digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Newton was a *creationist*? Good heavens!

badastronomy.com — Monday, the Boston Globe ran an editorial that I found very irritating. The writer, Jeff Jacoby, points out that perhaps the greatest scientific mind of all time, Isaac Newton, was not only very religious, but was a young-Earth creationist. For Jacoby, this shows that science and religion can work hand in hand

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ColonelGS, on 10/10/2007, -20/+88Wow, they are stupid. Did they mention he was also an alchemist? Or a Hermetic? How does that prove there's a God? Oh wait, because somebody that discovered gravity believes in God, I have to too.
    • gungaroo22, on 10/10/2007, -10/+59Almost everybody believed this stuff back then. There wasn't an alternative to creationism. It was widely accepted, just like belief in God.
      • Zer0up, on 10/10/2007, -22/+8Einstein, Plank, Bohr, Newton, Kepler, Tesla... the founders of modern science all believed in God. Atheistic world views among the scientific community especially physicists were more prevalent among the scientists in the 16th century... before quantum physics, relativity etc. proved that the physical world that Copernicus, Hume, Descartes etc. placed so much emphasis on was actually an illusion...
        • SanTe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I'm not up on the religious views of Plank, Bohr, Newton, Kepler, and Tesla, but Einstein most definitely did not believe in God. People commonly thought that he did, so he later clarified his position quite clearly:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein#Religious_views

          He described himself as "deeply religious" but his definition of religion was far different than most.
        • kronix2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Belief in God has no bearing of a belief in creationism. It's like saying Einstein's talk of a "creator" justifies a belief in reincarnation, because if God exists then reincarnation must take place.

          What? You're not Hindu or Buddhist? Then you know what others are thinking when you attempt to draw a link between the existence of God and the validity of creationism.

          If you think quantum physics and relativity are in any way evidence of a creator, I suggest you actually open up a physics book and attempt to understand the difference between science and superstitious wishful thinking.
      • starmanjones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the relevant point to be made is that this deeply religious scientist did his science without fore drawn conclusions -which separates him from the creationists we have to deal with. he had his beliefs and did good science because his discoveries were discoveries of an aspect of god.

        this is a night and day difference from creationists. they should look to him as an example. they should accept discoveries that violate their religion and change their religion to reflect reality.
    • superpotential, on 10/10/2007, -37/+9by the way, creationism isn't all that different than evolution.
      ...replace "God" with "geologic forces" and "natural selection after eons of mutations"
      ...replace "week" with "4 billion years"
      and the rest is just about perfectly correct. oceans, then land, then fish, then mammals, than humans... is it so bad that creationism is really the same thing as evolution, with perhaps some mistakes with respect to the time scale and a label called 'God' for something they didn't know exactly what it was? what is everyone fighting about these days?
      • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23...replace "faith" with "empirical evidence"
      • Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17Because there is evidence backing natural selection; the only evidence backing creationism is a book written 3000 years ago by a couple of old men.
        • silencerider151, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ahh, well, actually, more like 5000 years ago.
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15What a loaded statement. You are trying to equate Evolution; a field of science that forms the basis for modern biology, medicine, genetics with a huge amount of evidence with Creationism; the belief that magic created the universe? If you want believe in such things, go ahead but make a claim and prepare to defend yourself with facts. You are also falsely assuming that the "God" of "Geological Forces" is intelligent and not just a natural force.
        • Esstee, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2No one on this earth holds any more authority than any other under the terms. We are really dealing with what people "want to believe"(no more, no less). However, I find it interesting that in light of the unknown, we so commonly hear of magic and creation. If an entity had absolute power over our own realm, what part of the process would constitute as magic? Considering that in the not so distant past, we have concluded that magic was nothing more than a term used to describe the inexplicable. Yet today, despite our advancements, are we to believe that we are continuing to uphold this trend? I think it is quite obvious that the term is being used for none other than to discredit the unfavorable.

          I find it equally discerning that people continue to present evolutionary science as the answer to all things, including the origin of life. It is quite obvious that the universe is not based on biological framework. Yet, the old age cliche that evolution is a contesting theory to creation somehow lives on.

          At the point where science and religions clash, each side seems to believes they somehow possess superiority over the other at the face of the unknown. While some are quite honest and sincere about it, others can't seem to accept that we have no definitive evidence to conclude anything other than there own personal beleifs. And it is at this juncture that human nature fails us all.

          In a very interesting discussion, a knowledgeable man of science once said, "I openly agree that science does not have all the answers to the big questions, however, given enough time, I wholeheartedly believe that we will find the missing pieces to the equation and things will become known to us."

          When we get right down to it, no one has the answers to the big question. All we truly have are faith and beliefs. How people can rightfully discredit others under the circumstances is beyond all logic and reason. We are looking at yet another case of wide spread social discrimination without just cause. People who are unable to cope with indifference. - Ironically, this phenomenon exists on both sides of the fence.
      • BrainInAJar, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8but Genesis 1 says that man came after the beasts, but Genesis 2 says that the beasts came after man...

        which is it? The literally true bible contradicts itself in the first 2 pages....
        • Esstee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That's interesting, can you quote those scriptures and the book from which it comes from?
          • BrainInAJar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, why the hell not...

