Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Adele Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer roadies roadies roadies  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 162 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 25, 2012 10:18:07 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jun 1, 2013 9:21:31 AM PDT
DRM says:
Per http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Belief in God
Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God. Although many people believe in a "God of the gaps", these scientists, and still others alive today, believe because of the evidence.

Rich Deem
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching.

Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George

Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2012 11:27:30 AM PST
Moronic assumption!!

Belief in God is a held secret between subject and God, not amenable to propaganda profiteering.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2012 11:36:41 AM PST
A. Caplan says:
DRM,

I don't understand the point of your post. Okay, many scientists, both past and present, believe in G-d. So what? Apparently, this is news to you, while the rest of us have known this all along. There is no conflict between science and belief in G-d, except in the minds of those who reject science based on their religious beliefs. Rabbi Mosheh Ben Maimon in the twelfth century, and who is still considered one of the greatest religious minds ever, pointed out the importance of science in understanding the relationship between the world and G-d.

So, what's the big deal?

Posted on Nov 25, 2012 12:14:57 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
I recall reading that about 2/3 of American scientists are professed religious people (unlike the stats for most other rich countries)--but that the ratio decreases proportionate to their eminence in their field, such that most leading scientists are empiricists (the word for "atheist" that most so-called atheists would be more accuractely characterized as).

I know a number of such people personally through my spouse's church. They receive considerable emotional benefits from being part of a church community, and most were raised in that community of belief. Psychologists would say they reconcile their religious beliefs with their scientific beliefs through compartmentalization, which, philosophically speaking, lets them have their cake and eat it too.

It's compartmentalization that enables public figures like Mitt Romney to be quite ethical in their personal lives, yet lying, exploitative demagogues in the political sphere.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2012 12:46:52 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 25, 2012 12:50:02 PM PST
A. Caplan says:
Ehkzu says: Psychologists would say they reconcile their religious beliefs with their scientific beliefs through compartmentalization, which, philosophically speaking, lets them have their cake and eat it too.
>Some religions do not require compartmentalization, but embrace both faith and science as necessary to understand the relationship between G-d and His universe. You should also not confuse the rejection of religious beliefs with the rejection of belief in G-d.

"You will certainly not doubt the necessity of studying astronomy and physics, if you are desirous of comprehending the relation between the world and Providence as it is in reality, and not according to imagination." - Mosheh Ben Maimon

"God created the universe, and God tasked man to explore its glory and purpose." - Farouk El-Baz

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2012 5:20:59 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
That's exactly what religious scientists would say. Most assuredly would not say they do it by compartmentalization.

And in fact this is the argument I use on fundamentalists who believe that their interpretation of religious scriptures trumps God's Laws as discovered through the replicable research of scientists--since, if there were a God, then this is God's universe, running under God's laws, and it would be doing what Satan did to set oneself up as superior to God by denying the truth of His laws.

It is also true that many religions, such as my spouse's Mormon faith, embrace science enthusiastically. It's only the fundamentalist strains of each religion that hate science (and thus IMO hate the very God they claim to worship).

I will also stipulate that science does not and cannot disprove the existence of God because the word "God" is empirically undefinable, and scientific inquiry is innately restricted to phenomena that can be dealt with empirically, through replicable experiment, replicable observation, and logical analysis--usually with lots of math.

On the other hand, religion can be and is studied and explained quite adequately with the tools of the social sciences, which my BA is in. This includes religious beliefs.

So while scientifically you can't say there is no God, you can say the term is empirically meaningless, and that millenia of scientific inquiry have produced zero evidence of any form of supernatural agency.

The most eminent scientists are also the scientists most likely to find religion irrelevant to their lives because it's hard to really think deeply about science unless you banish compartmentalization. The religious beliefs of scientists in times and places where atheism meant the death penalty cannot be ascertained, for what should be obvious reasons. Note that the Catholic Church was executing people for atheism as recently as 1836, and even today in America, professed atheism is political suicide in most areas for most offices.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2012 6:08:57 PM PST
They may all have believed in God, but none of them invoked the divine, or any other form of the supernatural, in their science.

The great thing about science is that its methodology is quite independent of religion. That's why, today, we find scientists who are Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, "spiritual but not religious", etc.

However, the one kind of person who does not do science is the modern day type of creationist. They are data parasites cherry-picking the work done by others in an attempt to refute the discipline and bolster their religion.

Posted on Nov 25, 2012 6:14:48 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 25, 2012 6:49:29 PM PST
Respectfully you forgot Louis Pasteur.
Who coined the phrase "Life comes only from life"
Or from God, of course.

Which is why our poor Atheist Science Groupie Wannabee friends are so glum nowadays.
Seeing as all attempts to demonstrate naturalisitc abiogenisis, for 100 years, by Nobel Prize winners, milking boatloads of NSF gravy, have been a total floperroo.

See without that simple demonstration, atheism tanks. Its got no data to support its essentail claim. Our poor Athesit friends. Atheism its incompatible with Peer Reviewed Science guys
Fellas you would cry too if it happened to you.

