Scientist up in Arms

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...orgate-a6910171.html

Although there is no endorsement of any specific religious deity the fact that various scientist, in a scientific study, concluded that given the movement of the human hand that there is the POSSIBILITY of intelligent design and possibly by a deity.  Specifically the article states:

"In the opening sentences of the study, it claims the link between muscles and hand movements is the product of "proper design by the Creator."

Later, it says human hand coordination "should indicate the mystery of the Creator's invention," and concludes by again claiming the mechanical architecture of the hand is the result of "proper design by the Creator."

I find this so ironic since people that have no real possibly to dogmatically prove the counter point are so upset over the fact that some of their counterparts are giving way to the possibility that something beyond their comprehension is at work.  What they are saying (my own interpretation) is that unless the world agrees with them then they are wrong.  Essentially they seek to totally restrict opinion to the contrary or other than that which they believe and accept.

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )
Original Post

PLOS staff said in a statement:

 

We have completed an evaluation of the history of the submission and received advice from two experts in our editorial board. Our internal review and the advice we have received have confirmed the concerns about the article and revealed that the peer review process did not adequately evaluate several aspects of the work.

In light of the concerns identified, the PLOS ONE editors have decided to retract the article, the retraction is being processed and will be posted as soon as possible. We apologize for the errors and oversight leading to the publication of this paper.

CrustyMac posted:

Just because we don't know how something came about, doesn't mean God did it.  If that is how one "knows" that God exists, then God gets smaller every day.

 

But if we do know how something came about then that should be

proof enough that God doesn't exist.

OldSalt posted:

Science does not concern itself with the existence or nonexistence of any god because the very nature of a supernatural god renders its existence to not be provable using the scientific method.

Then the scientific method can't prove the non existence, so I
see a winner take all at the conclusion of proof, or no proof.
However it may resolve itself. Seems we haven't and aren't
likely to answer............. 
Jack Flash posted:
OldSalt posted:

Science does not concern itself with the existence or nonexistence of any god because the very nature of a supernatural god renders its existence to not be provable using the scientific method.

Then the scientific method can't prove the non existence, so I
see a winner take all at the conclusion of proof, or no proof.
However it may resolve itself. Seems we haven't and aren't
likely to answer............. 

Science doesn't care. 

 

But, if you want to intimate Pascal's Wager, then why are you hedging your bets on only one god.  Shouldn't you profess a belief in Vishnu, Zeus, Odin, etc... .  After all, you can't prove their nonexistence.

Science can neither prove or disprove God, at least as the Scriptures define God.  Actually God cannot be defined and I submit that God or the person that is represented by the term God is not even of the realm that Science is concerned with, which is the physical.  I believe God is a Spirit and dwells in and within the Spiritual realm which is far more expansive than the physical realm.  I further suggest that God, the Spiritual realm as well as many other things associated with God and religion are beyond humans (mankind's) ability to comprehend and/or understand.

It's like trying to understand and comprehend eternity (past or future).  There are some things that mankind's brain and intelligence cannot grasp or explain.  God, I believe is one of those things.  All aspects of God I believe are beyond mankind's ability to grasp.  It's interesting that when Moses questioned God about His name so that he (Moses) could tell the Jews about who sent him God answered:

Exodus 3:14 (NIV2011)
14  God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

 It's God providing an essential answer to Moses without having to be or necessitate a description of exactly who or why He is.  It is our (mankind's) own mental limitations that  requires a God and seeks to define God in terms that we can understand and are comfortable with.  Many seek to define God or describe God in terms of our own lives and that which we know.  We attempt to confine God using Human Wisdom and rationale.  If somehow God is not definable, by Science, then He doesn't exist.  Scientist strive to explain how everything got here in terms that do not include God or a deity.  They go out of their way in order to prevent attributing it to God or a deity and this is one reason so many are teaching Evolution and "The Big Bang".  Like man made Global warming we are to accept it regardless of what others might say but accept it alone because someone, of a scientific mind, says it's so, even if there is good reason to suspect there might be an agenda behind the theory or hypothesis.  

Evolution and natural selection as well as the Big Bang are theories devoid of God although they are not beyond the ability of God.  What I mean by that is some Christians believe that evolution is the method that God used to bring about life and others forms of life.  To me believing in the teachings about the Big Bang and evolution takes far more faith and imagination than accepting that "God Created" as a basis for all things.

I don't have to know how God created to believe that He did it.  If evolution was somehow proven as indisputably the way all life became as it has then it would not shake my faith in God as I would just concede that He did in fact choose that method to accomplish it.  Things such as this are far beyond what I care to discuss in this post for the time and space is so limited and basically everyone has an opinion or belief on the issue and most everyone's beliefs or opinions differ somewhat.  Even for those, of us, who believe "God Created" have disputes or division about just how long the creation process took or other aspects associated with life and non-life.  Science may have to come up with concrete answers to things even if those concrete answers are hypothesis and theories.  Faith does not require anything but faith alone.

Hebrews defines it as well as any could:

Hebrews 11:1-3 (NIV2011)
1  Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
2  This is what the ancients were commended for.
3  By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 Faith does not define God but rather comforts those of us who believe in  God and is a way by which we can accept that which we cannot explain, define, or understand.  Faith does not require proof but it also doesn't mean that we are any less sure of that which we cannot possibly know. 

 

 

gbrk posted:
Science can neither prove or disprove God..."
 
Why should science be required to prove or disprove any god.  Science is not making any claim of the existence or nonexistence of any god.  The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. 
 

... God or the person that is represented by the term God is not even of the realm that Science is concerned with, which is the physical.  "

 Exactly !

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×