[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> to science. At least three of them - Collins, Polkinghorne and Miller   
   >>> - have published books, articles and interviews explaining their views   
   >>> and how they have no difficulty reconciling science and religious   
   >>> belief. How much of their work have you read or work of others   
   >>> explaining how the believe science and religion can be reconciled?   
   >>   
   >> Let's just say I am familiar with them all,   
   >   
   > Sorry, I don't want to sound disrespectful but that sounds like an   
   > evasive way of saying no you haven't read any of their work.   
      
   It's me saying I am not going to get into a pissing contest like this   
   with you, and evidently I was right in my assumption since that is   
   exactly what you have resorted to.  If you have a specific point you   
   wish to raise from someone, just raise it.  It's really not a contest.   
      
   >> though I don't think I have   
   >> read Polkinghorne.  I have found it to be harmful that anyone with a   
   >> Theistic or Design background will immediately get blacklisted and their   
   >> work either banned or ignored.   
   >   
   > That is simply not true as far as *theists* go; I have given you three   
   > examples of committed theists who have risen to the pinnacle of   
   > science over the last 50 years so. The history of science over   
   > previous centuries is littered with theists who made major,   
   > well-recognised, contributions to science; Copernicus was a Catholic   
   > cleric; Isaac Newton was a devout Protestant; Mendel who is regarded   
   > as the 'father of genetics' was an Augustinian monk; Lemaître who   
   > first proposed the Big Bang was a Catholic priest. Do I have to go on?   
      
   I could give countless modern examples showing the opposite and what   
   would that prove?  Nothing, each of us will still make a decision on our   
   own particular beliefs and biases.  The point is that in today's   
   scientific and academic community you take a big chance doing anything   
   that would be considered invoking the supernatural in my opinion.  Silly   
   thing to argue about IMO.   
      
   > Those supporting intelligent design do get treated with disdain but   
   > that is not because they are theistic, it's because they try to   
   > dismiss well-established science with nothing to offer in its place   
   > except vague hand waving towards God - and they are dishonest by   
   > referring to an Intelligent Designer when they really mean God.   
      
   If you feel that way go ahead and voice that opinion.  All I know is I   
   do believe there is evidence for intelligent design, and I have no   
   problem saying that means I believe in the Supernatural.  But certainly   
   not along the lines of Bergson's super-naturalization of nature.  I am   
   quite comfortable acknowledging that to be God.   
      
   >   
   >> But, that appears to be changing, and   
   >> rather quickly it seems.  But, I suppose that's just a personal opinion.   
   >>   It is always going to be a problem for creationists in our "modern"   
   >> culture trying to convince anyone that there is a supernatural anything.   
   >>   It's just the world we live in.   
   >   
   > You won't convince anyone by trying to attack science that is well   
   > established and based on evidence. I don't even know why you would   
   > want to do that;   
      
   I don't do that.  You say I do because you have different views than I   
   do.  Are you literally suggesting everyone should simply accept what is   
   consensus and stop further inquiry?  Good thing actual scientists don't   
   do that!   
      
   > I believe the way to convince people about God is to   
   > bring them the Good News that Jesus Christ gave us and the hope it   
   > offers against the things that people fear in this world today;   
   > science has nothing to do with that.   
      
   I am not trying to convince people about God.  I do believe you are   
   completely blindfolded though, if you actually believe science has   
   nothing to do with eliminating God from society.  Most people will not   
   talk about God at all since science they believe science has proven that   
   everything came about and evolves naturally.  It's all that get taught   
   in schools for a long time now.  If you can't show them some reasons   
   that thinking is illogical or simply wrong, they will never listen.   
      
   > Indeed, attacking science in the way that intelligent design   
   > proponents do, can be counter-productive. It's not just me saying   
   > that; Augustine of Hippo, one of the Christian theologians that ever   
   > lived, speaking over a thousand years before modern science as we know   
   > it began, warned us   
      
   ---snip---   
      
   If that is what you think, that someone who sees merit in intelligent   
   design positions is attacking science, good for you.  I don't see it   
   that way.   
      
      
   --   
   Science doesn't support Darwin.  Scientists do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)