            Gen 1:21 - Gen 1:31 says that man was created on the 6th day, after the beasts ( on the 5th )

            Gen 2:18 - Gen 2:19 says:
            18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
            19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

            Notice that in Gen 2, man is puttering around, and he gets bored, so God creates animals and ***** for him to play with so he doesn't keep masturbating or whatever, clearly AFTER man is already around ( 5 is smaller than 6, children )
        • Esstee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1My guess is that this outcome may vary on the bible translations and readers ability to evaluate the written contexts. It would seem as though the first account is constructed chronologically(divided into consecutive stages). Whereas the second is presented in order of topical importance or referencing God's creative authority.

          Ex: the builder built the house using the following process(ABC). It was the builder who built the porch, the roof as well as the floors in that house. I think the likeliness of the reference is muddled by translation(nothing new) however, the older texts often provide us with a more accurate rendition of the original writings. Also notable is that is it very difficult to apply reliable textual criticism through translations. I have seen and heard countless people running in circles trying to make sense of poorly rendered translations only to discovery that they refused to acknowledge the parent data. This would include religious enterprises who continue to stand in defiance, unwilling to correct there own documentation regardless of the evidence at hand.
          • BrainInAJar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3wrong. Read them again.

            Gen 1: god creates things daily, man comes after the beasts
            Gen 2: it /CLEARLY/ states that man came first, was alone, so god created the beasts

            If you're going to interpret one of them as metaphor, then you admit the bible isn't literal truth, and young earth creationism is fallacious, which is fine and doesn't make you any less Christian, it just means that you're intelligent enough to understand metaphor
        • Esstee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1In order to evaluate this issue properly, it would be helpful to identify the bible being quoted, since Gen 2:18-19 varies in translation(as mentioned earlier). However, I'm going to assume we are using the KJV as a reference so here is an example; in Gen 2 the account would indicate that Adam was busy at the task of naming the animals(which were still coming forth or being created). This would imply that he was quite busy and that the details of a companion as noticed by God was a foreseen event based on Adam's own experiences. In opposition to his being bored and/ or masturbating his life away.

          I am not certain that the belief that the earth is young is built on sound reasoning or even biblical evidence.

          As for bible metaphors, I see no need to view these scriptures as such under the terms. The first portion of the creation process was presented in a step by step basis and the second was presented as a presentation from from an alternate viewpoint and of topical importance. We can observe that after a short prologue, the account leads straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows and additional information is introduced as needed. This can be observed where - We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. Adam is then instructed to name every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens. Now, then, is the time to mention that God was forming from the ground all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.

          I can only stress that your own questions regarding biblical contradictions are directly bound to the quality of the translation in question. It all really comes down to acknowledging that not all bibles translations are created equal or infallible. However, in my opinion, most of the controversial outcomes from religious doctrines today are linked to ulterior motives.
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Dude, I'm sorry, but creationists don't take well to your regexp'ing of the bible.
      • haiduz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That guy also believed in gravity, and what a croc of ***** that theory is.
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -9/+41Since the theory of evolution wasn't even formulated yet, that claim is pretty irrelevant.
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Nor was radio dating, spectrum analysis, and a whole slew of other evidence-collection methods that basically form what we now know to be the nigh-complete debunking of divine creation.
    • DrDragun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27This article is absurd in premise. Most of the evidence of the earth's age has been discovered in the 20th century with sophisticated equipment and experimentation in controlled labs (carbon dating, Miller-Urey experiment, etc). Basically he didn't have access to the same facts we have now, so how could you expect him to come to the same conclusions?
      • ChessPieceFace, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, the article is critiquing that absurd premise and uses some of your very same reasons. Did you read it?
    • crunchyeyeball, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Since Newton rather predates Darwin, It shouldn't really come as any surprise he was willing to go along with the prevailing theory in the absense of alternatives. No doubt had he had a chance to hear the theory of evolution he would have been one of it's biggest proponents.

      I often wonder what I would have thought had I not been exposed to the theory of evolution. We don't criticise creationists because they are wrong. We criticise them because they continue to deny the evidence that they are wrong.
      • jraine, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3Creationists aren't the only group who'll turn a blind eye to evidence contrary to their belief.

        Fact:
        The ocean's salt content steadily increases per year due to fresh water streams running into the ocean. As the streams travel down mountains and pass rocks, they collect salt and other minerals. As the water evaporates the salt remains in the ocean. Through calculation of the increase in salt content over the past 10-20 years (figuring in the possible variation in salt intake), as well as the fact that in order for the current salt water dependent fish to survive there must have been salt content in the ocean to begin with, it has been proven that if the world was x billion years old, the ocean's salt content would be exponentially greater than even the Dead Sea (i.e. unable to sustain any marine life).

