inunison

Apr 042007
 

Stephen Jones has a very interesting post here. 

Just one snippet that I found quite interesting:

“Let us begin with a crucial point. The laws of science are not inviolable. They represent a constantly changing logical complex, changing from decade to decade, and even from year to year. Lest this may surprise you let me remark that the world of science is not identical with the physical world itself, with the real world if you like. Science is a model of the real world that we construct inside our own heads. The model is arranged by us to work according to a set of prescribed rules. These are the laws of science. And when we speak of comparing our scientific theories with observation we mean that a comparison is being made between our model and the events that comprise the real world.” (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., “Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge,” Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.55).

Jan 262007
 

Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches outer space for confirming material evidence?

Answer: A scientist.

Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches inner space for confirming material evidence?

Answer: A religious nut.

Jan 202007
 

Definitions:

Common descent is the idea that two populations or species share a common ancestral species, and are both descended from that ancestor by normal processes of replication. This is a fairly commonplace notion. The theory of common descent states that all species (on Earth, at least) share common ancestors, back to a single common ancestor of all life.

The mechanisms that produce diversity from common ancestors are those of the Theory of Evolution.

Is above definition correct?

Anyone bother to give Common design definition so we can start debate?  Preferably by one who opposes the concept.

Jan 102007
 

“Darwin’s primary interest [was] the modification of living forms under the selective influence of the environment”. Magnificent as his grasp of this aspect of biology is, it is counterbalanced by a curious lack of interest in the nature of the organism itself”. It is difficult to find in Darwin any really deep recognition of the life of the organism as a functioning whole which must be coordinated interiorly before it can function exteriorly.” Loren Eisely

Craig Holdrege over at The Nature Institute has a very interesting point: Continue reading »

Jan 102007
 

“We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.” Prof. Robert Wilensky

Nov 252006
 

Over at UD Francis Backwith said:

No longer can we assume that our most accomplished scholars in a particular field are truly educated, that they are able to understand and communicate in an even rudimentary way the most important questions with which their civilization has wrestled for millennia. What we have produced are intellectual barbarians, deeply knowledgeable of their subject, but unwise about the intellectual patrimony of the universities they inhabit.

You can read the whole discussion here.

Nov 212006
 

Few thoughts by Leonard R. Brand on relationship between science and religion, which I think, is quite relevant at present. I would appreciate your comments?

With Christianity there are many different attitudes toward the authority of the Scriptures, but this paper is built on a conviction that there are many lines of evidence indicating that the prophets do indeed speak for a loving and all-knowing God whom we can trust, and whose prophetic messages we can trust. Within that framework, an effective working relationship between science and revelation can result if we proceed through the following steps in our attempts to understand truth:

1. The accumulating data from scientific research suggest new ideas or hypotheses that we might not have thought of if the research had not been done.
2. If the new idea involves a subject that we think the Bible may speak about, we would examine all relevant Bible texts, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and using the Bible as its own interpreter. In doing so, it is important to make use of all the latest information that helps us to research a correct understanding of the original meaning of the words used in the biblical manuscripts. In this way, we attempt to understand exactly what the Bible does or does not say about our new idea. Is the idea compatible with the Bible or not? Do the relevant Bible statements say what we thought they said, or have we been incorrectly reading something between the lines?
3. We then make one of the following decisions, or some appropriate variation of one of these:
a. It is evident that revelation does not speak to this issue at all, and does not help us in our research.
b. We conclude that revelation does address this topic, but does not say anything against the new idea; there is no biblical reason not to accept it as a valid possibility. We then proceed with further scientific research to rigorously test it. This research may give us increased confidence in the idea, or it may lead to even better hypotheses which would also need to be compared with the Scriptures.
c. Our study indicates that revelation clearly contradicts the new idea, thus telling us to go back and do some more research because there is something wrong with our interpretation of the data.

If we follow this process, the Bible is maintained as the standard for religious doctrines, and yet science and the Bible shed light on each other. Science suggests ideas that may help us to recognize that we have been reading some preconceived idea into the Bible that really is not there. In other cases the Bible can help us to recognize incorrect scientific theories, so that we can turn our efforts toward developing more accurate interpretations of the data.

The whole article can be found here.