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:
User posted image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Lemaitre.jpg/250px-Lemaitre.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
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:
User posted image: User posted image
https://www.amherst.edu/museums/naturalhist...ultimedia_tours
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!
If anyone else comments on this thread, I will neg you.
QUOTE (gendo+Aug 9 2009, 09:53 PM)
If anyone else comments on this thread, I will neg you.
Be my guest. But I had to recognize the humor.
Be my guest. But I had to recognize the humor.
QUOTE (gendo+Aug 9 2009, 08:53 PM)
If anyone else comments on this thread, I will neg you.
Who is this fucktard?
Who is this fucktard?
Its all possibly all a mind scam, they place lsd in the water supply and you have heaps of fanatics then running around screaming like 'help help the world is gonna cave in' all to just protect their greed to which they hold onto for the fact that they can dont trust ANYONE!
QUOTE (gendo+Aug 10 2009, 01:53 AM)
If anyone else comments on this thread, I will neg you.
Gendo, I have to thank you! What you said mixed with other things to start a Biology-Online chain reaction that was felt clear through academia. But since it required some stealth I was best off saying nothing here until latest mission accomplished.
In this romper room of a forum having a positive rating has been a bad thing. So we just had to enjoy our (actually) excellently negative ratings. Make the best of what they say about us. Which reminds me of the Go-Go's song about that topic to help pay no mind to what they say, doesn't matter anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEU5vXmE5mU
Hard to say it any better than that. From your reply on, that's all they said.
Gendo, I have to thank you! What you said mixed with other things to start a Biology-Online chain reaction that was felt clear through academia. But since it required some stealth I was best off saying nothing here until latest mission accomplished.
In this romper room of a forum having a positive rating has been a bad thing. So we just had to enjoy our (actually) excellently negative ratings. Make the best of what they say about us. Which reminds me of the Go-Go's song about that topic to help pay no mind to what they say, doesn't matter anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEU5vXmE5mU
Hard to say it any better than that. From your reply on, that's all they said.
Excellent post to start this thread. Now I would like to see one that also recognized how contemporary academia operates in many ways the same as the old religious organizations that rejected scientific pioneers. It's not about religion versus science, it's about orthodoxy versus unorthodoxy. There are orthodox scientists who fight just as hard against scientific revolutions as their religious predecessors and modern counterparts.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 15 2009, 07:03 PM)
Excellent post to start this thread. Now I would like to see one that also recognized how contemporary academia operates in many ways the same as the old religious organizations that rejected scientific pioneers. It's not about religion versus science, it's about orthodoxy versus unorthodoxy. There are orthodox scientists who fight just as hard against scientific revolutions as their religious predecessors and modern counterparts.
It only looks that way if you are on the outside looking in.
BTW Darwin converted Atheism because of what he saw.
It only looks that way if you are on the outside looking in.
BTW Darwin converted Atheism because of what he saw.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 15 2009, 07:04 PM)
It only looks that way if you are on the outside looking in.
Could that be because the people on the inside are biased by their interests of staying there?
Loose from that, how exactly DOES it look if you are on the inside?
Could that be because the people on the inside are biased by their interests of staying there?
Loose from that, how exactly DOES it look if you are on the inside?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 15 2009, 08:33 PM)
Could that be because the people on the inside are biased by their interests of staying there?
Loose from that, how exactly DOES it look if you are on the inside?
Like a long long list of evidence.
If it looks like a duck, walks like duck and sounds like a duck most people will think it's a duck.
Not because most of the other people think it's a duck but because it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck.
You can't see it, watch it or hear it, and think the people think it's duck for all sorts of reasons. But if you study a bit then you will see the real reasons.
Evolution is purely based on evidence. Some people follow it for other reasons but the scientific method weeds them out.
I've yet to see anyone argue against Evolution that understood it.
Loose from that, how exactly DOES it look if you are on the inside?
Like a long long list of evidence.
If it looks like a duck, walks like duck and sounds like a duck most people will think it's a duck.
Not because most of the other people think it's a duck but because it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck.
You can't see it, watch it or hear it, and think the people think it's duck for all sorts of reasons. But if you study a bit then you will see the real reasons.
Evolution is purely based on evidence. Some people follow it for other reasons but the scientific method weeds them out.
