Jerry, are non-falsifiable theories generally accepted as scientific? ID and Creationism, regardless of the detail, are non-falsifiable. If ID is falsifiable (as you claim it is) would you please explain (as in type, not use your standard 'can't answer the question? If Neo-Darwinism is empirically proven, clearly ID and creationism are both falsified (and I would have to switch sides). Many scientists claim not only that it is falsifiable but has been falsified. Read Dawkins, Gould and many others such as Eldridge. This is one of their main points.
Jerry Bergman
JoinedPosts by Jerry Bergman
-
229
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW inrecently, dr. wolf-ekkehard loennig, a jw working in a leading position at the gene-science-department at the max-planck-institute, has been banned from the institute's website for spreading his view about evolution.
he promotes the so called "intelligents design".
max-planck-institute calles this creationism in disguise.
-
-
-
229
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW inrecently, dr. wolf-ekkehard loennig, a jw working in a leading position at the gene-science-department at the max-planck-institute, has been banned from the institute's website for spreading his view about evolution.
he promotes the so called "intelligents design".
max-planck-institute calles this creationism in disguise.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
Explain. I see no need of a connection between SETI and ID. If ID was proved false tomorrow (but, conveniently it's unfalisiable, which is why it's not regarded as that scientiifc in many circles), then SETI would be un changed in any way. I do not mean to be unkind, but in my job I have to spend much time to determine if students know the material and it is my guess here that you have not read a single book by ID supporters. If you did, you would know ID theory is the basis of both sciences. Also, it is just not true that ID is unfalisiable. Even Ron Numbers covers this very well (see his book the creationists).
-
229
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW inrecently, dr. wolf-ekkehard loennig, a jw working in a leading position at the gene-science-department at the max-planck-institute, has been banned from the institute's website for spreading his view about evolution.
he promotes the so called "intelligents design".
max-planck-institute calles this creationism in disguise.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
That aside, assuming that what you say is true and reasonable, why is ID held in such low regard? I have read tons of this material and own most every anticreationists book I have been able to find (about 60). Reading this material tells me my ideas are valid as they do not have a valid scientific case, only some lose ends to tie up in the theory. I also an very intrigued as to why and how one can hold a belief that does not have scientific support. In this regard my witness experience helps. Look how many are hanging on! It is hard to change world views. I know, I changed twice (I was a Witness from age 7 to 30 or around there, so had no choice when young but to leave was not easy).
-
229
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW inrecently, dr. wolf-ekkehard loennig, a jw working in a leading position at the gene-science-department at the max-planck-institute, has been banned from the institute's website for spreading his view about evolution.
he promotes the so called "intelligents design".
max-planck-institute calles this creationism in disguise.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
That aside, assuming that what you say is true and reasonable, why is ID held in such low regard? Surveys of scientists find very few have any idea what it ID is and most have not read a single book written by an ID supporter. Certain leading scientists such as S.J. Gould have spent much of their career pushing their world view and have been very successful, partly due to their position in science. Most scientists just repeat the incorrect information these people spout without investigating it for themselves. On the other hand, ID has grown enormously recently. I am part of a set of closed discussion groups that has over 300 Ph.D. level scientists, many at leading Universities such as Princeton, involved. We have many top scientists involved and I have no doubt that the movement will grow. The atheists and non theists, on the other hand, are often viscous and are doing everything they can, honest or dishonest, to stop us. They have millions of tax dollars that they can use to do this, whereas we have very little money support except our salary.
-
229
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW inrecently, dr. wolf-ekkehard loennig, a jw working in a leading position at the gene-science-department at the max-planck-institute, has been banned from the institute's website for spreading his view about evolution.
he promotes the so called "intelligents design".
max-planck-institute calles this creationism in disguise.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
So, by deliberately not using the correct term for your scientific platform when submitting papers you are being… honest?
The fact is, a scientific paper should be accepted on the basis of its science, not the personal religious beliefs of the author (In America that is the law in employment) but the fact that this is this is not in fact the case means that if one wants to survive in academia one avoids words that trigger prejudice. Sad but true. Look at happened to the jews in Nazi Germany. I know many leading ID supporters that are scientists that are in the closet but became very famous. They recognize the reality and need to support their family so try to avoid prejudice. Some come out only when they become successful. Note the following case. Speaking of Birthdays
BreakPoint with Charles Colson
May 9, 2003
A Big Brain Interprets the Big BangDr. Arno Penzias was frustrated. While adjusting an antenna for a radioastronomy experiment, he and Dr. Robert Wilson encountered a noise that wouldn’t go away—no matter what direction they rotated their directional antenna. Eventually they realized they had discovered "cosmic background radiation," which many physicists now call "the radio echo of creation."
At the time, many scientists scoffed at the words in Genesis, "In the beginning." They assumed that the universe had existed from eternity past.
And some scientists prefer the notion that the universe has no beginning. Aristotle philosophized that matter was eternal, and tradition dies slowly—even with strong contrary evidence. More importantly, if the universe did have a beginning, that implies a Creator—and many people prefer not to believe that.
But Dr. Penzias says, "The creation of the universe is supported by all the observable data astronomy has produced so far. As a result, the people who reject the data can arguably be described as having a ‘religious’ belief." That is, people who refuse to consider the evidence because it conflicts with their preconceived ideas are following a "dogma" in the most stubborn sense of the word.
In an article in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Penzias told Dr. Jerry Bergman of the American Scientific Affiliation, "I invite you to examine the snapshot provided by half a century’s worth of astrophysical data and see what the pieces of the universe actually look like. . . . In order to achieve consistency with our observations we must . . . assume not only creation of matter and energy out of nothing, but creation of space and time as well."
Penzias, a Nobel Prize winner, added, "The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."
Another word that shows up in discussions of whether or not the universe had a beginning is singularity. This interpretation visualizes all the matter of the universe concentrated in a "singular" location of infinitesimally small size and expanding to form all the galaxies, stars, and planets.
Dr. Penzias says that interpretation fails the test of mathematical physics. During a lecture at Northern Illinois University, he pointed out that when the distance between objects decreases, the gravitational attraction between them increases. So if all the matter of the universe had once been compressed into an infinitesimally small "singularity," the gravitational pull would have been so massive that the matter never would have spread out and formed today’s universe. "It would collapse into a black hole and stay that way."
So what does Penzias think that the Big Bang was? He says the most logical explanation is "a moment of discrete creation from nothing!"
Some have paraphrased the Big Bang as "God spoke, and bang, the universe was created." That’s close to the Psalmist’s statement: "He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm."
As we continue to point out on BreakPoint, the Big Bang really points to a Big Brain—to God who has the wisdom and power to create everything that exists.
For further reading and information:
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., "Arno A. Penzias: Astrophysicist, Nobel Laureate," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, September 1994.
Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, eds., Cosmos, Bios, Theos (Open Court Publishing, 1992). See chapter titled, "Creation Is Supported by All the Data So Far."
Denis Brian, Genius Talk: Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995). The Arno Penzias chapter is on pages 153-177.
Gordy Slack, "When Science and Religion Collide or Why Einstein Wasn’t an Atheist," Mother Jones, November/December 1997.
"Penzias and Wilson’s Discovery is One of the Century’s Key Advances," Lucent Technologies, rev. February 2001.
Read "Arno Penzias—Autobiography" on the Nobel Foundation website.
Gregg Easterbrook, "What came before creation?" U.S. News & World Report, July 20, 1998.
"Physicists Puzzle Over Unexpected Findings in ‘Little’ Big Bang," University of Rochester News, November 11, 2002.
The Intelligent Design Network of New Mexico is encouraging citizens to contact the governor and their legislators to comment on the newly revised science standards for education.
Al Dobras, "It’s All about Luck: Avoiding Intelligent Design at All Costs," BreakPoint Online, April 7, 2003.
Roberto Rivera, "Gods and Peanuts: Reason and Revelation," BreakPoint Online, May 22, 2002.
William A. Dembski, "Skepticism’s Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design," BreakPoint Online, June 24, 2002.
BreakPoint Commentary No. 020627, "Considering the Evidence: Intelligent Design in the Twenty-First Century."
-
229
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW inrecently, dr. wolf-ekkehard loennig, a jw working in a leading position at the gene-science-department at the max-planck-institute, has been banned from the institute's website for spreading his view about evolution.
he promotes the so called "intelligents design".
max-planck-institute calles this creationism in disguise.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
the idea of a personal god is however completely rediculous. has there ever been a mircale? was there ever a person that was guided or protected by this god? was it the christian or the muslim or the jewish god? its all baloney! This is what I thought for years. More experience and time can change one greatly if we let it. I encourage you to study all three faiths in detail.
-
54
My response to Gerhard Besier
by Jerry Bergman inall creationists liars?
response
to professor dr. dr. gerhard besier
-
-
Jerry Bergman
I do have a problem with an overly literalistic interpretation of scripture that seeks to validate the Universe’s origin as it was imagined by a human some thousands of years ago, even if this requires selective vision and brute force. I do not take a literalistic approach but an historical one. Also, what if the best scientific interpretation happens to fit the biblical model, would you reject it? Remember, this is exactly what happened when the Big Bang was proposed as has been well documented now.