See guys, today none of them Peer Reviewed Science Gurus cant even give no plausible scenario how the first life could of started without God.
Dr Tenured Blowhard Phd Nobel Prize BMOC cant even demonstrate a two bit reaction of 10 cent chemicals!!!
There's no joy in Mudville because of Doc Blowhard he struck out.

I mean thats why us Creationsits, maybe we're being impolite guys, but me and the missus we cant stop laughin

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2012 6:39:18 PM PST
"See guys, today none of them Peer Reviewed Science Gurus cant even give no plausible scenario how the first life could of started without God. "

Too bad you don't actually read any of the peer reviewed literature, or you'd know how daft that statement is. But I understand why you'd rather remain uninformed.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2012 6:58:48 PM PST
Respectfully you forgot Louis Pasteur.
Who coined the phrase "Life comes only from life"

That pretty much rules out the Dust of the Earth then, doesn't it?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2012 7:10:15 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 25, 2012 7:13:11 PM PST
Ehkzu wrote:
"The most eminent scientists are also the scientists most likely to find religion irrelevant to their lives "
===========================
Who are you to define what eminent scientists are or what their beliefs are?

You are trying to reflect your imperfections on what you claim that eminent scientists must do.

......................
Ehkzu wrote:
"because it's hard to really think deeply about science unless you banish compartmentalization."
===========================
That is your belief, not the belief of eminent scientists (if such things could be found).

My assumption is that both faith and reason coexist.
Faith embodies feeling, reason reality.

All minds experience balance between ego and superego, ego relates to sensible facts, superego to idealism.

In real life, ego restrains people to the rule of law where society sets rules for all people to follow. Yet, superego sends people to churches, temples, and mosques searching for utopian society.

The struggle between the two is ongoing for eternity.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

Posted on Nov 25, 2012 7:46:02 PM PST
So because scientists in the past believed in a God, there must be one?

Hey, I can show you where lots of ancient scientists, like Archimedes or Hippocrates, believed in a whole bunch of gods. I can also show you a bunch of Chinese scientists who were Confuscist. Does this mean the "God" that so many Christians refer to isn't up there alone? I mean, if all these other great minds believed in these gods, they must have existed, right?

Some other quotes from Einstein that run counter to your point:

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem-the most important of all human problems."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Replying to atheist Joseph Dispentiere who was disappointed in a news report that claimed Einstein was religious).

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text." (Written in response to a friend who sent him a book about biblical living).

While Einstein said he was more agnostic than atheist, he's clearly not a "believer" the way the OP made him out to be.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2012 8:07:18 PM PST
Jason P. Williams wrote:
"So because scientists in the past believed in a God, there must be one?"
==========================
That is irrelevant because the existence of God is subjective. Thus, the beliefs of others are immaterial to you unless you share such belief, which is your choice.

.............................
Jason P. Williams wrote:
"While Einstein said he was more agnostic than atheist, he's clearly not a "believer" the way the OP made him out to be. "
================================
Whether Einstein was atheist, agnostic, or otherwise, has no impact on others. For example, Einstein was a stinky smoker enslaved to his cigar, which also has no impact on others, unless you think that smoking cigar was a great thing to do because Einstein did it.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2012 10:17:05 PM PST
Mohamed: Whether Einstein was atheist, agnostic, or otherwise, has no impact on others. For example, Einstein was a stinky smoker enslaved to his cigar, which also has no impact on others, unless you think that smoking cigar was a great thing to do because Einstein did it.

* Hey, we finally agree on something.

It's just fascinating the tactic that some people use in trying to assert that "such-and-such scientist believed in god, that means you should too". Your post is right on the money...it is entirely irrelevant whether or not these scientists believed in a God, or many gods, because it does not undermine the basic truth of their discoveries.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012 6:21:25 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 26, 2012 6:22:33 PM PST
Jason P. Williams wrote:
"It's just fascinating the tactic that some people use in trying to assert that "such-and-such scientist believed in god, that means you should too". "
=============================
I am not sure that that was their intent because your belief or lack of it does not benefit others. I think they only musing themselves to assure themselves that they are okay, sane, and well.

Further, if you believe in God like Isaac Newton did, you would not turn into Isaac Newton by a strike of luck.

Also, people cannot assume new faith after adolescence, exactly like people cannot learn or master many skills after adolescence.

Somehow, God did not make elderly people amenable to enlightenment.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

Posted on Nov 26, 2012 7:33:52 PM PST
G. Stanley says:
Who cares if they believed in a supernatural space daddy. They were victims of their own time (which brings me to say most of the ones in the middle ages were scared s***less that the church would burn them alive for professing nonbelief)

Posted on Nov 26, 2012 8:17:59 PM PST
Sam says:
Aristotle and Plato believed Zeus for example.

Posted on Nov 27, 2012 2:26:15 PM PST
So, how do Godless people do without God's words?
======================================

From Self Esteem by Virginia Satir
coachingtohappiness.com/me-im-ok.html

=============Quote==============
I Am Me And I Am Okay

I am Me. In all the world, there is no one else exactly like me. Everything that comes out of me is authentically mine, because I alone chose it - I own everything about me: my body, my feelings, my mouth, my voice, all my actions, whether they be to others or myself.

