Do scientist who reject any discussion of a Creator also reject the Declaration of Independence?
967928
You know something, you are very uninformed. For you information:\n\nMost scientists believe in some sort of creator or deity. There is a simple explanation for this, and that is science can incorporate the idea of the supernatural since there are places that science cannot go.\n\nThe creation of the universe is one of them. Science can explain all the way back to 10^-43 seconds, but before that there is no explanation, there is only the unknown that is just as well explained as God as any other theory. So God and science are not at odds here, as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking would agree\n\nSpeaking of my great, great, uncle, several times removed Albert Einstein, he is quoted as saying "God does not play dice with the universe." What he meant by this was a repudiation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, because to Albert the universe was a beautifully ordered and created place, created by God.\n\nSome scientist see God in randomness (Heisenberg). Others see it in harmonies of patterns and chaos (Glick and Mandelbrot). Even Darwin still credited God for creating the universe, though he sought scientific explanations for the evolution of species.\n\nThese men were/are fervent men with fervent beliefs. The fact that they deal in science in no way impedes their beliefs in God.\n\nNow, that being said, what you believe God did or does may not be the same thing that these men believe, maybe because they understand Gods universe better, maybe because they are more open minded than to narrow their vision to a few hundred pages of a book, a book that is interpreted many different ways so that who knows which version is right, if any. But when it comes down to it, they believe in God in one form or another, and maybe their views are more enlightened than most.\n\nYou can count me with them, by the way, as I take a more scientific view of the world. I am Deist, what that means is I believe in God as a first cause. I believe that God set the beautifully intricate stage, that we are still trying to understand, and let it be, to run the way it will, a universe of detail ever unfolding.\n\nBTW I gave you a thumbs up on the question, because while it was indelicate, it was thought provoking and deserved an answer, even if it was mostly my opinion.
537674
Dear Wanda,\n\nMy experience is that scientists in general have the same amount of faith (or non-faith) as the population at large. \n\nHaving said that, the degree to which some scientists dont believe in God does not make their belief or non-belief truth...\n\nTo me, what is more important (than the numbers) is the reasons that people (including scientists) give for their belief, or non-belief.\n\nYou mention that the people who believe that god exists are the dumbest people on earth... \n\nIn response... If you read the information in the links I provide below, and then still think that I am one of the dumbest people on earth (because I am a Christian theist), then please let me know, and I will accept your judgment, with humility.\n\nI used to be an atheist. Over a period of time however, I grew convinced of the existence of the Christian God, and ultimately committed my life to Christ. \n\nFor a draft-version of my journey from atheism to Christ, see http://www.godsci.org/gs/chri/testimony/seek.html\n\nFor scientific and intellectual evidence for the existence of God, see http://www.godsci.org/gs/godsci/evidence.htm\n\nFor evidence for the historicity and truth of Jesus Christ, see http://www.godsci.org/gs/chri/jesus.htm\n\nFor information regarding scientists who believe in God, see http://www.godsci.org/gs/godsci/scientists.htm\n\nCordially,\nJohn
698009
I think that scientists are above that petty religious crap.\n\nWe're the better people for bettering humanity.  They can keep their religious petri-dish people have soul's crap to themselves.
53837
They can.  Open your mind.\n\nBut this:\n\n"According to the scientific method, unless you can disprove a theory... it stands as true."\n\nis an absolute farce.  There is so such notion in science.  If it's not a scientific theory, then it's not a scientific theory.  It means science can't say anything about it, right, wrong, or sideways.\n\nYou're confusing the legal idea of "innocent until proven guilty" with science.  Science cannot disproave any of Christianity, Hinduism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism, or Minerva worship--that doesn't mean science says they're all true.
842898
Theists. Most people are theists, so a theist nation would have more people to advance technology. \n\nTheists. Most scientists are theists.\n\nTheists.\n\n(Theist isn't necessarily Christian!)\n\nEDIT: 3.8% of the population is atheist--You'd have to be a fool to think this minority makes up 71% of scientists. And your "survey" of the NAS is no indication of reality (most scientists aren't in the NAS and 500 members of the more populated NAS indicates a non-random sampling). Most scientists believe in theism, only because the majority of the world does. Scientists being doctors, engineers, linguists, psychologists, etc. And what gave you the idea even a slight majority of hoplogists are atheists? I'd think that's a theistic vitriol.
805890
answering the who believes part:  only people who can't read or who so mistrust science that they refuse to believe anything but the bible (and biblical scholars, paradoxically).\n\nAs to where they get that nonsense, well, that'd be those bible scholars.  Strangely I suspect those same scholars may in many cases be more open to other theories (evolution!) than they're given credit for.  After all, it's one thing to read the bible and infer from all the details there that genesis must have described a date 4600 years ago; it's quite another to believe that is a true account of the time since creation.
26363
I tend to agree with what you are saying.\nIf there is a creator I suspect that moving away from the creator is moving toward darkness.\n\nIf there is a creator I suspect that creator is not as rathful and harsh as some would suggest. If God, from whatever religious system, is truth then God would want us to look for the truth.\n\nIn my opinion God would want peopele to question, to look for truth. Some of the most brilliant people in history were not sure what God was about - folks like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and others.\n\nI think that God would be sort of annoyed with folks who just followed the teachings of whatever group they were a part of without asking questions and deciding for themselves. That thing that happened in Gianna with the cool aid, David Koresh, folks who blow themselves up who don't get the fact that God is about peace.
