Sunday, August 21, 2011 3:38:33 PM
Newton kept his beliefs out of his observations. He didn't claim god was science, to him science was science and god was god. That`s why Newton`s credible, and this guy... Isn`t.
It`s like what happens when two people look at a sheet of data. Say (as an example) there`s an increase in people being struck by lightning: someone who looks at it objectively would want more data, want to do more experiments, and would want to come to a definitive answer if one exists before making any concrete decisions about the data.
Someone who puts beliefs first would come up with a conclusion he wants to be true, then perform the "science" that would get his result if he could.
It`s not exactly saying that this guy`s argument is WRONG, per se, but it does mean that you should take what he says vs. what many other more credible sources say with a grain of salt. It`s like asking someone with a history of losing bets who he would bet on in the next match.
Sunday, August 21, 2011 3:25:02 PM
I'm not saying I disagree with the article, but isn`t the fact that he was wrong in the past and that he believes in intellegent design an ad hominem attack? By the same logic, one could say: "Newton was into some really crazy cults that believed in the supernatural. Because of this, Newtonian mechanics are wrong." Believing in intelligent design and trying to call it science shows one important thing about any "scientist:" He puts beliefs before evidence and facts. Which means his "science" needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Evolution is a scientifically observable fact. Intelligent design, as stated in the article, is glossed over creationism. It`s not science, it`s the red-headed step-child of what happens when someone tries to mix science and religion, two things that rarely, if ever, mix well.