I own my fantasies, my dreams, my hopes, my fears. I own my triumphs and successes, all my failures and mistakes. Because I own all of me, I can become intimately acquainted with me. By so doing, I can love me and be friendly with all my parts.

I know there are aspects about myself that puzzle me, and other aspects that I do not know - but as long as I am friendly and loving to myself, I can courageously and hopefully look for solutions to the puzzles and ways to find out more about me.

However I look and sound, whatever I say and do, and whatever I think and feel at a given moment in time is authentically me. If later some parts of how I looked, sounded, thought, and felt turn out to be unfitting, I can discard that which is unfitting, keep the rest, and invent something new for that which I discarded.

I can see, hear, feel, think, say, and do. I have the tools to survive, to be close to others, to be productive, and to make sense and order out of the world of people and things outside of me. I own me, and therefore, I can engineer me.

I am me, and I am Okay.
=============end of Quote==============

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 2:36:29 PM PST
Or, as a religious person might put it.

God made Me And I Am Okay

God made Me. In all the world, there is no one else exactly like me, because of God's will. Everything that comes out of me is authentically mine, because God alone chose it - God owns everything about me: my body, my feelings, my mouth, my voice, all my actions, whether they be to others or myself.

God owns my fantasies, my dreams, my hopes, my fears. God owns my triumphs and successes, all my failures and mistakes. Because God owns all of me, I can become intimately acquainted with him. By so doing, I can love him and be friendly with all my parts.

I know there are aspects about myself that puzzle me, and other aspects that I do not know - but as long as I am friendly and loving to God, I can courageously and hopefully look for solutions to the puzzles and ways to find out more about God's plans for me.

However I look and sound, whatever I say and do, and whatever I think and feel at a given moment in time is authentically what God gave me. If later some parts of how I looked, sounded, thought, and felt turn out to be unfitting, I cannot discard that which is unfitting, and keep the rest, nor invent something new for that which I discarded, because that would not be part of God's plan for me.

I can see, hear, feel, think, say, and do because of God's will. I have the tools to survive, to be close to others, to be productive, and to make sense and order out of the world of people and things outside of me, because of God's will. God owns me, and therefore, he can engineer me.

God made me, and I am Okay.

On balance, I think I prefer the original version

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 2:49:29 PM PST
Such en mass block shifting, from "I" and "me" to "God" could be refined to designate certain attributes to the mysteries of nature, luck, and uncertainties, others to deterministic powers of the individual, which soothes the sense of arrogance in self engineering versus the belief in superstitious forces of Deity.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 2:54:32 PM PST
DRM

That's why Einstein's famous 'I am an atheist' letter is up for auction.

You don't have a clue about what 'Spinoza's god' means.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 5:18:27 PM PST
A. Caplan says:
Christopher Haynes says: Which is why our poor Atheist Science Groupie Wannabee friends are so glum nowadays.
Seeing as all attempts to demonstrate naturalisitc abiogenisis, for 100 years, by Nobel Prize winners, milking boatloads of NSF gravy, have been a total floperroo.
>Here you go again, proving that you are an incredibly slow learner (as in a non-learner). There many people who believe in G-d and still accept natural abiogenesis as valid science. I keep telling you that, but you seem to be stuck in the rut that anybody who accepts science must be an atheist. You were wrong before, you are wrong now, and you will be wrong the next time you assume it.

Christopher Haynes says: See guys, today none of them Peer Reviewed Science Gurus cant even give no plausible scenario how the first life could of started without God.
>Of course, as you know, there are several scientific ideas about how life began. To the best of my knowledge, none have reached the level of valid theories. However, unless you are assuming that all scientific research has ended, there is no reason not to believe that the future will bring us that knowledge.

Here is the same quote that I've posted for you before: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." As you choose ignorance, this quote is very applicable to you.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 5:23:27 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 27, 2012 5:24:45 PM PST
A. Caplan says:
Christine M. Janis says:That's why, today, we find scientists who are Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, "spiritual but not religious", etc.
>However, there are religious scientists, also. Some religious beliefs are not contrary to science, but, in fact, encourage the study of science.

Again: "God created the universe, and God tasked man to explore its glory and purpose." - Dr. Farouk El-Baz

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 8:15:25 PM PST
Re Caplan, above: Of course, El-Baz's posit is simply his opinion, based on no evidence of any sort -- and thus worthless.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 1:32:22 PM PST
A. Caplan says:
Robert A. Saunders says: Re Caplan, above: Of course, El-Baz's posit is simply his opinion, based on no evidence of any sort -- and thus worthless.
>It was a point that I made in reference to Christine M. Janis' previous post. DR. El-Baz's statement is an opinion that believers, in this case a Muslim, can integrate both belief in G-d and scientific research into the views.

Your statement that the Doctor's opinion is worthless is your opinion, not based on any evidence, and is, therefore, worthless.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  29
Total posts:  162
Initial post:  Nov 25, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 21, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions