[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> You have been focusing on the Big Bang which is where atoms and   
   >> particles came into existence and claiming that it was caused by God;   
   >> that is an example of what I mean by tweaking with atoms and   
   >> particles. I struggle to find any relationship between God involved in   
   >> that sort of activity and the loving father in heaven that I believe   
   >> in, who sent his Son to redeem us.   
   >   
   >That's why the question has always had a HOW and a WHY.   
      
   Correct! Science deals with the HOW, religious belief deals with the   
   WHY; The problems arises when you try to use religious belief to   
   answer the HOW which is what proponents of ID try to do.   
      
   >   
   >>>> I gave you several examples of wholly committed religious believers   
   >>>> who fully accept what science has to say both in regard to cosmology   
   >>>> and to the TOE and have indeed made significant direct contributions   
   >>>> 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?   
      
   I'd be interested to see you giving even one example of someone being   
   blacklisted and their work either banned or ignored because of their   
   *theistic* beliefs i.e. not promoting ID.   
      
   >Nothing, each of us will still make a decision on our   
   >own particular beliefs and biases.   
      
   When a recognised expert in a particular field comes to different   
   conclusion than myself, I hesitate and rethink before I insist that   
   I'm right and they're wrong   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Problems arise when somebody tries to invoke the supernatural where   
   science has a natural explanation.   
      
   >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,   
      
   What evidence do you have other than something "looks" designed or   
   looks too complex to have evolved naturally?   
      
   > and I have no   
   >problem saying that means I believe in the Supernatural.   
      
   I have no problem with believing in the supernatural but another other   
   problems I have with ID is that when I look at what they claim is   
   design, it is often inefficient and sometimes downright bad design. If   
   God were to get involved with design, I'd like to think he would make   
   a better job of it   
      
   >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.   
      
   I have talked to many people who have rejected God and science comes   
   very, very low on the list of reasons why they have done so. FWIW the   
   two most common reasons I have encountered are the behaviour of people   
   who claim to be Christian and their inability to accept a merciful God   
   who they think allows so much bad stuff to happen in the world.   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   You've just blamed science for eliminating God from society; seems   
   like attacking to me.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)