I've yet to see anyone argue against Evolution that understood it.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 15 2009, 07:04 PM)
It only looks that way if you are on the outside looking in.
BTW Darwin converted Atheism because of what he saw.
As usual, you are completely wrong.
BTW Darwin converted Atheism because of what he saw.
As usual, you are completely wrong.
QUOTE
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/diary/1882.html
Darwin himself stressed that evolution and religion were not incompatible. He pointed to his dear friend Asa Gray, who fought to have the theory of natural selection accepted in America, as an example of "an ardent theist and an evolutionist." Yet Darwin knew that he himself lacked the comfort of a steady faith. In some of his last words, he wrote
"A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life ... only to follow those impulses and instincts ... which seem to him the best ones ... I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to science."
Darwin himself stressed that evolution and religion were not incompatible. He pointed to his dear friend Asa Gray, who fought to have the theory of natural selection accepted in America, as an example of "an ardent theist and an evolutionist." Yet Darwin knew that he himself lacked the comfort of a steady faith. In some of his last words, he wrote
"A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life ... only to follow those impulses and instincts ... which seem to him the best ones ... I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to science."
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 15 2009, 09:46 PM)
As usual, you are completely wrong.
I said he was an Athiest and you show a link that says amoung other things
That sounds like an Athiest to me.
I didn't say evolution was incompatable with religion I said he didn't believe in God.
So, how exactly was I wrong?
His wife on the other hand was very devout.
I said he was an Athiest and you show a link that says amoung other things
QUOTE
Yet Darwin knew that he himself lacked the comfort of a steady faith.
That sounds like an Athiest to me.
I didn't say evolution was incompatable with religion I said he didn't believe in God.
So, how exactly was I wrong?
His wife on the other hand was very devout.
Give it up buttershug. The best you will do now is prove that Charles Darwin was so religious he was obsessed by what he thought the theory might do to religion including his own. But religion is still here and were Charles still alive today he would be darn glad. Might even be helping with the theory by now too along with Galileo the ScienceMonk glad that Atheist philosopher Bruno who kept getting him in trouble is gone too. The only "sciene martyr" in history (Bruno) was not even a scientist, in fact he was the ultimate science-stopper. After seeing how that happens, I am not at all surprised Galileo's work was held back by him. Science is of little concern to those who only promote a scientific sounding philosophy/religion.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 15 2009, 07:03 PM)
Excellent post to start this thread. Now I would like to see one that also recognized how contemporary academia operates in many ways the same as the old religious organizations that rejected scientific pioneers. It's not about religion versus science, it's about orthodoxy versus unorthodoxy. There are orthodox scientists who fight just as hard against scientific revolutions as their religious predecessors and modern counterparts.
I finally had time to finish my reply. Not an easy one to word either. But seeing you're a newbie already at a -8 feedback score, you have to be good to deserve that excellent a rating!
From what I have been learning from history is that the past 150 years are an exception. The church was normally very science friendly. Someone like Galileo would have their talents recognized by monks/clergy then be taught how to read among other things the science books that the churches would have in their library. Years ago I (with wife and kids) attended a Jehovah Witness service and they were proud of their "library" which is why I can clearly remember that. Their primary science book and literature argued against evolution but it still shows that in places of worship one of the most cherished things they might have is a library of knowledge that includes science. Reverend Hitchcock was totally into that and someone at Southern Methodist University told me what he said in a rare book of his that more or less straight out says we can discover "God" through science. I do not think it was all that much of an exception either, it's just that clergy back in the days before evolutionary theory created hostility they normally did not write about that so it's hard to see how much of a positive attitude towards science the church had. Through its long history there have been many science intensive Catholic schools and universities with labs even observatories.
Although there are noteworthy exceptions, from my experience academia trained scientists make sure I know they are a scientist so that they can "speak from authority" then to defend their world view start talking trash heard being rumored around the lab or campus instead of first reading the theory like all scientists are supposed to do before commenting on the scientific merit of a theory. What is even worse it's often like Buttershug's "BTW Darwin converted Atheism because of what he saw." troll where there is something obvious that makes it clear they have a religious agenda. In a few days the honest ones sometimes realize that they made a big mistake but it is still contrary to scientific behavior. Where that is coming from is obvious.
