Religious Scientists

jane_k_le
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-04-08
User is offlineOffline
Religious Scientists

I was debating with a theist today and I was shamefully stumped. I had no idea there were so many religious scientists!

Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)
Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)
Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)
Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)
Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism)
John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)
Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)
John Ray (the most important name in British natural history)
Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratiographer who investigated earth layers)
Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification)
Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)
Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)
Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)

What I need are names of non-believing scientists. I know there are plenty but I just had a misconsumption that ALL scientists were atheist in their own way. I guess I was wrong. Sad

-Jane


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Religious Scientists

Non-believers: everyone else

But it doesn't matter, because it's an appeal to authority fallacy.


GrimJesta
GrimJesta's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2006-06-21
User is offlineOffline
Religious Scientists

Also keep in mind that most of these men and women that were scientists, yet claimed to be theists of some sort, usually had to say they were or else no one would take their science seriously. It was a social suicide to say you were an atheist up until... well... now. Of course this wasn't always the case, but many times it was. Then there are those that really did/do believe in a god of some kind. Just because someone can map an electron that doesn't mean they disbelieve. I'd even go so far as to say it's the exact opposite and that most scientists do believe in some form of higher power/sentience. Atheism is fighting an uphill battle in many regards.

-=Grim=-

No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.


CynageN
Posts: 101
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Religious Scientists

GrimJesta wrote:
Also keep in mind that most of these men and women that were scientists, yet claimed to be theists of some sort, usually had to say they were or else no one would take their science seriously. It was a social suicide to say you were an atheist up until... well... now.

Agreed, except it still is social and career suicide. I believe Y#5 just lost a job over being an atheist.


GrimJesta
GrimJesta's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2006-06-21
User is offlineOffline
Religious Scientists

Yea. My point was that there's at least a chance now-a-days that you won't be discriminated against. Slim, but it's there.

-=Grim=-

No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.


Reddragon
Posts: 54
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Re: Religious Scientists

jane_k_le wrote:
I was debating with a theist today and I was shamefully stumped. I had no idea there were so many religious scientists!

Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)
Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)
Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)
Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)
Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism)
John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)
Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)
John Ray (the most important name in British natural history)
Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratiographer who investigated earth layers)
Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification)
Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)
Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)
Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)

What I need are names of non-believing scientists. I know there are plenty but I just had a misconsumption that ALL scientists were atheist in their own way. I guess I was wrong. Sad

-Jane

Yeah the idea that all scientists are atheist is a modern myth. For some reason we keep trying to make the dividing line between atheism and theism a matter of intelligence. A lot of great scientists from history were Christians. And the idea that theists should reject science is total bull IMHO.

If I tell people the Gospel, it's not because I care about whether or not they go to heaven or hell. I do it because I honestly believe that this is God's will and purpose for my life... weeeeeeeee!!!


jester700
Posts: 105
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Religious Scientists

A great modern example of a theistic scientist is Ken Miller. A PhD in biology and author of a popular High School biology textbook (the one used in Dover, PA in fact), he's also Catholic.

One's theism only matters if it confounds one's scientific principles. Dr. Miller's doesn't, as his non-fundamental theism has no problem with evolution. This is the case with many liberal interpretations of the bible.

An interesting question is how the theism of scientists has changed over time as there has become fewer "gaps" to fit "god" into. In this respect I'd think it really parallels that of the population at large, only a bit ahead of the curve.

Also, note that also theism certainly exists among scientists, it IS at a lower percentage than with the general populace, and the higher one goes in education level and prominence achieved, the lower the theistic rate drops.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: Religious Scientists

jane_k_le wrote:
I was debating with a theist today and I was shamefully stumped. I had no idea there were so many religious scientists!

Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)
Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)
Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)
Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)
Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism)
John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)
Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)
John Ray (the most important name in British natural history)
Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratiographer who investigated earth layers)
Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification)
Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)
Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)
Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)

What I need are names of non-believing scientists. I know there are plenty but I just had a misconsumption that ALL scientists were atheist in their own way. I guess I was wrong. Sad

-Jane

No, what he needs is a list of scientists who were actually alive in the last few decades and the realization that his point doesn't make a bit of difference.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Religious Scientists

BTW, can I use the fact that there are NO outspoken atheists in the national government of the USA as an argument FOR atheism?

I think I should, it goes without saying.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


jane_k_le
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-04-08
User is offlineOffline
Religious Scientists

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
BTW, can I use the fact that there are NO outspoken atheists in the national government of the USA as an argument FOR atheism?

I think I should, it goes without saying.

An unfortunate truth. -_-


applesforadam
Posts: 151
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Re: Religious Scientists

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
No, what he needs is a list of scientists who were actually alive in the last few decades and the realization that his point doesn't make a bit of difference.

I agree, whenever something is brought up in any debate I am in to the affect of how many people follow Christianity or any other religion, regardless of their intellect or their contributions to humanity, I always stop that line of thinking by noting that the number of people who follow a religion has no bearing on the truth of said religion. This can be a double edged sword if an atheist attempts to use the same set of illogic by saying that the majority of intellectuals are atheists.

"It's not so much staying alive. It's staying human that's important." - 1984
www.myspace.com/applesforadam
applesforadam.blogspot.com


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Re: Religious Scientists

If you'll pardon me for deviating from the topic...

Reddragon wrote:
For some reason we keep trying to make the dividing line between atheism and theism a matter of intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

Reddragon, from what i've seen, inteligence seems to be a pretty big factor...


Darl
Posts: 31
Joined: 2006-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Religious Scientists

I agree with an much earlier post on the idea that they had to claim to be believers to be taken seriously. Take Ben Franklin. He claimed to be deist. But, most of his close contemporaries suspected him of being athiest.


Zubair (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline

Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Zubair wrote:similar text is


 

really so why are there atheist still


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
No, what he needs is a list of scientists who were actually alive in the last few decades and the realization that his point doesn't make a bit of difference.

 

Granted, it is an old quote that I am pulling but this is the relevant point. Does nobody else notice that the list of scientists is in fact composed of people who lived in the times prior to there really being much in the way of real science? Um, let me pull some dates and merge them to see if it can be made clear:

 

1627- 1691 Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)

1623 -1687 Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)

1791 – 1867 Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)

1822 – 1884 Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)

1822 – 1895 Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism)

1766 – 1844 John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)

1623 – 1662 Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)

1627 -1705 John Ray (the most important name in British natural history)

1638 – 1686 Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratiographer who investigated earth layers)

1707 – 1778 Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification)

1769 – 1832 Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)

1806 – 1873 Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)

1819 – 1874 Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)

 

If there is a point to this list, it can only be to prove that whomever made it was so morally bereft that they simply did not bother to check and see how many theists there are in modern science. Some of my favorites:

 

1894 – 1966 Georges Lemaître. Priest who developed the Big Bang Theory. Catholic priest

1848 – 1957 Max Planck. Founder of Quantum Mechanics. Lutheran elder

1892 – 1962 Arthur Compton. Nobel laureate in physics. Helped to develop nuclear weapons. Baptist Deacon

1901 – 1981 Henry Eyring. Just missed a Nobel Prize in chemistry by dying before being nominated. Mormon district president.

 

Alive:

 

1931 - Sir John Theodore Houghton FRS CBE. Co chair of the IPCC. Presbyterian.

1950 - Francis Sellers Collins Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

1938 - Donald Ervin Knuth Pioneer in computer science.

 

Now see, was that so hard?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


lpetrich
lpetrich's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
I'm not surprised that one

I'm not surprised that one can find lots of notable scientists who are at least nominal believers in some religion, especially in past centuries. People tend to believe in the religion of their social environment, and scientists are no exception.

This can be a dangerous apologetic strategy, because many of them had believed in sects that such apologists would consider heretical. Should one be a Catholic or an Anglican/Episcopalian or a Lutheran or a Presbyterian/Reformed/Calvinist or an Eastern Orthodox or some other sect of Xian? Should one be a Jansenist, a sort-of-Calvinist heretical Catholic, because Blaise Pascal had been one? Should one be a Trinity-denying nominal Anglican obsessed with Biblical prophecies because Isaac Newton had been one? Should one be a Sandemanian because Michael Faraday had been one? Should one be a Unitarian because Joseph Priestley had been one?

Let us not forget about other religions. Should one be a Jewish deist/pantheist because Albert Einstein had been one? Should one be an Ahmadi Muslim because Abdus Salam had been one? Should one be a Hindu because Srinivasa Ramanujan had been one? Should one be a Hellenic pagan because of the classical Greco-Roman philosophers?

Isaac Newton had kept his Trinity denial a secret, because he was afraid of getting in trouble for that heterodox opinion. So keep that factor into account.


DarkSam
DarkSam's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-24
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
No, what he needs is a list of scientists who were actually alive in the last few decades and the realization that his point doesn't make a bit of difference.

 

Granted, it is an old quote that I am pulling but this is the relevant point. Does nobody else notice that the list of scientists is in fact composed of people who lived in the times prior to there really being much in the way of real science? Um, let me pull some dates and merge them to see if it can be made clear:

 

1627- 1691 Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)

1623 -1687 Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)

1791 – 1867 Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)

1822 – 1884 Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)

1822 – 1895 Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism)

1766 – 1844 John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)

1623 – 1662 Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)

1627 -1705 John Ray (the most important name in British natural history)

1638 – 1686 Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratiographer who investigated earth layers)

1707 – 1778 Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification)

1769 – 1832 Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)

1806 – 1873 Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)

1819 – 1874 Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)

 

If there is a point to this list, it can only be to prove that whomever made it was so morally bereft that they simply did not bother to check and see how many theists there are in modern science. Some of my favorites:

 

1894 – 1966 Georges Lemaître. Priest who developed the Big Bang Theory. Catholic priest

1848 – 1957 Max Planck. Founder of Quantum Mechanics. Lutheran elder

1892 – 1962 Arthur Compton. Nobel laureate in physics. Helped to develop nuclear weapons. Baptist Deacon

1901 – 1981 Henry Eyring. Just missed a Nobel Prize in chemistry by dying before being nominated. Mormon district president.

 

Alive:

 

1931 - Sir John Theodore Houghton FRS CBE. Co chair of the IPCC. Presbyterian.

1950 - Francis Sellers Collins Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

1938 - Donald Ervin Knuth Pioneer in computer science.

 

Now see, was that so hard?

 

Yes I agree. In the past, early sciences were actually religious as there were many gaps in knowledge where they could say, "God Did It". As the gaps were slowly filled with knowledge and reason, the religious scientists became less and less.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You cannot disprove the existance of God, but you also cannot disprove the existance of an all powerfull, incomprehesible, pink elephant that lives in the boot of my car.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
BTW, can I use the fact that there are NO outspoken atheists in the national government of the USA as an argument FOR atheism? I think I should, it goes without saying.

Actually Pet Stark is in our Congress. AND Obama(although not an atheist) gave us a shout out during his campaign and during his inauguration. Look at my sig, it is a quote from his inauguration.

Time are what change take. I think you know where we once were as a voice and where we are now. You cant go one day now without googling "atheist" then clicking on "news" without seeing stories involving atheists.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
BTW, can I use the fact that there are NO outspoken atheists in the national government of the USA as an argument FOR atheism? I think I should, it goes without saying.

Actually Pet Stark is in our Congress. AND Obama(although not an atheist) gave us a shout out during his campaign and during his inauguration. Look at my sig, it is a quote from his inauguration.

Time are what change take. I think you know where we once were as a voice and where we are now. You cant go one day now without googling "atheist" then clicking on "news" without seeing stories involving atheists.

 

 

I wouldn't be shocked if Obama was a closeted atheist.  That quote about how rural people cling to their guns and religion doesn't seem like something a theist would say.

 

"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,"

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


AnarchyMell
Superfan
AnarchyMell's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Was that list taken from a

Was that list taken from a christian site?

