The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

MatthewVII wrote: »

There is a difference between someone who is a scientist who adheres by scientific principles by day and says a prayer when he comes home and a scientist whos religious beliefs drive him to try and validate something which has no scientific merit

Could not have said it better myself.

Turtwig

MatthewVII wrote: »

There is a difference between someone who is a scientist who adheres by scientific principles by day and says a prayer when he comes home and a scientist whos religious beliefs drive him to try and validate something which has no scientific merit

Yes but can you give an example of where during the course of his WORK that Collins disobeyed those principles?

A personal memoir/blog/book does not count - we are entitled to our personal opinions it's during the science we must remain impartial.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....so why all the active discrimination and vitrol against ID, Creationist AND Theistis Evolutionist SCIENTISTS then???!!!!

Because a lot of them are trying to pervert scientific standards in order to have their non-supported untestable ideas about biology sledge hammered into science.

I've no problem about anyone discriminating against a scientist like that.

J C wrote: »

'.....what has ACTUALLY happened is that Atheists have built in 'safeguards' to maintain a Materialistic BIAS in 'Origins Science' ... and they are prepared to do almost anything to preserve these 'safeguards'!!!!!

As opposed to what JC? Accepting something is true because you read it in a book and it made you feel good? yeah, that is a good way to determine the truth about the universe

Those damn scientists with their standards and stuff. :rolleyes:

kiffer

J C wrote: »

....yes

Even though the crystals themselves are very ordered structures? OK, it doesn't matter which iron atoms are next to which sulphur atoms but the structure itself is very regular (barring contaminants and flaws of course) simply due to the way the atoms bond together... the laws of chemistry that we have learned through painstaking study and research...
Here we seem to have order from disorder, although of course through out all this the rules of entropy and energy are adhered to...

yes? So moving on.

ok... some time passes... the shale gets buried deeper and deeper... and because of all that insulating rock above, and heat from below and from the decay of any radioactive elements in the rock itself... the rock get hot... it goes through some changes, different minerals form, degrade or remain stable depending on the temperature and pressure...
These changes... would you still agree that they are spontaneous?

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

Yes but can you give an example of where during the course of his WORK that Collins disobeyed those principles?

He couldn't disobey those principles during his work. Scientific safe guards prevent that from happening. That is one of the wonderful things about science.

The whole issue now is that he is no longer doing science, he is now responsible for administration of scientific research, what is considered important and what is considered unimportant, and also responsible in some way for the public perception of science.

The safe guards are gone. Given that none of us are going to get him kicked off this position I hope this does not effect his judgements and decisions. But given that American science has just gone through the horror of the Bush administration and the ideological whole sale teraforming of science research, this is probably the last thing American science needs.

I hope I'm wrong, I really do.

Malty_T wrote: »

A personal memoir/blog/book does not count - we are entitled to our personal opinions it's during the science we must remain impartial.

That is ridiculous. He makes no distinction between these views and his work, why should we?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Did you ever think that Isaac Newton regarded science and religion as being compatible?

Sir Isaac was a great scientist but he did compromise science because of his beliefs. Thanks to him, we have the common misconception of there been 7 colours in the rainbow when in fact there are only six (count them yourself!). Newton feared that six being a symbolic evil number was wrong so he chose seven because it was a pious religious symbol.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Yes but can you give an example of where during the course of his WORK that Collins disobeyed those principles?

A personal memoir/blog/book does not count - we are entitled to our personal opinions it's during the science we must remain impartial.

...as some of these 'principles' are self-serving ideas INTRODUCED and DEFENDED by Materialists ... it is high time to start questioning ALL of these 'principles'...
....science isn't some kind of religion where adherents have to unquestioningly accept it's dogmas as truth ...
.... and when this thread proves that Materialists have a vested interest in maintaining their dogmas over the acaedemic 'dead bodies' of some of the best scientists in the World ...people need to sit up and take notice!!!!!!

