disregard for empirical evidence;
The Atheist Doctor (Denial of Evidence) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRQzQpnYhKI Brian Cusack’s Latest: Anti Parsimonious, Teleological, Petitio Principii, Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc and Misrepresentations—Other Than That It’s Perfect - October 2011 Excerpt: ,,,evolutionists craft clever explanations that cast evolution and its natural selection in the active role of a designer. The theory sounds so much more plausible when natural selection responds to a need by creating a new design. ,, Out of one side of their mouth they rail against teleology while from the other they appeal to it over and over. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/10/brian-cusacks-latest-anti-parsimonious.html Nobel laureate physicist that you sure won’t read on a Darwin pressure group Web site Excerpt: Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! - Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69) “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.” Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin 'Just told I was ignorant and illogical (and something worse) for believing in a Creator God... So, help me with this logic, Mr. Smarty-Pants: Something from nothing; Life from non-life; Order from disorder; Rationality from randomness; Consciousness from chaos; Design from destruction; Information without intelligence... This is the enlightened "logic" on which you base your life. Rock On!' Randall Niles - in response to a PhD 'Smarty Pants' who was sending him nasty e-mails The Mind and Materialist Superstition - Six "conditions of mind" that are irreconcilable with materialism: Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery at SUNY, Stony Brook Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super.html
bornagain77_{August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Bjornagain - I hadn't realised you are a numerologist. I will retreat with both hands in clear sight.timothya_{August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

timothya perhaps you should do a little research to cover your behind before you go spouting things like this:
I just noticed that you think that quantum effects are expressed at classically physical scales,
for recent discoveries in science now reveal that your 'quantum effects only on small scales' belief is somewhat a outdated, even geocentric belief :)
LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf
As to Newton being a devout Christian there is no doubt that he was one since he studied and wrote on scripture far more than he did on science,
Israeli library uploads (Sir Isaac) Newton's theological texts - February 15, 2012 Excerpt: He's considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time.,, However, the curator of Israel's national library's humanities collection said Newton was also a devout Christian who dealt far more in theology than he did in physics,, "He (Sir Isaac Newton) took a great interest in the Jews, and we found no negative expressions toward Jews in his writing," said Levy-Rubin. "He (years before it was remotely feasible) said the Jews would ultimately return to their land." http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-israeli-library-uploads-newton-theological.html
Newton’s original manuscripts are uploaded here:
Newton Manuscripts http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English/collections/Humanities/Pages/newton.aspx
As to Newton being a 'orthodox' Christian, well no he wasn't, I never claimed he was, but then again so what? Christianity is hardly a monolithic faith in which one size fits all, as is readily testified by the many different Christian denominations in America! further notes: Sir Isaac Newton, who is considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scientist who has ever lived, was a avid student of Bible prophecy:
Sir Isaac Newton's Prediction For The Return Of Christ - Sid Roth video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041154
Of note, Newton's calculation to 2060 is corrected here to 2013 to reflect the different start time that is now known to greater precision:
Newton’s end times calculation corrected! Excerpt: Therefore, correcting Newton’s date, the year 753 B.C. designates the founding of the physical Rome while A.D. 753 establishes the rebirth of spiritual Rome. Counting 1,260 years forward from A.D. 753, one arrives at the year 2013. http://www.wnd.com/2008/09/75434/
Of note to the precision of the start date of 'spiritual Rome'
Donation of Pepin Excerpt: When Pepin conquered Ataulf the ex-archate of Ravenna fell into his hands. Pepin gave both the ex-archate and the Republic of Rome to the Pope, and this munificent gift is the famous “Donation” on which rested the whole fabric of the temporal power of the Popes of Rome (A.D. 755). http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/brewers/donation-pepin.html
Thus adjusting 2013 + 2 = 2015,,,, HMMMM? as well as from another angle we find:
"Prophetic Perspectives, 2008-2015" - Jim Bramlett Excerpt: For years I have been intrigued with Newton's interpretation of Daniel 9:25 and the 62 weeks and 7 weeks (62 X 7 = 434 years, and 7 X 7 = 49 years), counted "from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem." In his commentary on Daniel, a copy of which I have, Newton wrote that the interpretation of those 69 weeks is usually incorrect, violating the Hebrew language. He said the two numbers should not be added together as most scholars do, but the 434 years refer to Messiah's first coming (which he demonstrated), and the 49 years refer to His second coming, after Israel is reestablished, an idea unheard of 300 years ago but happening in our generation The start date for counting has been controversial. Many thought the 49-year-count would be the date of Israel's rebirth on May 14, 1948, but, alas, that did not work out. Other dates were tried unsuccessfully. But what if the count begins on one of the two most historical dates in Jewish history, the date in the miraculous Six-Day War when Israel captured Jerusalem and the Temple Mount: June 7, 1967? Assume the 49-year count (49 Jewish years X 360 days = 17,640 days), does start on June 7, 1967. Using a date-counter Web site at http://www.timeanddate.com/date/duration.html we learn that the 17,640-day count takes us exactly to September 23, 2015. September 23, 2015 is the Day of Atonement! What are the odds against that? Many have believed that the Second Coming will be on the Day of Atonement. If he knew this, old Isaac Newton would be doing cartwheels and back flips right now. http://www.prophecyforum.com/bramlett/prophetic_perspectives.html
Quote of note:
I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer. — Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time
bornagain77_{August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Ptolemy “established” that the sun orbits the earth?
Yes, as much as evos have "established" that chimps and humans share a common ancestor via accumulations of genetic accidents.
then you need to adduce evidence that can be tested to show that your explanation for biological complexity involves fewer assumptions than the evolutionary explanation.
The evolutionary "explanation" cannot be tested. THAT is the whole problem.Joe_{August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

Devout Christians who refused to accept the dogma of the Christian church of their time (dogma is not a dirty word in my language, it just means "accepted wisdom"). In other words: Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus and Newton were people who refused to accept the dogma of their times in the face of disconfirming evidence. They were scientists (propose an hypothesis, test, conclude and repeat). Oh, and by the way, you would have to draw an awfully long bow to claim Newton as a "devout" Christian. Unless you want to include alchemy is a science sanctioned by religion. Oops, I just noticed that you think that quantum effects are expressed at classically physical scales, so I have to presume you do think that alchemy is real. Good luck with the Philosopher's Stone thing.timothya_{August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

The heliocentric theory was hotly debated in popular culture at the time, for it proposed a revolutionary idea for the 1600's stating all the planets revolved around the sun. Many people of the era had simply, and wrongly, presumed everything in the universe revolved around the earth (geocentric theory), since from their limited, and somewhat simplistic, perspective everything did seem to be revolving around the earth. As well the geocentric theory seems to agree with the religious sensibilities of being made in God's image, although the Bible never actually directly states the earth is the 'center' of the universe.
Job 26:7 “He stretches the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing”
Galileo had improved upon the recently invented telescope. With this improved telescope he observed many strange things about the solar system. This included the phases of Venus as she revolved around the sun and the fact Jupiter had her own satellites (moons) which revolved around her. Thus, Galileo wrote and spoke about what had become obvious to him; the planets do indeed revolve around the sun. It is now commonly believed that man was cast down from his special place in the grand scheme of things, for the Earth beneath his feet no longer appeared to be the 'center of the universe', and indeed the Earth is now commonly believed by many people to be reduced to nothing but an insignificant speck of dust in the vast ocean of space (mediocrity principle, Please see Sagan's 'Pale Blue Dot' and Gonzalez's refutation of the mediocrity principle in 'The Privileged Planet').
The Privileged Planet - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWyPIzTOTw
Yet actually the earth became exalted in the eyes of many people of that era, with its supposed removal from the center of the universe, since centrality in the universe had a very different meaning in those days. A meaning that equated being at the center of the universe with being at the 'bottom' of the universe, or being in the 'cesspool' of the universe.
