Oh, I suspect it was both appearances and substance, if I know anything about administrators.

However, there is a point, Jay, in the undertone of Mr. Boezeman’s comment that I would agree with. You seem to be mainly featuring all of the people that are loud/obnoxious in the creation/evolution debate…and pointing out all of the negatives does not really help to reconcile the two often opposing worlds of science and faith. But maybe reconcilliation is not the aim of these discussions for you (?).

I have pointed out scientists before who are good examples of Christian evolutionary biologists, and bad examples of evolutionary biologists. Ken Miller is my favorite when it comes to an example of a Christian evolutionary biologist. He’s very respected, very prominent, and honest about his faith. I’ve mentioned Richard Dawkin’s on the other hand as a scientist who obviously has an extreme dislike of religion of any kind, one that he is very vocal about. His statements to me are the worst kind of behavior from a scientist, as his views on athiesm approach the militant level.

I simply think we can’t judge people’s science by their egos and personalities. Newton, born on Christmas day, had an insatiable ego. He believed he was God’s gift to the world. (Who knows, his work just might suggest that he was.) Likewise, Richard Dawkin’s is highly respected for the science he does, even though he can’t stand religion of any kind.

Now, here’s the bigger issue. You asked about reconciliation and the aim of these discussions… I do not think reconciliation will come, by any stretch of the imagination, by accommodating ID. It’s not science, as I’ve spelled out every chance I get, and it’s horrible theology. (I don’t need to repeat what I’ve said — read my first post about ID).

To put it another way, if someone comes into my church and basically demands that we don’t read the bible or study the teachings of Jesus, there’s no room for accommodation. I can be polite to that person if I see them around town or have dealings with them in my job, but any time that issue comes up in church, I’ll kind of be forced to have an opinion.

So it is with ID. I’m not out to fight with people over their personal beliefs. If Mr. Bozeman and lots of other people want to believe that nature shows evidence of God design, that’s their right. But when ID proponents basically try to subvert the process of science, and use a political approach by turning their ideas into a culture war, I finally had to stand up and say, “You know what… I’m a Christian. And ID sure aint science, and I personally view it to be horrible theology.”

I hope to be a Ken Miller… I hope to be an intelligent scientist (that’s going to take a lot of work ) that people can see as an example of a Christian who has faith. I’ll continue to talk about my worldview here on this blog. I just don’t have much sympathy for ID.

Mr. Bozeman, nice to see a passionate ID advocate coming by to challenge what I’ve said. Here’s some brief replies to your comment.

Creation science, I assume you would also say, isn’t scientist, but hello- the most famous scientist of all time (Newton) was a creationist…

And the scientist Leonardo da Vinci, painted The Last Supper. Is it art or is it science? Your point is simply bizzare. I consider myself a creationist and have publicly stated so on this blog. (See the link “First Time Here?” in the navigation for my background). Creationist and creation science are completely different things. One is a religious viewpoint, the other is absolutely horrible not science.

how can any person or group decide what constitutes “real science” and what doesn’t?

I don’t know… I figure scientists do a pretty good job of defining science. Kind of like people who speak Hebrew and Greek get to translate the bible, people who study literature decide that Shakespeare should be studied, etc. Apparently you call these people arrogant. I just think of them as knowledgable in their fields.

You have to put the major scientists of history into the camp of fools who were practicing non-science.

Where on Earth did you get that idea? A scientist that believes in God, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or no God at all is still a scientist when his work follows the practices of science. (Namely making falsifiable predictions). I might think the person is wonderful, or the most rotten SOB this side of Hitler. Their science stands on it’s own when it’s science. As a Christian, I enjoy learning about scientists of old that were also Christians. Some of their ideas were scientific and are still widely taught today. Sometimes their ideas (within science) were religious in nature and are viewed as such — religious not scientific.

Science was much more broad before, and it was much more open to new ideas, ideas that aren’t mainstream…ideas that could possibly revolutionize the way science itself works.

This statement is false, as any casual reading of the history on science will show. Darwin’s theories themselves were just one such idea that was met with some resistance but ended up revolutionizing the way science itself works. He presented his evidence quite thoroughly, and in little more than decade the landscape of scientific thought had aligned itself with his views. If someone can present a better theory, the same will happen again.

Here’s a repeat of something I said in an earlier comment which you would do well to read.

See this article at Science and Theology News for a great discussion on the comparision between the Big Bang as a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design. The bottom line, many resisted the theory of Big Bang, particularly since it sounded a little too religious for some. However, Big Bang made testable predictions and as the theory was developed, became today’s mainstream.

The comparision is striking. There are many areas in science that are controversial today. Scientists work on these ideas to put forward predications and evidence to win others over to their side. I am strongly of the opinion that if ID had anything to put forward, it would have done so by now. If ID had any merit what-so-ever, but simply needed more time to develop as a theory, they wouldn’t have taken the battle to the public arena via popular books, lawsuits, etc but instead would have worked to convince other scientists.

However, there is a point, Jay, in the undertone of Mr. Boezeman’s comment that I would agree with. You seem to be mainly featuring all of the people that are loud/obnoxious in the creation/evolution debate…and pointing out all of the negatives does not really help to reconcile the two often opposing worlds of science and faith. But maybe reconcilliation is not the aim of these discussions for you (?). However, I think it may be valuable to also present or profile scientists who have been able to wear both hats (christian and scientist). There are many people out there who do good, “real” science and believe in God and call themselves Christians. If you need a starter example, David Lahti comes quickly to mind. He is a AuSable alum (I found out about him through Dave Mahan), a recent Darwin Fellow at UMass, and studies evolution and African weaverbirds. His Umass webpage is : http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/podos/Lahti_Biopage/INDEX.HTM

He has written several articles in Christian journals, you won’t find them listed on his CV or webpage (for obvious reasons), but you can find links to two of them here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/.

Hope you’re having a great Tues

Not because “intelligent design is not science.” Creation science, I assume you would also say, isn’t scientist, but hello- the most famous scientist of all time (Newton) was a creationist…does that mean he wasn’t a true scientist or that he was practicing psuedoscience? For the biggest chunk of science’s history, scientists have been creation scientists, and not because of some gaps in evolutionary thinking before evolution came on the scene, but because of the evidence they say in the heavens and on the earth. To proclaim that ID isn’t science is 1. arrogant. how can any person or group decide what constitutes “real science” and what doesn’t? That’s absurd. and 2. You have to put the major scientists of history into the camp of fools who were practicing non-science. Maybe even going further and saying that because they were actually creationists, they weren’t ‘true’ scientists.

Science, for the longest time, had no demand that even the work be solely based on a materialistic view of the world- so, even if you claim that ID demands the supernatural (it doesn’t), then you’re still saying that the longest part of the history of science wasn’t true history because it was based on the assumption that there was more to the world than strictly natural laws. Science was much more broad before, and it was much more open to new ideas, ideas that aren’t mainstream…ideas that could possibly revolutionize the way science itself works. The scientists of old knew all of this and that’s why they were less narrow in their thinking. Claiming that the science they dealt with wasn’t true science (which is precisely what you’re doing when you proclaim that ID isn’t science), that’s just foolish.