.....NOTHING can be trusted in such an environment ... and EVERYTHING needs to be examined and questioned ... starting with Spontaneous Evolution which is the Scientific Trojan Horse of the Materialists!!!!:D:eek:

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't care. Science is not a democracy. No one's personal beliefs, including yourself or Collins, overrides scientific standards. It is not sciences fault that you have to believe in the supernatural.

Collins has worked within scientific standards throughout his career. He writes one book based on opinion, and bam, he doesn't reach scientific standards. You do realise that this book is based on Collin's opinion is a book on opinion, not a book stating opinion as if it is scientific fact.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why do you think that Jakkass? Do you know the man? Do you know something the rest of us don't?

I've read his views on the subject. Hence I feel I do know where he comes from.

Wicknight wrote: »

Or is it simply because he is a Christian you feel compelled to defend him?

I know Collins' opinion, and it hasn't impeded any of his scientific work. This could be one of Obama's finer decisions since he has started in the White House.

Wicknight wrote: »

Collins can do his job if he recognises that the personal conclusions he has reached are not support by science or the scientific method and are not a basis for scientific theory. He has claimed exactly the opposite.

He has never claimed that God is a basis of scientific theory as scientific fact in a scientific role. He has expressed his opinion in his book The Language of God, and at Berkeley. He never once claimed his view to be scientific fact. Therefore he's kosher by me and by the scientific guidelines you're barking on about.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which puts him at odds with the position he is now in, where he is responsible for the administration of one of the most important scientific research centres in the world.

No, it doesn't. See above.

Wicknight wrote: »

Despite your nonsense straw man that it is because he is a Christian there are plenty of examples of Christians, scientists or otherwise, who do not do what Collins is doing, Christians who recognise that while they may hold personal beliefs about the supernatural current scientific knowledge does not support these positions, and as such they don't pretend that they do. They don't sledgehammer their supernatural beliefs into current scientific theory.

He doesn't either. He merely has an opinion. He never has claimed this opinion to be scientific fact, therefore it doesn't impede on his work. As I've claimed Collins seems to separate what he believes on faith, from what he knows from science. He writes a book about his opinion on Christianity and science and you and Harris completely strawman his position. Utterly ridiculous.

Collins believes there is a case that God could have been behind the science. You believe that there is a case that these processes happened of their own accord.

The science doesn't factually support either claim!

Wicknight wrote: »

If lots of other Christians can do this it is nonsensical to argue that Collins has to hold these positions because he is a Christian.

Collins has an opinion, he understands that faith is separate from science on any work he has done. He has just the right credentials and understanding to do the job and I'm delighted that he has got the position having got to know a bit about him through reading his views.

Wicknight wrote: »

No he is not. Have you read Harris' article??

Yes, I have.

Wicknight wrote: »

Seriously, this is ridiculous. You are argue the exact opposite of Collins' stated position and then giving out to me about picking on Collins. If this wasn't a Christian you would probably be agreeing with me.

No, both yourself and Harris have strawmanned Collins.

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you know the man? Do you know something the rest of us don't? I've seen plenty of quotes from Collins that demonstrate the exact opposite of that conclusion.

I feel I know about his opinions from reading the offending literature that you and Harris believes is passing his opinion as scientific fact. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Wicknight wrote: »

No he isn't. Read it again.

I've read his article, and I've read your tripe justifying his article. You don't have a case.

Wicknight wrote: »

What part of straw man do you not understand?

I'd ask you the same.

Wicknight wrote: »

Nonsense. No more than refusing to hire a Young Earth Creationist as the head of an evolutionary biology project would.

Wicknight, your views are losing credibility fast. You're starting to appear bigoted.

Wicknight wrote: »

Your argument that we should ignore his views if they are religious falls at the first hurdle. Like I said already, can I sue Boards.ie for discrimination if they don't make me Mod of Christianity forum?

Collins is perfect for the job based on his credentials, and based on his work in the past. His faith hasn't impeded in either ever.

Wicknight wrote: »

Considering for half of this dicussion you didn't know Collins position I'm not particularly concerned by that Jakkass.

I know Collins' position because I have read it before this link was ever given by wolfsbane. It is both you and Harris who are strawmanning Collins.