-
54
My response to Gerhard Besier
by Jerry Bergman inall creationists liars?
response
to professor dr. dr. gerhard besier
-
-
Jerry Bergman
Thanks for the threads. Now that I can find the posts I can respond. Time is still a problem. I am several weeks behind on my research at the medical school.
-
54
My response to Gerhard Besier
by Jerry Bergman inall creationists liars?
response
to professor dr. dr. gerhard besier
-
-
Jerry Bergman
I sat down to respond to some of your material on another thread and the entire thread is gone as is the thread about Lonnig. Where are they? Who do I contact? You better read this before it also disappears. My concern is reviewed below: A new book was based on Forrest's article in Pennock's anthology. Here's a
paragraph from a review in the American Catholic Philosophical
Quarterly.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001. 804 pages. Pb. $45.00. ISBN: 0-262-66124-1.
... If there was any question whether this would be a balanced treatment of
the issues, that doubt is dispelled in the first article. This book is not
designed to engage the opposing side, but rather to put down an insidious
movement.
Just how insidious is shown in Barbara Forrest's historical overview. With
a tone like that of an investigative reporter, Forrest quotes from an
"internal CRSC [Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture] document,
titled 'The Wedge Strategy,' that surfaced from an anonymous source in
March, 1999" [3]. According to this document, the ultimate goal of the
Wedge is to overthrow the naturalistic hegemony and replace with something a
bit more friendly to theists. And like all good revolutionary movements,
Forrest sees this one as having a clear plan. Among other things, "CRSC
creationists have taken the time and trouble to acquire legitimate degrees,
providing them a degree of cover both while they are students and after they
join university faculties" [38], implying that people join the ID movement
and only then decide to get their doctorates as a means for advancing their
sinister Wedge Strategy. Just like modern terrorists, their M.O. is to
"blend more smoothly into the academic population" [39]. There is no
biographical information to support these claims, but shadowy figures like
these are just the kind of extremists who would do something like that.
Forrest's goal is to reveal the "deep" motives behind ID, all in a
what-they-don't-want-you-to-know tone. And a researcher added: I know you asked for a private reply, but what I have to say does not
concern the authenticity of these claims. Rather, it concerns the sort
of tactic apparently engaged in by these authors (assuming this
publisher's description is accurate). It is a tactic mastered quite
proficiently by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Instead of
engaging the case for an increased welfare state, McCarthy and his
allies sought to link those who held this position with "communists."
(For the record, I'm not a big fan of the welfare state and believe
that the allocating of social goods is best done on the local level;
however, I don't think liberals are communists). Having said that, I
believe that we should call the Forrest/Gross approach by its real
name: guilt-by-association McCarthyism. It is a despicable tactic that
does no intellectual work whatsoever in refuting any position on
origins, whether it is ID, creationism, or evolution in any of its
forms.
The AAAS, for example, is a pressure group that releases press
statements, hires lobbyists, and offers public commentary on a whole
array of issues including intelligent design. And yet, if I were to say
that the AAAS comments on these matters ought to be dismissed because
the AAAS constitutes a "pressure group with a materialist agenda rather
than a group of scientists with common interests holding up one side of
an ongoing debate within science," any thoughtful person would
recognize that my observation, even if accurate, has no bearing on the
plausibility of the positions offered by the AAAS.
Although you may be right that "silence gives consent," the ad hominem
fallacy--no matter in how high-minded a disguise it is offered--is
still a fallacy. (Forrest, a philosopher, knows that, and thus her use
of it is particularly egregious). One way to combat this is for some
of us--especially those who are not public on their ID sympathies--to
offer to review the book for leading periodicals. The book, of course,
may be more fair-minded than its description let's on. And if so, then
it should be reviewed in the spirit in which it is offered. But if it
is not fair-minded, and employs the ad hominem and other disreputable
tactics with relentless promiscuity, then it and its authors should
suffer the painful fate such illegitimate tomes deserve. -
229
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW inrecently, dr. wolf-ekkehard loennig, a jw working in a leading position at the gene-science-department at the max-planck-institute, has been banned from the institute's website for spreading his view about evolution.
he promotes the so called "intelligents design".
max-planck-institute calles this creationism in disguise.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
the break of causality on the quantum level is a fact. I need replicated empirical studies published in journals, not theory based on fuzzy studies. Also, try this line with a judge in court (well, he died due to a beak in causality. No one did it, it just happened).