Your statement about Einstein, while possibly technically correct, is misleading at best. Einstein was a firm believer in God as a creator of the universe. Darwin studied, enthusiastically, theology early in his career. It was not uncommon for theologeons to be naturalists as they saw directive to learn and understand God’s creation. Prior to the twentienth century, science was often the pursuit of religious people. But they were usually not the ones cowed by dogma in favour of reporting the world as they observed it.

I am rather disappointed to read some of what I am seeing here. Scientists should not be so cavalier about the current rage over ID v. evolution being taught in schools. As scientists, you should be well aware that ID is not a scientific theory, by any stretch. And the debate is not one of whether evolution discounts the existance of God; it does not and no scientist would tell you that it does. The argument is about wheter ID is to be taught as an alternative “theory” to evolution, something it clearly is not. I have no problem with ID or creationism being taught is school as a separate subject, but it does not belong in science class. And you as scientists should know that.

This is an issue that proponents of ID are insisting that the state sponsor a particular idealogy. If ID is ok to teach as a “theory,” why not Norse or Greek mythology and the attendant stories about the beginning of the universe? You cannot claim one mythical story is preferential to others without demonstrating the true agenda being pursued by creationists.

The fact is that our pursuit of an understanding of the universe and its various subsystems and the laws that govern those does not conflict with a belief in God. No scientific theory has ever made any statement that God does not exists. What science does conflict with is a literalistic interpretation of the Bible, and that is what has creationists steamed and that is why they are pursuing this ID agenda with such vigour.

I would also like to say that this some of the more interesting and sane discussion of this subject i have seen around the blogs. While disagreements are present, the tone is a pleasant relief from what I have usually seen.

I wrote something about this here. If you get a chance, let me know what you think or just leave a comment. thanks.

http://cntodd.blogspot.com/2005/08/wrong-stuff.html

I think including some philosophical discussions (where applicable) can help students see that free and open discussions are part of what science is about. Students need to understand that theories represent our best current understanding of a scienc…

But it is possible to think outside the box and encompass both realities. To illustrate, I quote my previous post on this premier site:

“I remember well decades ago when a fundamentalist Christian type of colleague (patent lawyer) and I, a Catholic and Caltech bred chemical engineer, went backpacking in the high Sierra. Imagine racking out in sleeping bags, looking up into the stars and discussing Creationism vs. Evolution. I drove him nuts positing the reasonableness of both – concurrently. “Not in the Bible,” sayeth he. OK, sez I, but God is a clever Guy and imagine the elegance of setting Creation up like a big ol’ partial differential equation. Set the Initial Conditions (Big Bang?) and the Boundary Conditions (daren’t presume here) and let the equation run through time – but maybe, here ‘n’ there, perturb the system with a shot of self-consciousness and eventually ‘soul.’ That is elegance!”

The MaryHunter cited my reference to Teilhard above and I continue the quote and expand on this remarkable man:

“A French Jesuit-Scientist, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was able to capture these concepts in a marvelous fusion of evolutionary science (paleontology) and theologically informed philosophical speculation. His seminal work is “The Phenomenon of Man.”

“This work outlined a sweep of ongoing creation, of a developing universe. In particular, he speculated on the progression of an inanimate earth to the generation of simple life and then the growth of cognition and finally the ultimate complexity of spiritualization. From alpha to omega, Himself (Herself?). This is indeed the flight of time’s arrow, pointedly urging onward the upright ape, scampering up-slope to human heights and embracing ultimately the Beatific Vision and union of all creation with God. Now, that is quite a mouthful and mindful!”

Unfortunately atheists and agnostics deprive themselves of this big picture.

If natural selection is truly the scientific basis of our existence and survival, then wouldn’t homosexuals be extinct by now? I mean, it’s hard for a species to survive or thrive if there’s no procreatin’ goin’ on, right Barney? If I were gay, I…

Rick Moran — Wide Awakes blogbuddy, deep thinker, extraordinary writer, and purveyor of one of the the finest establishments in the blogosphere (Rightwing Nuthouse) — has done it again: unabashedly flattered me (or cleverly set me up, sti…