Wicknight wrote: »

I can't help feeling that you jumped to defend the man without reading the comments first (and dismissing Harris' position just because he was an atheist, some what ironically as Sam pointed out already) and now you are stuck defending the undefendable.

Wicknight, if anyone is defending the undefendable it is your defence of Harris' comments. I'm actually surprised that you stooped to this level.

Wicknight wrote: »

So you continue to roll out these straw man arguments that it is Collins Christianity that we are objecting to. It is not. It is his views on science.

He has never claimed his opinion to be scientific fact. I don't see how it is likely to impede in his work. You have yet to produce an adequate objection to Collins getting this position.

Wicknight wrote: »

He already has imposed conclusions based on his faith on science. He concluded that science confirms the existence of God for crying out loud.

He concluded that this is his opinion, he has never concluded that this was factual. What is so hard to understand about that?

Wicknight wrote: »

You might as well be. The whole issue here is the standards of science, something Creationists have great object to.

It's nothing to do with creationism. You know that, I know that. Again, mere dishonesty.

Wicknight wrote: »

How could you possibly know that? You talk about Collins as if he is some close personal friend.

I've read his opinion on the subject.

Wicknight wrote: »

Scientific standards force all scientific research to comply with scientific standards. Collins could have been writing "And God did that" in all his papers it wouldn't have mattered, his research would have ended up the same.

Utter nonsense. He never claims this as factual but a matter of opinion. How many times do I have to say this?

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not talking about his book and neither is Harris. I haven't read his book, nor do I have any strong desire to. From the reviews of it it seems to be a pile of nonsense.

Which reviews? :pac: Funnily enough, I've read very positive reviews concerning the book. Of course I feel my own assessment to be of value.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm talking about the views he has expressed publicly on more than a few occasions about the nature of science and the supernatural.

Yes, as opinion, not as fact.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Sir Isaac was a great scientist but he did compromise science because of his beliefs. Thanks to him, we have the common misconception of there been 7 colours in the rainbow when in fact there are only six (count them yourself!). Newton feared that six being a symbolic evil number was wrong so he chose seven because it was a pious religious symbol.

...there are as many colours as you can invent names for, over the continuum of a rainbow .. and there are three base colours ... red, yellow and blue!!!!!:D

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You do realise that this book is based on Collin's opinion is a book on opinion, not a book stating opinion as if it is scientific fact.

Jakkass what is the sub-title of Collin's book?

kiffer

J C wrote: »

....science isn't some kind of religion where adherents have to unquestioningly accept it's dogmas as truth ...

So unlike Creationism then...
and we were getting on so well ... I hope we can continue our strangely civil discourse despite my moment of weakness in making this jibe.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...there are as many colours as you can invent names for, over the continuum of a rainbow .. and there are three base colours ... red, yellow and blue!!!!!:D

No, in Newtons case he broke principle.

He was dispersing light by a prism to examine the constituients of White Light or simply light. Newton observed six distinct colours - Red,Orange-Yellow-Green-Blue-Violet. Indigo was non-existant. Newton was highly religious and regarded light as being of the divine, so why would it constitute six parts, an evil association? So he concluded (falsely) that there must be seven (much better number though) and made indigo up.

Today the visible part of the EM spectrum consists of only Red,Orange-Yellow-Green-Blue-Violet. because these can be easily seen (try spotting indigo!) and have distinct wavelengths ranges.
Heck by just repeating Newton's, simple experiment* you can see for yourselves that his bias altered a result.
(Shine light onto a prism and cast it onto a sheet of paper)

kiffer

Malty_T wrote: »

Sir Isaac was a great scientist but he did compromise science because of his beliefs. Thanks to him, we have the common misconception of there been 7 colours in the rainbow when in fact there are only six (count them yourself!). Newton feared that six being a symbolic evil number was wrong so he chose seven because it was a pious religious symbol.

J C wrote: »

...there are as many colours as you can invent names for, over the continuum of a rainbow .. and there are three base colours ... red, yellow and blue!!!!!:D

1, I was under the impression that Newton went with 7 colours to match the musical scale's 7 notes... or something...
2, Some have better colour vision and see more bands than other people...
3, Yes J C the rainbow is a continuum but peoples eyes see distinct bands of colour.
4, Don't get me started on the base colours.

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

No, in Newtons case he broke principle.

He was dispersing light by a prism to examine the constituients of White Light or simply light. Newton observed six distinct colours - Red,Orange-Yellow-Green-Blue-Violet. Indigo was non-existant. Newton was highly religious and regarded light as being of the divine, so why would it constitute six parts, an evil association? So he concluded (falsely) that there must be seven (much better number though) and made indigo up.

Today the visible part of the EM spectrum consists of only Red,Orange-Yellow-Green-Blue-Violet. because these can be easily seen (try spotting indigo!) and have distinct wavelengths ranges.
Heck by just repeating Newton's, simple experiment* you can see for yourselves that his bias altered a result.
(Shine light onto a prism and cast it onto a sheet of paper)

In fairness to Newton he wasn't really a scientist, and didn't have scientific standards to be held against. So people can't really blame him for doing this.

It does highlight the dangers though of a person with a preconceived religious view facing data that conflicts with this view. Luckily modern scientific standards would not allow this to happen today.

lugha

J C wrote: »

The Universe, all energy and all life are logically incapable of raising themselves up by their own bootstraps ... so the existence of a transcendent, omnipotent and omniscient eternal entity/entities is required to explain it!!!!

Well I thank you for your extensive reply but it appears to me that you have managed to explain something extraordinary (our existence) at the cost of postulating something more extraordinary that pre-existed (God) that is left unexplained. And I would be reluctant to assume that the elementary reasoning (e.g. effects have causes) that serves us well in our everyday affairs will necessarily be as useful as we seek the truth of our origins. What we have learned in the strange world of quantum theory and relativity suggests that this here universe may turn out to have a pretty bizarre and counter intuitive origin. In any case, this had nothing per se to do with creationism / evolution.

On the current question of science and religion and the suitability of those with religious convictions to be scientists, I would throw in the following two cents. If I were to assess the caliber of a scientist then I would of course look at the obvious facets, expertise, experience, ability etc. But I would also consider their outlook and attitude and on this score I would hope that they would not care about science! By this I mean they should not personally care about the particular structure of nature and its law as it is revealed to them in their endeavors. Indeed I would expect them to be positively excited at the prospect of evidence emerging that discredited a previously held “truth” of science. I would be less than impressed if a science were to tell me that “I hold the current prevailing view on the theory of gravity to be true and am unwilling to revise this view no matter how much evidence is presented to me”. But this is the problem (with a small p!) that arises with a Christian who holds as a truth, that the bible is the word of God if they are unwilling to revise this view in light of evidence. Of course there are many excellent Christian scientists, the majority of whom are not impeded in their contribution to our knowledge of our world by this little problem. But the little problem remains.

Any I do not see how you can argue that science and religion are different realms. Science is concerned with explaining our world; its structure, its laws and its origin. Religion can only claim to be in a different realm if it had nothing to say on these.

Turtwig

kiffer wrote: »

1, I was under the impression that Newton went with 7 colours to match the musical scale's 7 notes... or something...
.

Yeah, I just checked wikipedia - that's what it claims a sophist superstition or something.....numbers clearly meant alot to the chap..
Didn't pythagoras have someone killed for discovering that root 2 (dam keyboard ) was irrational? Luckily we've moved on...at least I hope we have.

Either way, Newton still compromised principles by a biased belief

kiffer

Malty_T wrote: »

Yeah, I just checked wikipedia - that's what it claims a sophist superstition or something...

Either way, he still compromised principles by a biased belief

Maybe he was just trying to be poetic

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

... EVERYTHING needs to be examined and questioned ...

Hit the nail on the head there

pts

Wicknight wrote: »

Jakkass what is the sub-title of Collin's book?