The Copernican Revolution - March 2010 Excerpt: Danielson(2001) made a compelling case that this portrayal is the opposite of what really happened, i.e., that before the Copernican Revolution, Earth was seen not as being at the center, but rather at the bottom, the cesspool where all filth and corruption fell and accumulated. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201003.htm#20100317a
As to the fact that, as far as the solar system itself is concerned, the earth is not 'central', I find the fact that this seemingly insignificant earth is found to revolve around the much more massive sun to be a very fitting 'poetic reflection' of our true spiritual condition. In regards to God's 'kingdom of light', are we not to keep in mind our lives are to be guided by the much higher purpose which is tied to our future in God's kingdom of light? Are we not to avoid placing too much emphasis on what this world has to offer, since it is so much more insignificant than what heaven has to offer? Verse, music and notes along that line of thought:
Matthew 16:26 And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul? Apocalypitca - Nothing Else Matters - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSMXMv0noY4 Louie Giglio - How Great Is Our God - Part 2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfNiZrt5FjU Quote from preceding video: You could fit 262 trillion earths inside (the star of) Betelgeuse. If the Earth were a golfball that would be enough to fill up the Superdome (football stadium) with golfballs,,, 3000 times!!! When I heard that as a teenager that stumped me right there because most of my praying had been advising God, correcting God, suggesting things to God, drawing diagrams for God, reviewing things with God, counseling God. - Louie Giglio
This 'humbling of the world' to a insignificant speck of dust in the grand scheme of the universe by science is not to be lamented over too much by people of faith, for where the 'true centrality' of the universe is found to ultimately be by modern science is much, much, better than if the earth had been found to be central in the universe:
Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics Excerpt: I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. Psalm 139:7-14 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. Moreover, the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. And this argument for God from consciousness can now be bore out in empirical evidence: Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit
Thus, as is extremely fitting from the basic Christian view of reality, the centrality of the world in the universe, comparitively speaking, is found to be rather negligible, save for 'the privileged planet' principle, whereas the centrality of the souls of men in the universe is found to be primary,,, i.e. "Is anything worth more than your soul?" Matthew 16:26
The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462
Music:
Finally Home - Kerrie Roberts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukyynPEHmnA
bornagain77_{August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

The Galileo affair has certainly turned out to be far different, and far more nuanced, than the simplistic 'science vs. religion' narrative that is told in popular culture today. Often times a atheist/materialist will try to deride a person's Christian belief by saying something along the lines of, 'Well, we also don't believe that the sun orbits the earth any longer do we?', trying to mock the person's Christian belief as some type of superstitious belief that is left over from the Dark Ages that had blocked the progress of science. Yet, those atheists/materialists who say such things to the young Christian fail to realize that the geocentric (Earth centered) model of the solar system was, number one, overturned by three devout Christians, Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, and that number two, that modern science itself was brought to sustained maturity in the matrix of Christian Theism.
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998 Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit
Also of note: It can also be forcefully argued that modern science had its foundation laid during the protestant reformation of the 16th century, and also when the Catholic church had its own private 'mini-reformation' from Greek influences over its central teachings during this era. The point being that it can be forcefully argued that modern scientific thought was brought to maturity when a more 'pure' Christian influence was brought to maturity in the Christian church(es) of western culture and the stifling pagan influences were purged from it. Please see:
The Reformation and the Development of Modern Science BY E. L. HEBDEN TAYLOR Excerpt: ‘In order to understand Calvin’s influence on the scientific method one must first look at his theological technique. Seeking to reform the church, he turned back to the original Christian source, the biblical text, which he believed to be the Word of God. His method of approach to the Scriptures was basically empirical for he rejected all speculation and all philosophising in favour of a strict grammatico historical exegesis under the guidance of God’s Spirit, which limits one to what the text actually says . . Calvin, however, did not stop with a theological method, for he held that God also revealed Himself in the works of His creation and providence. These latter man comes to know not by studying the Scriptures but by investigating nature itself. Here the two-level theory of reality came into play, for he insisted that one must investigate the things of this earth by appropriate mundane means, the only limitation being that unless men see this earth “in the light of eternity”, by which he means in the perspective of faith in Christ, they will neither understand it truly nor use it properly. http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/reformation%20of%20modern%20science.pdf
Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, the three primary scientists involved in overturning geocentrism, were all devout Christians and it certainly was not a atheist, nor some group of atheists, nor some other religion(s), involved in overturning the geocentric model. Johann Kepler (1571-1630), a devout Lutheran, was the mathematician who mathematically verified Copernicus's, a loyal Catholic, heliocentric model for the solar system.