It says that Mendel invalidated Darwinism?? 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:  I

mellestad wrote:

 

 

I wouldn't be shocked if Obama was a closeted atheist.  That quote about how rural people cling to their guns and religion doesn't seem like something a theist would say.

 

"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,"

Screw religion, but we should cling to our guns.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is a minority position - but less with Scientists

 

Leading scientists still reject God

Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.


Sir — The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].

In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among "greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience" [3]. Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge." [4] Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of "greater" and "lesser" scientists.

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.

Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists 
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief    27.7    15    7.0
Personal disbelief    52.7    68    72.2
Doubt or agnosticism    20.9    17    20.8
 
Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief    35.2    18    7.9
Personal disbelief    25.4    53    76.7
Doubt or agnosticism    43.7    29    23.3
Figures are percentages.

Repeating Leuba's methods presented challenges. For his general surveys, he randomly polled scientists listed in the standard reference work, American Men of Science (AMS). We used the current edition. In Leuba's day, AMS editors designated the "great scientists" among their entries, and Leuba used these to identify his "greater" scientists [1,2]. The AMS no longer makes these designations, so we chose as our "greater" scientists members of the NAS, a status that once assured designation as "great scientists" in the early AMS. Our method surely generated a more elite sample than Leuba's method, which (if the quoted comments by Leuba and Atkins are correct) may explain the extremely low level of belief among our respondents.

For the 1914 survey, Leuba mailed his brief questionnaire to a random sample of 400 AMS "great scientists". It asked about the respondent's belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Respondents had the options of affirming belief, disbelief or agnosticism on each question [1]. Our survey contained precisely the same questions and also asked for anonymous responses.

Leuba sent the 1914 survey to 400 "biological and physical scientists", with the latter group including mathematicians as well as physicists and astronomers [1]. Because of the relatively small size of NAS membership, we sent our survey to all 517 NAS members in those core disciplines. Leuba obtained a return rate of about 70% in 1914 and more than 75% in 1933 whereas our returns stood at about 60% for the 1996 survey and slightly over 50% from NAS members [1,2].

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral"[5]. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: "There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." Our survey suggests otherwise.


Edward J. Larson Department of History, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia 30602-6012, USA
e-mail:edlarson@uga.edu

Larry Witham
3816 Lansdale Court, Burtonsville,
Maryland 20866, USA

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is an old study

 

Dating back to 1998, but it still shows scientists, generally and increasingly, are non believer, and the more talented the scientist, the less the belief. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Koopa
Koopa's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
the_avenging_bucket wrote:If

the_avenging_bucket wrote:
If you'll pardon me for deviating from the topic...
Reddragon wrote:
For some reason we keep trying to make the dividing line between atheism and theism a matter of intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence Reddragon, from what i've seen, inteligence seems to be a pretty big factor...

I wouldn't say intelligence per se regardless the studies, unless you're talking about fundamentalists. Really, it's a matter of laziness IMHO, people would rather watch an episode of Family Guy than stick their noses in a science book or just simply go rogue Socrates and think to themselves "I wonder..." Laziness leads to a lack of intelligence. I've learned less from Family Guy than I have from school, and I've learned less from school than I have on my own. But if this is true why did people centuries ago believe in God? They didn't have TV back then. That's a matter of ignorance, we know much more now than we did long ago. What was prior ignorance became lazy dogma and peer pressure.

And probably half of these so called "Christians" today just say they're Christian so they don't have to deal with all these Jehovah's Witness' and Evangelical Christians. I mean seriously, shut the fuck up already and get the hell away from me, pest. Believe whatever you want, just don't push it on me you rotten bastards. They're worse than telemarketers.

What's the moral of the story? Extremists are bad.

Mild PDD-NOS and severe undifferentiated schizophrenia.
It's people like me that should put the oh so loving Christian god to shame, but don't... These people are crazier than I am.


RecklessHumor
RecklessHumor's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2010-06-17
User is offlineOffline
AnarchyMell wrote:Was that

AnarchyMell wrote:

Was that list taken from a christian site?

It says that Mendel invalidated Darwinism?? 

