Orion Wrote:True, but many of the fathers of modern science were Christian and used their cosmological understanding of the universe as declared by the Bible to assist them. If I can find my examples on my PC I'll put them up, however I do recall that the Big Bang theory met heavy resistance from atheist scientists at the time because it presupposed a "beginning" of existence, which didn't fit well with metaphysical conceptions.

Josh Wrote:Nuuuuu~ I don't think so.

I'm sure many of them were christian, but that's simply window dressing. It wasn't Christianity that made them good scientists. The Renaissance, Age of Reason, and Enlightenment were a result of people moving away from the Church and an explosion in science.

The Bible does not a science text make.

Quote:Sigh im sorry I cant beleive in the theory of evolution when the man who made it famous (Charles Darwain.) even on his death bead said it was a load of hogwash.

Sigfried Hunin Wrote:But, I mean, I don't leave bigfoot treats out in hopes that he won't toss my trash every morning.

Rem-13 Wrote:There are plenty of great thinkers who were Christians, and among those plenty who site the source of their scientific fervor their desire to know the machinations of the universe God created. Science and Religion can coexist pretty easily, and have, its only when People get it in their head that they are right, this makes them superior, and and everyone who is wrong needs to be kicked in the balls. I guess what I'm saying it I hate the Papacy and teenage atheists in equal measure.

Sigfried Hunin Wrote:I'm technically an agnostic in the most literal sense. a (without) gnos (knowledge). It is a literal impossibility to fathom the existence or non existence of an all powerful being. To think you can is stupid. I simply have never seen any reliable evidence to support the presence of such a thing.

It's like bigfoot. You can't PROVE he's not out there. But, I mean, I don't leave bigfoot treats out in hopes that he won't toss my trash every morning.

Rod Hardwood Wrote:I'd put Dawkins in the "teenage atheist" circle. I tried getting into some of his stuff but it was so angsty it reminded me of people I knew in junior high school. When I saw him in Ben Stein's movie/documentary, and he assented to the possibility that life on Earth may have been engineered by sentient beings elsewhere, but then said that those beings certainly had to have evolved without intervention I lost any linger respect for him.

Great biologist, sure, but he's no philosopher-king. Also, this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/i-know-im-right-so-why-be_b_81095.html

Ashe Wrote:The thing I like about science is that it doesn't say "This is how it is, that's it" and never recheck. They constantly reevaluate the information and check it for errors and make sure that it stands up to modern day information. If something proves wrong, then they correct it, but only after enough testing proves that.

Rem-13 Wrote:That's how its supposed to work but there are plenty of scientists who treat 'established' theories and such as religious doctrine. Challenging conventional wisdom is seen as career suicide. The scientific community is pretty brutal in its inner politics. Its not as inflexible as Catholicism obviously, but then Religion is not in the business of flexibility.

Ashe Wrote:There's a reason why Ben Stein cut the scene of Dawkins comment so short.

That said, what he is answering is more along whether its possible that we specifically were created. And it is possible. Everyone acknowledges that it is. He's saying that any number of things could have engineered many other creatures, in the same way that we have done it with crossbreeding and such. Its not a leap to think that someone could possibly tamper with dna to produce a race with certain characteristics. He's not saying "Yes, I think we were created but our creators evolved", he's saying "Its possible that we were, if you insist that, but somewhere down this line of races creating new races, there would have to be a race that evolved on its own." This is the same as saying "Yes, the domestic house cat could have been engineered. But most likely the race that did this evolved on its own." Ok, so we did it, and we assume we evolved. Perhaps we didn't and WERE engineered, but that doesn't mean that somewhere down the line of infinite creation that the originator didn't evolve by its own path.

He's more or less trying to point out the "You can't have the argument that 'something must have created this, it requires a creator' and then say 'MY creator has just always been there, no creator required'."

Rod Hardwood Wrote:Great biologist, sure, but he's no philosopher-king.