Kepler: the Heavens Declare God's Glory Excerpt: About the time that the Reformation was proclaiming Christ rather than the pope as the head of the Church, science was announcing that the sun rather than the earth was the center of our planetary system. A leader in this changing scientific perspective was the German scientist Johann Kepler.,,, Throughout his scientific work, Kepler never sought any glory for himself, but always sought to bring glory to God. At the end of his life his prayer was: I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit. http://www.christianity.com/ChurchHistory/11630018/
In fact, on discovering the laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler declared:
‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’ http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/introductory_articles/bcs104.html
In 1610, it was the Italian scientist Galileo Galilee (1564-1642), who was also a dedicated Christian to his dying day, despite his infamous conflict with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, who empirically verified Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus's (1473-1543) heliocentric theory. Please see:
Contest Winner! - Barry Arrington - July 27, 2011 Please note the section titled 'Primer on the Galileo Affair' to see how far the popular myth of 'science vs. religion' is from the actual reality of the affair https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/contest-winner/
and please see:
Why Galileo was Wrong, Even Though He was Right - Cornelius Hunter Excerpt: The Galileo Affair is far more complex than the simple-minded warfare thesis supposes. Yes Pope John Paul II issued a declaration in 1992 acknowledging the church's errors. And the church was no doubt mistaken. But the church's action in the Galileo Affair was far more complex than simply opposing a scientific finding out of religious conviction,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-galileo-was-wrong-even-though-he.html
bornagain77_{August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington posted this: "Galileo’s opponent: Idiot. Ptolemy established that the sun orbits the earth 1,500 years ago and that theory has served us well ever since." Are you serious? Ptolemy "established" that the sun orbits the earth? How big does the strawman have to be before you recognise the tufts of grass sticking out of its ears? They (the geocentrists) built a model that described the motions of near- and far-field celestial objects with remarkable accuracy. But, by sticking to a fundamental assumption (of geocentricity), they paid the price of an increasingly complicated mathematics. In the world of a geocentrist, every celestial object has to have its own particular rule of motion. Along came Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton et al., and they provide progressively simpler models that deliver the same or superior accuracy as explanations of observations (and a few rather important predictions about planetary motions that were not confirmed until later) with vastly fewer unobserved and unproven assumptions. Sentient cosmologists the world over did a facepalm and thought "Why did I not think of that?" (Except a few, Tycho Brahe, for one). There is a reason why there are so few geocentrists around these days. They were wrong about causation then, despite the accuracy of their model, and they are wrong now. If you want your strawman to work as an argument for IDism, then you need to adduce evidence that can be tested to show that your explanation for biological complexity involves fewer assumptions than the evolutionary explanation. So far your argument seems to boil down to: (evolutionary explanation) plus (something supernatural) was also involved but we don't know when or how or why.timothya_{August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT}

You need not rely on antiquity for the greater validity of the geocentric notion in its time. Assume for argument that the Materialist conception is entirely correct and without exception. And that the Dice theory of origins is entirely correct and without exception as a historical matter. Then right now, in laboratories all over the Earth, crafty little geneticists are designing large scale ad hoc features into existing organisms. No matter what anyone may think at this very moment, ID is absolutely correct 24 hours from now. And one million years from now it will still be the case regardless of whether our current writings, thoughts, and knowledge on the subject of Dice and Design are wholly ground to dust and lost by the passage of time. Or, at least, so long as you permit me to slander the human race with intelligence; and otherwise to avoid the Creation Myth side of both notions. In either case the rejection of ID as such is counterfactual to the world at large and as it exists today.Maus_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

Yes the theory serves us so well no one uses it except to make money.Joe_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply