Dear David f,

I agree with your first paragraph in principle, though I would not use “define” in a self-referential mode. I am a Catholic, a mathematician, an Australian citizen, a resident of Germany, of multiple ethnic background, etc. It depends on the context of the views I express, which one of these attributes shows through.

Certainly in the context of world-views, my Christianity (I hope more than Catholicism) and my mathematical education will show, the others will be irrelevant. Yes, there are stereotypes about (Catholicism and) Catholics, about (mathematics and) mathematicians, etc., often distorted - intentionally or not - and there are people who will forcefully want to fit me into them. I just have to live with that, trying to correct what I see as distortions, and if unsuccessful, just ignore them.

I do not know in what context did Popper make that statement. Everybody knows what a sand dune is, in distinction to some abstract concepts needed in a debate lest the participants talk past each other. What you (and Popper?) apparently have in mind is “methodological materialism (atheism)” that I also subscribe to: religion, world-view, political allegiance, etc., should not interfere with a (natural) scientist’s investigative activity (different from interpreting his/her findings or theories).

Dear Dan,

You asked where the Bible says the earth is flat.

Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

A sphere has no corners. There is nothing wrong with the Bible speaking of the four corners of the earth. The people who wrote the Bible wrote with the knowledge of their time. It is unreasonable to expect them to be knowledgeable beyond that. The same goes for scientists of the past who were ignorant of future discoveries.

The rocket scientist Braun was a young earth creationist and also a Nazi. People's minds are compartmented. Rocket science does not require a knowledge of the age of the earth. One can also be a competent rocket scientist and a Nazi. However, astronomy and biological science require a knowledge of the age of the earth in many areas. Cladistics is one of the tools of taxonomy or biological classification of of organisms. A person cannot accept cladistics and be a young earth creationist. An astronomer who deals in astral development cannot be a young earth creationist.

You used the expression "Exceptions prove the rule." In that expression prove means 'test'. Exceptions test the rule. If there is an exception then we must discard the rule as it is not a rule.

James Irwin and Charles Duke are evangelical Christians. However, they are not scientists. There is no reason a scientist cannot be an evangelical Christian. However, where the Bible contradicts his scientific expertise he must put science first.

As air force pilots James Irwin and Charles Duke are required to kill other human beings on command. There is apparently no conflict in such a profession and being an evangelical Christian.

Dear George,

I looked through Popper's books and could not find the discussion of the study of dunes. What do you do as a mathematician?

Dan,

<<you’re a little out of step with most evolutionists who prefer to pretend there is nothing to debate.>>

Well, there isn’t anything to debate. Creationists don’t have anything to support their arguments as you've demonstrated.

The term debate implies that the issue is ‘not settled’, and as you and I have helped to show on OLO, it has been.

<<I would be quite happy to acknowledge whenever you make a good point. However your posts mostly consist of misconstructions and denials of whatever I say.>>

Give me one example of where I have misconstrued what you’ve said or simply asserted that you were wrong. I have always made sure I give examples, reasoning or evidence to support my arguments.

You know that what you’ve said above is completely untrue and yet you said it anyway.

<<I was about to mention something good that you said, about correlation not implying causation. But then I realised that you’d borrowed the point from David two posts earlier.>>

No, you weren’t. Otherwise you would have mentioned it when David said it. I’ve made that point before on other threads (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121766).

All you’re doing here, is trying make it appear as though I simply copy others, to divert attention away from your inability to counter my points, and the fact that your arguments are dropping like flies.

You’re a master of deception, Dan.

Davidf has just made the same point I did about rocket scientists not requiring knowledge of the age of the Earth. Are you going to accuse him of being unoriginal too?

You’re entire response to me was a grand demonstration of a classic Creationist tactic: The Ad hominem.

<<My main point was to counter some of the sentiment expressed on this thread that men of faith were often at odds with science. This is not the overall trend of history.>>

But Newton et al were at odds with the church at the time, and as I said earlier, relied on natural methodology and not religious belief like today’s Creationists.

That’s the important distinction that invalidates your entire point.

Continued...

...Continued

<<So when I mention the names of some of the countless scientists who don’t see any conflict with their faith, some may counter with ‘correlation does not imply causation’.>>

No, that has nothing to do with, “correlation does not imply causation”. To make things weirder though, you then jump to something completely unrelated...

<<But my thesis is that the overwhelming testimony of modern Western science is that faith has been more often than not a healthy accompaniment to good science.>>

Modern science only ever progressed when scientists kept their religious beliefs separate from their inquiries. I already went over this the other day.

But now, Dan presents...

The Argument from Incredulity Fallacy
By Gene Cernan

“I felt the world had too much purpose, too much logic, it was just too beautiful to happen by accident...”

Do you understand what a fallacy is, Dan?

<<...the Apollo astronauts were chosen for their flight engineering knowledge as much anything else, they knew good design when they saw it.>>

Complexity does not imply design. This is a non sequitur.

As I’ve said before, complexity in design arises from either necessity or poor design, and a God would have no need to make everything so complex, nor would they be a poor designer.

Davidf responded to the next paragraph well, but I’ll add to what he said by saying that I could deny the laws of physics and still know how to fly a plane.

<<David does then raise the important issue of persecution or undue influence pressuring and dissuading open and frank views and discussion ... In the history of science, many have had to kick against the goads, or the binds of a set paradigm.>>

As I’d pointed out before, others have been successful by following the scientific method.

<<[Expelled] shows a taste of the types of persecution many currently face ... which includes severe threats against career or academic advancement.>>

And as I had shown earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#149259), those claims were false.

I even provided you with a point-of-contact for further details, but you didn’t bother with that either, did you, Dan?

Dan,

OT:

“These were the visions of my head while on my bed: I was looking, and behold, A tree in the midst of the earth, And its height was great. The tree grew and became strong; Its height reached to the heavens, And it could be seen to the ends of all the earth. Daniel 4:10-11

NT:

“Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” Matthew 4:5-8.

According to a TV documentary I saw recently, Harrison Schmitt (Apoll17) was the only professional scientist, who was an astronaut on the Apollo programme.

I too feel a sense of awe at the universe, especially since the Hubble pics, yet that does mean that fantastic circumstances require fantastic authors. The universe is big, diverse and old.

Were I to go to the Moon and was somehow overwhelmed with the majesty of space and suddenly became a believer, my pre-revelation self would see the other religious self, as making a natural but unreal response to a real situation. Being overcome by a situation is personal response and does prove the existence of God.

- How old are mature stars?

Dear George,

"Hate does not complement love, it is its negation and I doubt whether the more people “love knowledge” the more will hate it. In the darkness-light metaphor for yin-yang, increasing (physical) light - e.g. by using a stronger bulb - does not lead to the increase of darkness, and vice versa." - George

You assume the events are concurrent.

Also,

"The Tao regulates natural processes and nourishes balance in the Universe. It embodies the harmony of opposites (i.e. there would be no love without hate, no light without dark, no male without female."
- Daoist Congregation [Online]

Even in Western tradition, Empedocles saw "love" and "hate" as alternative forces. Here, one can take a magnet on one occasion and have unlike poles which attract (love) or like poles which repel.