29764
None really - science is a methodology.  The scientists might have faith in all sorts of things -but science itself does not.
423161
you are right. and i see another piece of misinformation cropping up as well.  our founding fathers were not christian.  one was an atheist and the others were all Diest (belief in the clockwork structure of the universe.  God made it all, wound it up, and lets it go.  God does not take a personal or vested interest in any part of his creation.).  So no knowledge of the Treaty of Tripoli or that there were NO Christian Founding Fathers of America.
879160
Absolutely. First of all, "common era"? Who's "common" are they talking about?\nThis is the latest example of the POLITICS of science running away from religion.  If they can't "prove it" then it must be "mythology" as they seem to be recently fond of pigeonholing it.\nWhen I was a kid I wanted to be a "scientist" (whatever that meant). Science has become so involved in politics (because of the chase of the almighty federal grant dollar, and the desire to shed all religion-based moral restrictions in order to take shortcuts in research), that it now finds itself in opposition to the entire concept of religion and faith as moral guides.
291165
Yes. I am a firm creationist, and speak out against evoulutionists reguarly. \n\nGo to drdino.com for more info on how creation is supported by facts, and how evolution is supported by assumptions.
1160835
There are certainly some scientists who believe that, but they are a very small minority. You aren't actually wrong for believing that to be the case, but you should be aware that it is considered unlikely by most scientsists.
73846
Science is a human activity, and therefore it suffers from the same failings as many other human activities. One of these failings is a tendency to do unethical things from time to time by various participants, like steal each other's work or be less than honest about the outcome of various experiments. \n\nFor example, if one looks into the story of evolution, one finds that Darwin does not lay sole claim to the theory of natural selection. Wallace, Wells, Mathew, Buffon, Owen, and even Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) and many others independently came up with the idea, or are contenders for the title of "father of evolution". The actual priority claims are somewhat murky, and there have been charges of ethical lapses of various kinds. \n\nSimilarly, it appears that Newton might have fudged some of his celestial mechanics  and optics data and his theory of sound to get agreement between theory and experiment. Even the monk Gregor Mendel's data look a little too good to be true, apparently.  \n\nIn these cases, if science is to remain vital, I believe that ethical restraint must be practiced. Otherwise the entire enterprise might descend into a useless morass. \n\nHowever, I do not believe these are the events you are referring to; I believe you are referring to blocking certain types of inquiry or investigation because it offends some sense of propriety of some group or society. I will argue that in all human activities, like warfare, and politics, and driving, there are probably some rules for behavior that can and should be adopted. Otherwise, one would end up still condoning practices like torture and the "science" of Dr. Mengele. As uncomfortable as I am with imposing artificial boundaries on scientific inquiry, the potential coarsening of society that might result from unbridled investigations should give us all pause.
411706
Not everytime but when a scientists wants to prove themselves greatest and breakes the law of nature that time science fails.They shuldn't forget that they can't deafeat the power of nature.\n\nEx:- Titanic. They thought that it was unbreakable but it broke.
165369
Galileo was held under house arrest actually, not put in jail (see reference).\n\nScience is a human endeavor. There are plenty of human failings that we can observe in science. There are areas of science that are politically correct, and areas that are politically incorrect. \n\nFor example, at the moment in the US; SETI, earthquake prediction, precipitation forecasting, aritifical intelligence are all somewhat suspect fields of scientific study, and on the fringe of pseudoscience. That is because the mainstream body of science does not believe that these activities are likely to yield results, and given scarce resources, they should be discouraged. So scientists working in those areas might be tainted slightly with the association with suspect fields. \n\nAnother way a scientist might come to be called a pseudoscientist is if he ignores or is ignorant of generally accepted methods, techniques, scientific laws, is unable to answer criticisms of his work, etc. \n\nHowever, if such a pseudoscientist is successful, then opinions change. A lot of times, it can take many years for the opinions to change; sometimes long after the scientist is dead.
667556
Thomas Jefferson.\n\nHe wrote the Decleration of Independence, otherwise, we wouldnt be free.\n\nYou bunch of hippies!
384061
The founders of this country decided that religion should be separated from government and for a good reason. Countries that have a state religion almost always discriminate against people who choose to believe differently, to the point that those people are often tortured and killed for those non-conforming beliefs.\n\nHistory has proved this time and time again and millions have died in the name of state religions. Jefferson and the others involved with determining the fate of their new nation prevented this by the separation of church and state.\n\nThis so called "science" of intelligent design is a lame excuse for the teaching of religion as viewed by Christianity and ignores other beliefs. \n\nIn fact, the theory of evolution does not exclude creation, it simply follows the natural order as has been determined by scientific study. Who is to deny that a creator set the conditions of the laws of nature in a manner that was conducive to evolution, rather than a wiz bang instant existence.\n\nAs for the Bible explanation, how do you explain such complex science to a simple minded people thousands of years ago who were very superstitious and not at all scientifically savvy, except by using a simple story that they could understand. The various peoples of the world all had creation stories and all were easy to understand, with no complex science.