Originally posted by dj2beckerWho were the "earliest founders of science"? Are you referring to the Edwin Smith Papyrus? Or do you mean Roger Bacon?
Examining creation will bring us closer to the Creator. That is what the earliest founders of science believed, or as the founders of astronomy put it, we would merely be thinking God's thoughts after Him.
But something happened on the way to the twentieth century. In the middle of the nineteenth century when modern science began to develop, the enitr ...[text shortened]... ld is to somehow divide science from God and, in fact, set the two at each other's throats.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou're a treasure. He made the statement ON A TELEVISION SHOW! That's not very "obscure" is it? Since you're using the other quote and of course, own his book, I presume you could give a fuller quote in context, couldn't you?
Maybe you could read his book, "God and the Astronomers." I think the quote you gave about him being an agnostic (off some obscure web-site) might be more obscure than the quotes obtained from the book that he wrote himself...
EDIT: The full transcript of the show aired on PBS in 1995 is at http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript224.html. There's some more interesting comments by Dr. Jastrow which I'll post.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungATY, I guarantee that when scientists do create life, they will say "So what? That just shows that intelligence can create life, therefore an intelligent God created all life." Thus, they presently use scientists' inability to make life as proof that only God can create life and they'll use scientists' ability to create life as proof that only intelligence can create life! Either way, they win! This one of the many reasons their arguments are not science; completely opposite results are used to support their preset conclusion.
We will. What will be hilarious is that once we do, fundamentalists will make up some wild reason why it doesn't damage their position.
You might want to really check out a source's ideas before you quote a one sentence sound bite. Here's Dr. Jastrow on the TV show cited above discussing evolution:
In the same sense, leaving the world of inanimate matter and looking at the world of life, I find Darwin's concepts of naturalselection to be very satisfactory, and so do many other people, in explaining the emergence of more and more complex creatures out of simple beginnings. When you look at this in detail, all is randomness, as Bob Park said a little while ago. When you step back and look at the whole picture, you see a direction and a flow from simple to complex, from less intelligent to more intelligent, and you ask yourself, can this which has a direction yet be completely undirected?
And it's at that point that science reaches the natural limits of its inquiry and one's thoughts about the world from the religious
realm enter, but there is no overlap between them. No sense of designor purpose can be extracted from the scientific story.
ME: Science and religion don't mix says Dr. Jastrow. "No sense of designor purpose can be extracted from the scientific story". A fine agnostic thing to say. Be back with more.
In the same vein as above:
MR. JASTROW: The two spheres of thought should and really do deal with separate realms of inquiry because science is concerned with trying to explain to us with predictive power what the reason is for what we see around us, but religion is concerned with the purpose,whether there's a larger design in all of this. Is there a purpose in the seeming emergence of mankind out of a sea of primordial molecules, for example? What does that mean in the larger sense? That's not a scientific question.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, what is hilarious is that after decades of trying and failing, you still place your faith in men rather than God. Actually, it's more sad than funny.
We will. What will be hilarious is that once we do, fundamentalists will make up some wild reason why it doesn't damage their position.
Originally posted by DarfiusWho's tried to create life and failed? Can you give the citation to the paper?
No, what is hilarious is that after decades of trying and failing, you still place your faith in men rather than God. Actually, it's more sad than funny.
Most of us recognize that there is still too much to study before we get to the point where we can attempt to create life. I was not aware anyone had tried yet.
Originally posted by telerionThat means free food!!!!!! The last time he was here he threw some huge outdoor parties.
[b]Either they won't ever be able to or the Lord will have returned before then.
Well then Jesus must be returning very soon. I read an article in New Scientist just a while back that indicated that several labs are getting close.
This is great. We will hold you to it.[/b]
Originally posted by DarfiusWait. Is it impossible for humans to create life from unliving materials given enough time, or not? When the Lord comes should have nothing to do with whether it's possible or not.
Yes. Either they won't ever be able to or the Lord will have returned before then. Remember the Tower of Babel. This endeavour is 1,000,000 times worse than that.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by telerionDon't you think that intelligence is used to create life from non-life? In other words if they do create life in the laboratory then thy are actually proving that life came from a greater source of intelligence.
Are you saying that scientist will never create new life forms from non-life?