*getting popcorn*

kiffer

Malty_T wrote: »

Didn't pythagoras have someone killed for discovering that root 2 (dam keyboard ) was irrational? Luckily we've moved on...at least I hope we have.

a Quick search comes back with ... http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?start=0&t=6300

smiley_face wrote:

I've found a few sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drowning_victims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippasus
http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/magazine/sum05/essays1.html
http://www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/meeting_response.html
http://people.bath.ac.uk/ma3rdh/project.html

Some of those sources state that Pythagoras drowned his student, Hippasus, after he proved that the square root of 2 was irrational. This went against Pythagoras's theory that all numbers were rational and could be expressed as the ratio of two numbers.

However, according to wikipedia (the second link up there), "legend has it" that Hippasus made this discovery at sea, and was thrown overboard by "fellow Pythagoreans" (so not necessarily Pythagoras himself).

It seems a little bit dubious as to whether Hippasus was drowned at all, let alone whether the murder was carried out by Pythagoras himself. I'll do a bit more searching to see if there's any more conclusive evidence either way.

Turtwig

kiffer wrote: »

a Quick search comes back with ... http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?start=0&t=6300

Awesome Kiffer,:D

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

If he was being given a job as a scientist I wouldn't care, as you state below there are safe guards in science that prevent personal bias from effecting your work. There isn't in administration and policy.

To not allow Collins the position out of a fear that he might use his bias to affect his decision making is to use one's bias to affect your decision making. The only safeguard that you can apply to make sure people like Collins don't get positions in administration and policy and allow their personal bias to affect their work is to discriminate against them. Simple as.

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that this is not a scientific research position but an administration and policy position, please point out how peer review helps in this case.

So if he did need peer review then he'd pass with flying colors but because the position is not a scientific one he doesn't even need peer review to help him get it, which makes the point all the more significant don't you agree?

I mean if his work was creationism then you would say that his work needs to be peer reviewed to be acceptable by real scientists. But its not creationism and his work is peer reviewed and given the thumbs up by real scientists, but because he is a Christian he shouldn't be allowed jobs that don't even need his work peer reviewed? And this because he just might use his bias to affect his decision making in that position. And you want an atheist bouncer at the door making policy decisions which would hinder brilliant men like Collins to hold positions like this simply because his beliefs differ from yours. That is what it sounds like your saying.

Wicknight wrote: »

As Hatter asks would you be defending him if he believed ghosts organised DNA?

It wouldn’t bother me if he thought Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. If his scientific research and output is sound then what’s the problem?

Wicknight wrote: »

I always find it interesting that after arguing about this stuff when you guys actually realise what is being objected to you end up agree with us.

Well obviously not this time.

Wicknight wrote: »

Guess what, he is using his own personal beliefs to draw scientific conclusions.

But you effectively said above that that doesn’t even matter because its not a scientific position. If it is not a scientific position then his bias based scientific conclusions in that position are irrelevant.

Wicknight wrote: »

You must at all times keep science open to exploration unbiased from preconceived belief that has been reached through other means.

Well yes I agree with that but again you said that the position is in admin and policy not science per se, so his personal bias won’t affect science or the scientific method anyway.

Wicknight wrote: »

If a Christian can do that I've no problem with them being a Christian. Unfortunately you guys don't have the greatest track record in this regard, and Collins is just another example.

Well like it or lump it science is for everyone. And just because some scientists see the world differently from other scientists shouldn’t mean that they be discriminated against because the other side feels threatened by them. Science is science, it is what it is, keeping personal bias (no matter what guise that comes in, be it theistic or atheistic) out of it should be how one enters into it. This is why creationism has become a worldwide movement of its own. It has been kicked out of the traditional science classroom because it is different to the accepted norm and it has been allowed to grown on its own and I believe will become so strong that it will eventually be taught in schools alongside evolutionary theory, just like the reformation is thought to Catholics today.

