Philip wrote:Truly: I never claimed that Scientists can't believe in a God. I never stated that Dr. Ross and Co. did not have impeccable credentials. So please, no more straw man.
No, but you tried to discredit their science views per how they think the science supports their spiritual beliefsTruly: require their scientist to sign a stack deck, stating that all evidence they present must ONLY support the Christian Belief. No reputable scientist would ever enter into such a contract.
Your clear implication is that people like Hugh Ross do their science differently than other scientists due to what they spiritually believe - and that is nonsense!Truly: If scientific evidence pointed to the probability that a God-like entity existed, what does that have to do with the world's greatest scientists believing in God?
It means that countless brilliant scientists have had their faith in God buoyed further - or even begun - per what they've learned by science. Your implication is that somehow if a scientist is a Christian, they must somehow be "doing" science differently or incorrectly, if they've come to different spiritual understandings than you have. Considering that over 65%state people like Ross are so compelled - "that all evidence they present must ONLY support the Christian Belief?" And then you immediately make a false statement trying to discredit Ross and others scientist like him (that have theistic or Christian beliefs): "No reputable scientist would ever enter into such a contract." I'm sure you can produce this contract you insist exists? Or that they change their views or commitments to how the scientific method works - where's your evidence of this? Standing back and pondering and sifting the science AFTER it has produced certain data or results, and THEN discerning whether or not they contradict, begin or re-enforce one's beliefs about God - that's a very different thing. What intelligent person wouldn't wonder about God, or how the incredible aspects of the universe could be uncaused, or caused without an intelligent source? You, yourself have said you would welcome to know any available truth about God - at least on some level.Truly: Are saying that because of their belief in a deity, that this somehow increases the probability of the existence of God?
Nope, just showing that many brilliant scientists across the world, accept the scientific evidences, are committed to the scientific method, and yet come to different spiritual conclusions than you do, AND that they also will attest that it is precisely what they've learned through science has either initiated or strengthened their belief that God exists - or some type of god does.Truly: The great scientist that I listed, were certainly not theists(including Einstein).
That is false - Einstein was not an agnostic or atheist after a point - particularly after he realized the universe had a beginning. He just didn't believe in a personal God, but more in a deist type of god - but a great intelligence of great power and ability. Do a half hour of research on it - might help.Truly: What metaphysical or Theological discoveries have been discovered in the last 1000 years? Name one new discovery!
I'm not sure the reason for the question - beyond what Christ and the Apostles revealed, we have no new information about God or then non-physical world.Truly: There are many scientist that are multidisciplined. What is relevant, is the level of scrutiny that scientists would apply to an explanation. After, "Of course not, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I'm just pointing out that one need not be an expert chemist to understand the explained concepts, discoveries and implications of them. Scientists sure talk as if they can be explained. And we can see where qualified experts agree on a grand scale and trace where and why they disagree. And we can see what it is they agree upon and why they say they agree. Explanations have clearly trackable and explainable connections to see if A + B=C, etc. Your implication is that the arguments are too complex for the average intelligent person to understand the basic conclusions and explanations for them - while perhaps not true on a technical level, on a practical, explainable level they can be - as clear explanations are put forth and abound. And experts aren't experts in everything - so we can see where those in diverse fields agree, and where their findings agree. And if an expert cannot boil down the implications of what he has learned for those who might learn or take advantage of their findings - really, what use is expert opinion then - to people who do not share in their level of expertise, or those that are decision makers who must apply the input of experts?
My question to you is, just because a scientist is also a Christian, why do you automatically project skepticism at their SCIENTIFIC expertise or commitment to its methodology, or assert they've committed professional suicide by applying what the science has revealed to them in it's influence upon their spiritual beliefs? Your assertion is that with such (Christian) scientists, that their spiritual beliefs drive how they do science. A really cheap and disingenuous shot at attempting to discredit what they spiritually believe, or believe about theism.
Where do I try and discredit any of his scientific views? Nowhere! Straw man no. 1. Where do I try and discredit anything about why he thinks his spiritual beliefs supports his scientific beliefs? Nowhere! Straw man no. 2. Do AIG and YEC have have a different CORE understanding with his Biblical Interpretations? Yes they do! My point was, why choose him, when there are many other religious scientist less controversial than Dr. Ross? Nothing more and nothing less. But personally I couldn't care less. My statement is still valid. In the world of scientific academia, there are no theist or atheist scientist. There are only scientist. In science, no one cares what your beliefs are, or how they inspire you. The only thing that matters, is what your results are. If you merely want to equate the level of brilliancy among our greatest scientist, as being the result of spiritual enlightenment, it will always be irrelevant, tangential, and impossible to prove. If we consider the fact that over 65% of all scientists are either atheists or agnostics, then the relevance of your point becomes questionable. You wouldn't be trying to latently imply that if a smart person, like Einstein is a believer(he was a pantheists and agnostic), that it is this level of smartness that justifies the Belief itself, would you? THIS ALSO IS FALLACIOUS(appeal to Authority, false conclusion, false equivocation, and argument from ignorance). So again, You can believe that Bruce Wayne serves you breakfast every morning, and it still will be totally irrelevant to what you do in the lab. Because you choose to label something you don't understand as "God", does not mean that the understanding is now true. Even if you are a very smart person. So please, just let this point go!
I'm sure that you are not so naive to think that these organizations would post hard copies of these agreements on the web? Their scientific credibility would immediately end. No, my information is the result of personal experience, information from other colleagues, and COMMON SENSE. Here is a test that you can do. Try and post the natural controls and constraints on human DNA replication, to either AIG and YEC, and wait for the reply. There are many things in life that are not said or demonstrated directly, but they are very clearly understood nonetheless. That is, if you really want to know.
Why do you keep hiding behind this so-called scientific evidence you keep asserting? Let's hear it! Why do you keep saying that this evidence also follows the scientific method of inquiry? Demonstrate it! You can't, because this is a Belief, not a fact. The more facts we have, the less we need to believe. The less facts we have, the more we need to believe. Also, my question was rhetorical. There ARE no discoveries in philosophy or metaphysics, period. Or, can you think of any? What about discoveries in science? Are you getting the point now? Another point that seems to have eluded you, was how to discern the validity of topics. You claimed that scientist aren't multidisciplined, that was proven wrong. You only tried to "muddy the waters" with extraneous nonsense and irrelevancy. My claim was how would you know if the information was correct or false? Do you think the trained eye of a veteran scientist would be more, or less, discerning than a novice or non-scientist? Yes or No? So please stick to what I actually say, and rely less on what you want me to say.
Your last paragraph is a total figment of your imagination, and an argument between you and your straw man. Since I don't have any issues with anyones belief or their scientific expertise, I haven't a clue what you are on about. My only problem was your claim that it is only their Christian Belief, that is the source of their inspiration. My question is HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? You really don't know, do you? Don