Oliver wrote: In science the enquirer is independent of the objective.

In general the enquirer cannot be independent of the objective. To observe anything we must receive the information through our senses. I am working with mycology at the moment. To observe an object through a microscope I must focus light on it. The light is energy which impacts on the particle. When I go on field trips I sometimes cannot observe fungi without disturbing vegetation.

My son is an anthropologist who lived with a group of Amazonian Indians. Living with them he became part of their society. He tried to minimise his influence but could not minimise it completely. As he became accepted he went out on hunts with them. He painted his body the way other males living there did. If he remained an outsider he would have not been as effective as gathering information on their way of living. Indian agents from the Brazilian government visited the tribe. The government wanted to exchange blankets and other goods for forest products. As the only person there who was fluent in both the Indian language, Kayapo, and Portuguese my son was pressed into service as a negotiator. Had he refused to take part he could not have retained the trust of the tribe.

My sympathies are with you, Suzeonline. This subject again! But I see you’ve added your contribution as well.

As it is one of the hottest topics on the Forum, I may as well put in my 20 cents worth, especially as I am one of the few to support creation or ID**. There would be no Roland Garros if there was no one standing on the other side of the net.

It is an endless argument. The reason being, as someone pointed out recently, that it represents the pointy end of a very old question: is there a God?

Did someone make us or do we just happen to be here?

And Zimmerman’s take is not very helpful: Science is good, religion is bad, but let’s all try and get along because it’s obvious religion isn’t going to disappear quickly. Frankly, I don’t think Zimmerman has much grasp on any of this subject matter. At best, his view is quite partisan.

One misguided soul above says, “Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings.” As a measure of how far that statement is in error, and how wrong some people can be around this issue, here are some facts:

The person responsible more than any other for sending men to the moon, Apollo’s chief rocket scientist, Von Braun, was an advocate of six-day creation. James Irwin, one of the twelve who walked on the moon, also was a creationist. All of the twelve were highly trained scientists or flight engineers.

Those who say creationism is out of step with science don’t understand one or the other.

**CJ, please don’t (not that you have) accuse me of putting it in schools, as I don’t think I have expressed an opinion on that (at least not recently).

Dear David,

I agree with you. I do appreciate and accept the concept of the experimeter being part of the experiment. I didn't think about that case, when writing. I was, however, indicating that the theist, metaphorically speaking, lives in the cell on the microscope slide, and, does not look through the microscope. Perhaps, oblivious of the existence of other cells, let along the experimenter. Moreover, the cell dweller has no desire to look through the microscope.

I am sure your son would be aware that environmental situations affect the interpretation of visual patterns, wherein, juggle dwelling persons are less susceptible to the Muller-Lyer Illusion.

http://www.rit.edu/cla/gssp400/muller/muller.html

Dan S de Merengue Asked:

"Did someone make us or do we just happen to be here?"

Only objects are made and only objects may have a location. Assuming that this question refers to something deeper than our bodies (made by our parents), it is like asking a bachelor "have you stopped beating your wife?". Both options make no sense, unless you think that you are an object. Find out who you are first, then you will yourself laugh at the silliness of this question.

"is there a God?"

There is nothing but God, but the question "is there" always refers to a location, an area or a volume to be inspected whether certain object(s) can be found in it. If God were to be located in space, then He wouldn't be God, would He? Hence the answer must be NO.

Suzeonline wrote:

"just as scientists can never 'prove' there wasn't a God who created the world."

Why not? Perhaps someone did create the world, scientifically I cannot exclude this option, but if there was such a guy (or a girl), then he/she would not be God. You see, any action, including the act of creation, affects the actor. If someone creates a world, then it changes them that instant from being a non-creator into being a creator. Claiming as if God was subject to change, is a heresy!

Dan S de Merengue wrote: The person responsible more than any other for sending men to the moon, Apollo's chief rocket scientist, Von Braun, was an advocate of six-day creation.

Dear Dan,

You have cited Von Braun before. Rocket science has nothing to do with biology, geology or any other branch of science where evolution comes into play. He was a competent scientist in his area, but his area was the physical sciences.

As a human being he was scum. He presided over slave laborers at Peenemunde and served Hitler faithfully. Being useful as a rocket scientist to counter the Soviet rocket program saved him from being tried as a war criminal.

However, he had the superstitious belief and the lack of respect for humanity that many fundamentalist Christians have.

I for one am curious as to exactly how a belief in six-day creation gets you to the moon.

Apparently it also gets you to the Oscars, so many actors thank God, you'd think he had made the movie. Or maybe they were referring to James Cameron.