There are a lot of things that I don’t accept about certain creationism theories just like there are some things that I don’t accept about certain evolutionary theories but that doesn’t mean that I don’t try and understand what it is that both are trying to teach. Just give me the books to read and if I’m unsure after that then I’m unsure. Big deal. By accepting either one I still don’t want to feel like I’m being strong armed into a particular world view ideology, which is what seems to be the case these days. If you are an atheist then it’s like you are going to naturally gravitate to the evolutionary theory, because that theory fits your world view best because it explains things without the need for a creator or if you are a Christian you might feel the gravity pulling you in the direction of creationism because you feel that by accepting evolutionary theory your are being unfaithful to God, but in a most of these cases both positions are wrong if you are gravitating to them for the wrong reasons, and for the most part those reasons seem to be rooted solely in an already held world view and not actually based on true empirical study of the facts which some hold fast to without any serious scrutiny at all.

The Mad Hatter

kiffer wrote: »

a Quick search comes back with ... http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?start=0&t=6300

Ah, the QI forums. Some day, when I have more free time, I will risk visiting them.

Soul Winner

kiffer wrote: »

1, I was under the impression that Newton went with 7 colours to match the musical scale's 7 notes... or something..

And on that note :pac:: This is class. Found it sub-linked in marco polo's link in an earier post.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

To not allow Collins the position out of a fear that he might use his bias to affect his decision making is to use one's bias to affect your decision making.

Oh don't be silly. You could use that argument about anything. I didn't get the last job I applied for because the "bias" of the interviewer though the answers to his questions were stupid.

You guys used the word discriminate against as if it doesn't mean anything.

Discrimination is to base negative opinion based on class or category rather than individual merit. I am basing my opinions of Collins on what Collins himself has said. You can't get more opposite than discrimination.

The cry of discrimination seems to be a very common straw man for religious people to use when the fact of the matter is that it is simply disagreement with their views.

Religious views do not have some protected hallowed position in society. If someone holds religious views that contradict the purpose of their position they shouldn't be doing the job. Simply as. Its why I would never be allowed to be mod of the Christian forum. I don't cry discrimination over this because it is not a generalisation about me based on my assumed beliefs, it is based on my actual stated beliefs. And I have no problem with that.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if he did need peer review then he'd pass with flying colors but because the position is not a scientific one he doesn't even need peer review to help him get it, which makes the point all the more significant don't you agree?

What?

Soul Winner wrote: »

It wouldn’t bother me if he thought Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. If his scientific research and output is sound then what’s the problem?

The problem, if you had been paying attention, is that he is not doing scientific research. He is deciding what scientific research gets approved and funded.

His views on what science cannot or should not be trying to answer, such as questions of the mind and of human nature, could have serious implications for the direction that scientific research funding goes in the NIH.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But you effectively said above that that doesn’t even matter because its not a scientific position.

What?? :mad:

I am really getting sick of this nonsense, none of you are bothering to read any of my posts properly

I'm arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE to that Soul Winner!

It wouldn't matter if he was in a scientific position because science has inbuilt safe guards against bias effecting conclusions, but it most certainly does matter now because he is in a position of administrative authority and policy with none of these safe guards.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well yes I agree with that but again you said that the position is in admin and policy not science per se, so his personal bias won’t affect science or the scientific method anyway.

Explain to me how his personal bias won't affect the decisions he makes in terms of which science projects he is responsible for approving and funding?

postcynical

Wicknight wrote: »

In fairness to Newton he wasn't really a scientist, and didn't have scientific standards to be held against. So people can't really blame him for doing this.

It does highlight the dangers though of a person with a preconceived religious view facing data that conflicts with this view. Luckily modern scientific standards would not allow this to happen today.

This is a remarkable statement. Even if he was an alchemist, he is widely considered the most ingenious and influential scientist in history.

What dangers are highlighted? (concisely if possible) Any experimenter, religious or not, has preconceived views of the outcome of any experiment. Otherwise there are no hypotheses to affirm or disprove.

Zombrex

postcynical wrote: »

This is a remarkable statement. Even if he was an alchemist, he is widely considered the most ingenious and influential scientist in history.

He was? Not sure about that.

