Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Support for Intelligent Design in scientific journals?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Support for Intelligent Design in scientific journals?

    Is there any support for Intellignet Design or creation in any scientific journals or any other scientific source? Not proof, just support.
    sigpic

  • #2
    Originally posted by Fighting Instinct View Post
    Is there any support for Intellignet Design or creation in any scientific journals or any other scientific source? Not proof, just support.
    None.

    .....must make post longer....

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Fighting Instinct View Post
      Is there any support for Intellignet Design or creation in any scientific journals or any other scientific source? Not proof, just support.
      Not that I am aware of. But you can find scientist that believe there is a lot of evidence for creation.
      Matt 9:13
      13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
      NASU

      Comment


      • #4
        The reason the answer is No is not because scientists are all atheists who believe us Christians are delusional and irrational.

        The reason is because of the limits of science and the scientific method. Science is constrained to look at cause-and-effect. For every effect, say the existence of something, there is always a cause. Say a mutant gene. For which there is another verifiable cause, and so on.

        Intelligent Design says at some point, God did it. This may in fact be true but it is never a scientific theory. Science never goes back to creation. Explaining an observation by "God did it" would be a very dangerous slope for science to slip down. If, when we get to something we don't understand, we raise our hands and say God did it, could just stop scientific investigation.

        What I would like to see taught in schools is not the dogmatic acceptance of evolution, but instead teach what evolution explains, and what is still not explained. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. And many concepts of evolution are not backed up by the fossil evidence. Teaching people the gaps in evolutionary theory might motivate them to take an interest in science, and also would leave room for the possibility of a God.
        In Christ,

        -- Rev

        “To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion; if you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper.” – Daniel Webster, 4th of July, 1800, Oration at Hanover, N.H.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Revolvr View Post
          The reason the answer is No is not because scientists are all atheists who believe us Christians are delusional and irrational.
          There are some scientist that believe the data supports creation.
          Matt 9:13
          13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
          NASU

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Brother Mark View Post
            There are some scientist that believe the data supports creation.
            I keep hearing this, but the thing is I never hear who they are, where they are doing their research and what their research is in.

            Comment


            • #7
              Science is dominated by the practitioners of metaphysical naturalism (aka methodological naturalism)- a philosophy that vehemently prohibits God-talk – therefore ID is lobbied against and prohibited by the atheistic elite who reside in “ivory towers”.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by punk View Post
                I keep hearing this, but the thing is I never hear who they are, where they are doing their research and what their research is in.
                Dr. Henry Morris is one. I am sure a google search will turn up some of his work and that of his associates. He works more on the world wide flood, I think, than he does on creation. But others that work with him are creation scientist.
                Matt 9:13
                13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
                NASU

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Brother Mark View Post
                  Dr. Henry Morris is one. I am sure a google search will turn up some of his work and that of his associates. He works more on the world wide flood, I think, than he does on creation. But others that work with him are creation scientist.
                  Okay, you have a hydraulic engineer.

                  Anyone else?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by punk View Post
                    Okay, you have a hydraulic engineer.

                    Anyone else?
                    I think there are now more than 700 PhD scientists who are signatories of the Dissent from Darwinism statement who have expressed skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and recommend a critical examination of the supporting evidence for that theory.
                    "We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. " ~ Scientific Dissent From Darwinism Statement

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by losthorizon View Post
                      Science is dominated by the practitioners of metaphysical naturalism (aka methodological naturalism)- a philosophy that vehemently prohibits God-talk – therefore ID is lobbied against and prohibited by the atheistic elite who reside in “ivory towers”.
                      There is a notion in science that the conclusions ought to be commensurate with the evidence considered.

                      God, being an awfully big conclusion would require an awful lot of evidence.

                      Types that try to bring God into scientific papers often run afoul of this.

                      The guy who tried to argue the creation of the universe in an instant from some radioactive residues in some rocks comes to mind.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by losthorizon View Post
                        I think there are now more than 700 PhD scientists who are signatories of the Dissent from Darwinism statement who have expressed skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and recommend a critical examination of the supporting evidence for that theory.
                        "We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. " ~ Scientific Dissent From Darwinism Statement
                        My first question would be "PhD's in what?" Because the opinions of some English majors and philosophers wouldnt' persuade me.

                        On the other hand there are people that disagree with Darwinism in particulars, have scientific credentials and do not believe in God or creationism or any sort of ID.

                        You can't assume that just because they are criticising Darwin that they might agree with you.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by punk View Post
                          There is a notion in science that the conclusions ought to be commensurate with the evidence considered.

                          God, being an awfully big conclusion would require an awful lot of evidence.

                          Types that try to bring God into scientific papers often run afoul of this.

                          The guy who tried to argue the creation of the universe in an instant from some radioactive residues in some rocks comes to mind.
                          Isaac Newton had no problem bringing “God into scientific papers”. In Principia he wrote,
                          "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
                          And Lord Kelvin (one of the founders of modern physics) was an avowed biblical creationist. Would these two great men of science be drummed out of the Oxford science department today? How sad.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by punk View Post
                            My first question would be "PhD's in what?" Because the opinions of some English majors and philosophers wouldnt' persuade me.

                            On the other hand there are people that disagree with Darwinism in particulars, have scientific credentials and do not believe in God or creationism or any sort of ID.

                            You can't assume that just because they are criticising Darwin that they might agree with you.
                            I think most have doctorates in the sciences and I think many of them (both Christian and non-Christian) would agree we me that “in the beginning God created…” Are you somehow trying to float the idea that there are not many scientists who also believe that God created? Do you find a conflict between science and the belief in a Supernatural Being?
                            Last edited by losthorizon; Jan 20th 2008, 09:56 PM. Reason: spelling

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by punk View Post
                              Okay, you have a hydraulic engineer.

                              Anyone else?
                              He has a PhD in hydrolics, and that from a secular university. And there are a lot of others. The information is out there Punk. Take some time to look.

                              From Wiki

                              ...in the 1920s and 1930s. He graduated from Rice University with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering in 1939. Shortly afterwards he became a Christian, affirming the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. He married Mary Louise on January 24, 1940, and they later had six children. After his graduation in 1939, and through 1942, he was a hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission. He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946. In 1946 he wrote a short book entitled That You Might Believe (1946), in which he made an effort to answer the challenges of evolutionists.
                              From 1946 through 1951, he worked at the University of Minnesota, where he was awarded a master's degree in hydraulics (1948) and a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering (1950).

                              You and I both know you don't get a PhD in engineering by writing what someone else wrote. He qualifies as a scientist. A lot of his work is on the flood and the hydraulics involved in that amount of water.
                              Matt 9:13
                              13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
                              NASU

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X