Yes, I too was a little suspicious of this post.  It seems like a setup, and not a very good one.  In particular, Mendelian genetics did not invalidate Darwinism.  The synthesis of genetics and natural selection has been the accepted scientific paradigm since the 1930's.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
AnarchyMell wrote:Was that

AnarchyMell wrote:
Was that list taken from a christian site?

 

It says that Mendel invalidated Darwinism??

 

Yah, I have no idea where it came from. That being said, any mention of “Darwinism” is a code word for the fundie follies.

 

I also noticed this time around that the list also says that Pasteur had a beef with “Darwinism”. Big fucking deal. They were both contemporary biologists (OK the exact term did not apply back then but in retrospect...). If Pasteur did have reservations (and I can't get much on the matter from google), then it was as a fellow scientist in a similar field.

 

In other news, Leonard Susskind had a large disagreement with Stephen Hawking over the nature of Black Holes. History shows that Susskind had the right side of the matter.

 

As far as Mendel goes, his personal copy of “the Origin of Species” still exists and it has handwritten notes in the margins, so we know that he read it and thought about it. However, he did not publish on the matter, so we can hardly jump to the conclusion that he had a problem with it.

 

What we can know is that his work is considered to be an essential part of the “Modern Synthesis” of evolutionary thought and actually confirms what Darwin wrote about selective breeding.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote: (snip)  

robj101 wrote:

 (snip)   ..... but we should cling to our guns.

  Oh believe me I do

 

   ps, cute little puppy in your current avatar.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Mendel provided the

Mendel provided the necessary details of how inheritance works, in that the offspring were not simple blends of their parents, that made Darwinian evolution plausible.

The 'blending' model was a real problem for evolution, which required that new traits did not simply get progressively diluted as they were passed on, but were discretely 'coded' in some manner. Mendel's experiments demonstrated that at least some traits were indeed passed on such a manner, either there or not.

So they have the truth exactly backwards.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Unrepentant_Elitist
Science Freak
Unrepentant_Elitist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
As a response, I submit my

As a response, I submit my tagline favorite, Dr. Stephen Weinberg.


MichaelEdits.com
MichaelEdits.com's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2010-06-21
User is offlineOffline
Religious scientist =

Religious scientist = cognitive dissonance

 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Equilibrium

Equilibrium wrote:
Non-believers: everyone else But it doesn't matter, because it's an appeal to authority fallacy.

Cuts both ways. I hate it when theists and atheists appeal to authority.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


RecklessHumor
RecklessHumor's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2010-06-17
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Equilibrium wrote:
Non-believers: everyone else But it doesn't matter, because it's an appeal to authority fallacy.

Cuts both ways. I hate it when theists and atheists appeal to authority.

 

The difference is that theists invent their authority.

 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
RecklessHumor wrote:The

RecklessHumor wrote:

The difference is that theists invent their authority.

That would be question begging then, wouldn't it. Smiling

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Equilibrium

Equilibrium wrote:
Non-believers: everyone else But it doesn't matter, because it's an appeal to authority fallacy.

Yes but Heidi Montag and Paris Hilton are believers in Jesus. So that negates all those atheist scientists.

Appeal to celebrity trumps all others.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jane_k_le wrote:I know there

jane_k_le wrote:
I know there are plenty but I just had a misconsumption that ALL scientists were atheist in their own way. I guess I was wrong. Sad -Jane

Yes, you were clearly misinformed.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
MichaelEdits.com

MichaelEdits.com wrote:

Religious scientist = cognitive dissonance 

"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame” - Albert Einstein

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

MichaelEdits.com wrote:

Religious scientist = cognitive dissonance 

"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame” - Albert Einstein

 

For record, this is the complete citation, which may have a slightly different meaning than some theists are trying to claim.

"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

 

So, it tells us that Einstein was a smart guy, but it tells NOTHING about his religious beliefs!!!!

 

 

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Paisley: still stumped

Paisley wrote:
"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame” - Albert Einstein

"Paisley without an internet search engine is mute" - Source Unknown

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††