I think Keynes summed it up well

Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind which looked out on the visible and intellectual world with the same eyes as those who began to build our intellectual inheritance rather less than 10,000 years ago. Isaac Newton, a posthumous child bom with no father on Christmas Day, 1642, was the last wonderchild to whom the Magi could do sincere and appropriate homage.

postcynical wrote: »

What dangers are highlighted? (concisely if possible) Any experimenter, religious or not, has preconceived views of the outcome of any experiment. Otherwise there are no hypotheses to affirm or disprove.

Yes but when the experiment does not match the prediction of the hypotheses or theory you don't change the results to make the theory correct. You change your theory because it is wrong. Newton did an experiment and found 6 colours. He didn't like that so he decided to ignore it and made 7 colours because it fitted his hypotheses of what the result should be, not what it actually was.

You don't do that. Not unless you are a Creationist of course.

postcynical

I've never heard that urban legend before, but it's pretty obvious that there is a continuous spectrum of colours and the 7 (or 6) well defined bands are an optical illusion. I'm very sceptical of this claim that Newton proposed 7 colours rather than 6 out of numerology.

Still, the Greeks made progress with such assumptions, as did Einstein and Dirac in the last century. Perhaps they aren't scientists either!

Light is a good example for preconceived notions because it was long believed to be corpuscular until later it was shown to be wave-like and currently it is believed to be both. Not sure what the biblical explanation of light is, but it's a powerful metaphor throughout the Bible.

Turtwig

postcynical wrote: »

I've never heard that urban legend before, but it's pretty obvious that there is a continuous spectrum of colours and the 7 (or 6) well defined bands are an optical illusion. I'm very sceptical of this claim that Newton proposed 7 colours rather than 6 out of numerology.

Still, the Greeks made progress with such assumptions, as did Einstein and Dirac in the last century. Perhaps they aren't scientists either!

Light is a good example for preconceived notions because it was long believed to be corpuscular until later it was shown to be wave-like and currently it is believed to be both. Not sure what the biblical explanation of light is, but it's a powerful metaphor throughout the Bible.

It is not a legend! Optical illusion what????

The Greeks made very little progress with the assumption all heavenly bodies revolved around the earth. They just kept adding sphere after sphere ... got them nowhere. Luckily, Copernicus saw the error of their ways.

Einsteins assumptions are being tested at every opportunity we have, as are Diracs. In fact with regard to Einstein he doubted his very own assumptions on GR and SR, which was seen as one of critical reasons for him not accepting QM.

Einstein was ahead of his time, we are still way behind finding out just how right he really was - LASERs are a good indication though.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh don't be silly. You could use that argument about anything. I didn't get the last job I applied for because the "bias" of the interviewer though the answers to his questions were stupid.

You guys used the word discriminate against as if it doesn't mean anything.

Discrimination is to base negative opinion based on class or category rather than individual merit. I am basing my opinions of Collins on what Collins himself has said. You can't get more opposite than discrimination.

The cry of discrimination seems to be a very common straw man for religious people to use when the fact of the matter is that it is simply disagreement with their views.

Religious views do not have some protected hallowed position in society. If someone holds religious views that contradict the purpose of their position they shouldn't be doing the job. Simply as. Its why I would never be allowed to be mod of the Christian forum. I don't cry discrimination over this because it is not a generalisation about me based on my assumed beliefs, it is based on my actual stated beliefs. And I have no problem with that.

What?

The problem, if you had been paying attention, is that he is not doing scientific research. He is deciding what scientific research gets approved and funded.

His views on what science cannot or should not be trying to answer, such as questions of the mind and of human nature, could have serious implications for the direction that scientific research funding goes in the NIH.

What??

I am really getting sick of this nonsense, none of you are bothering to read any of my posts properly

I'm arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE to that Soul Winner!

It wouldn't matter if he was in a scientific position because science has inbuilt safe guards against bias effecting conclusions, but it most certainly does matter now because he is in a position of administrative authority and policy with none of these safe guards.


Explain to me how his personal bias won't affect the decisions he makes in terms of which science projects he is responsible for approving and funding?

OK OK I get what you mean now but you must admit you cut very close to the bone when making your point Wick. In any case, what kind of scientific paradigm shifting policies do you envisage Collins will make under his watch?