Colleges and universities teach how to follow their academic world-view. Rewards those who follow and punishes those who don't especially self-learners who don't need to be held by the hand in order to learn and are denied their "credentials" in a country that judges people by a piece of paper they pay academia for, no longer are we judged by abilities. This way academia controls the concentration of the wealth from science. It's like a big giant unchanging religion, and in my experience even harder to change its science. A theory comes along that proves they were wrong yet another year goes by with the "statement" science still revered as what must be taught along with blind faith that the leaders could never be wrong. So once again academia yawned, then kept on going with the usual crapping on the peasants while going along thinking nothing happened. Being on average ten years behind in science in all public schools is usually no problem for academia either, just chuckle that it is that way then back to teaching like it's 1999.
There is no doubt that this is an ideological issue. It is not a simple science versus religion problem like we are supposed to believe. And what I have to go through shows how serious of a problem this really is.
I finally had time to finish my reply. Not an easy one to word either. But seeing you're a newbie already at a -8 feedback score, you have to be good to deserve that excellent a rating!
From what I have been learning from history is that the past 150 years are an exception. The church was normally very science friendly. Someone like Galileo would have their talents recognized by monks/clergy then be taught how to read among other things the science books that the churches would have in their library. Years ago I (with wife and kids) attended a Jehovah Witness service and they were proud of their "library" which is why I can clearly remember that. Their primary science book and literature argued against evolution but it still shows that in places of worship one of the most cherished things they might have is a library of knowledge that includes science. Reverend Hitchcock was totally into that and someone at Southern Methodist University told me what he said in a rare book of his that more or less straight out says we can discover "God" through science. I do not think it was all that much of an exception either, it's just that clergy back in the days before evolutionary theory created hostility they normally did not write about that so it's hard to see how much of a positive attitude towards science the church had. Through its long history there have been many science intensive Catholic schools and universities with labs even observatories.
Although there are noteworthy exceptions, from my experience academia trained scientists make sure I know they are a scientist so that they can "speak from authority" then to defend their world view start talking trash heard being rumored around the lab or campus instead of first reading the theory like all scientists are supposed to do before commenting on the scientific merit of a theory. What is even worse it's often like Buttershug's "BTW Darwin converted Atheism because of what he saw." troll where there is something obvious that makes it clear they have a religious agenda. In a few days the honest ones sometimes realize that they made a big mistake but it is still contrary to scientific behavior. Where that is coming from is obvious.
Colleges and universities teach how to follow their academic world-view. Rewards those who follow and punishes those who don't especially self-learners who don't need to be held by the hand in order to learn and are denied their "credentials" in a country that judges people by a piece of paper they pay academia for, no longer are we judged by abilities. This way academia controls the concentration of the wealth from science. It's like a big giant unchanging religion, and in my experience even harder to change its science. A theory comes along that proves they were wrong yet another year goes by with the "statement" science still revered as what must be taught along with blind faith that the leaders could never be wrong. So once again academia yawned, then kept on going with the usual crapping on the peasants while going along thinking nothing happened. Being on average ten years behind in science in all public schools is usually no problem for academia either, just chuckle that it is that way then back to teaching like it's 1999.
There is no doubt that this is an ideological issue. It is not a simple science versus religion problem like we are supposed to believe. And what I have to go through shows how serious of a problem this really is.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 16 2009, 12:37 PM)
Give it up buttershug. The best you will do now is prove that Charles Darwin was so religious he was obsessed by what he thought the theory might do to religion including his own. But religion is still here and were Charles still alive today he would be darn glad. Might even be helping with the theory by now too along with Galileo the ScienceMonk glad that Atheist philosopher Bruno who kept getting him in trouble is gone too. The only "sciene martyr" in history (Bruno) was not even a scientist, in fact he was the ultimate science-stopper. After seeing how that happens, I am not at all surprised Galileo's work was held back by him. Science is of little concern to those who only promote a scientific sounding philosophy/religion.
Is it backwards day for you everyday?
What about Darwin's wife? Was she really an Athiest?
Just because the JW's have something they call science does not make it science.
They and you start with the conclusion and look for evidence that it is true. That is anti-science.
Is it backwards day for you everyday?
What about Darwin's wife? Was she really an Athiest?
Just because the JW's have something they call science does not make it science.
They and you start with the conclusion and look for evidence that it is true. That is anti-science.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.