        I'm not saying that there isn't evidence to refute creationism, there is. I'm just saying that evolutionism is in no way a flawless theory. The fact that the details have changed so greatly over the course of it's existence, such as the age of the earth (all of which were 'proven' to be true, until later shown incorrect), insights a bit of skepticism in what is currently 'proven' true.

        At the very least, there is comfort in a theory which is proven consistent.
        • jpcola, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Fact - "the salt remains in the ocean"? Are you sure? rivers collect salt from rocks and other minerals... that's true. However, you're assuming the rate of salt returning to land is zero or insignificant.
        • MrSidnet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The fact that you got dugg down proves how closed minded people (on digg) really are. I think your statement adds to the discussion on digg, whether or not I believe it.

          You're dugg down all the same.
          • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I am willing to bet that 10 diggers have taken a course in calculus and understood it enough to know that both of you are idiots.
    • BobOki, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Common.... who ELSE goes home after a hard day of work.... gets drunk and relieves themselves of all reason? WE ALL DO! Thus creationism = drunk abandonment of all reason.
      • Cerialthriller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7even when im drunk you can't make god and creationalism seem reasonable
    • kmpr326, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9There was no alternative. He also predicted that the universe was static because that was the best observation of the time. He based his views on those of the time. I'm actually all for God. There is no way to prove or disprove creationism other than the fact that all evidence points to the universe being 13.7 billion years old. From there, physics breaks down and makes no sense. That is when you should decide whether God did it or the universe naturally was perfect for us. Evidence for it being perfect is that we exist. If you believe in God or not, it doesn't matter as long as you accept scientific evidence.
      • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Evidence against it being perfect: the Holocaust.
    • Squarsh, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Newton was labelled a heretic for his discovery that the "Holy Trinity" and the commandment "I am the lord thy god and thall shall have no other gods before me" are contradictory. You can only use Newton as a role model for current day belief if you are ignorant to large parts of his history.
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I've always thought that churches with Jesus on the cross were edging over the "graven images" prohibition.

        I suppose it differentiates us from those geometric-design Muslims, and that's always good, right? (/sarcasm)
        • gwinerreniwg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1talk to Martin Luther about that one.
    • eLLuSioNiST, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1@Colonel

      no dump ass its because Newton is a zillion time smarter than u.
      • ColonelGS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But I am smarter than you. I can spell. Dumb ass. By your logic, does that make my belief superior to yours?
    • 3adkied, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Thanks for the reminder. I'm off to my lab to turn some lead into gold, suckers!
    • sardiskan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It proves that creationism and evolution is not an argument of intelligence.
  • TheSexyGeek, on 10/10/2007, -5/+94And so if he was, what difference does it make. Are his discoveries any less relevant? Are the thermodynamic laws now void?
    • superpotential, on 10/10/2007, -6/+26yeah, and also it should be considered that in Newton's time, biology hadn't even developed that much, and they didn't quite have the same kind of evidence for evolution that we have today.
    • c0yote, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18You're missing the point TheSexyGeek. This isn't people saying he wasn't brilliant or important because he was a creationist. This is creationists trying to say "Newton was a genius and prominent scientist and he believed what we believe, so we're right". It's a stupid and dangerous thing. Creationists are always trying to find tiny little bits like this to make it seem like intelligent people within the scientific community support creation or that creationism has some sort of merit.
      • takamalak, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Hitler was a creationist.
        • shaun1018, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Then what about Eugenics smart guy?
        • Esstee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4As much as I hate to say it, I think Hitler was quite intelligent. I doubt ones beliefs or direction regarding life's unknowns has any real tangibility on his or her level of intelligence or state of mind. People who can't get over indifference are just as guilty as those deluded by unsound doctrines and fanaticisms.
    • munkeyhatecleen, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Newton didn't discover the laws of thermodynamics. He simply translated God's reasoning of how things ought to work. Everyone knows that!
      *rolleyes*
  • JSorrell, on 10/10/2007, -15/+52Sometimes people are quick to assert that because a great scientist believed in Creationism, that it's a great scientific theory. Oy vey, how convoluted that logic can be.

    Anyone asserting that Creationism has any worth because of the people who follow it are committing the fallacy of Appeal to Populous and often the Appeal to Misleading Authority.

    It doesn't matter if Newton was a Creationist, no one's above being wrong.
    • bivouac, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2... and Newton was wrong about lots of things. And then came Einstein who wasn't afraid to challenge the conventional wisdom. Thats how science works. SCIENCE!!!
    • dasluvaluva, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The same goes for you. ("...no one's above being wrong.")
    • sardiskan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Again, this simply shows that the evolution/creation debate isn't a debate of intelligence.
  • T4z3R, on 10/10/2007, -18/+26Every scientist then had to claim some sort of god or else they would lose their credibility from the general population. Same reason why an atheist would never be elected president in America. If Newton was around today, he wouldn't be a creationist. I know stories like these make creationist cream in their pants because they have a crutch for an argument, but...... YOUR WRONG. K?.... K!
    • didiman, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5"If Newton was around today, he wouldn't be a creationist."

      I didn't know that you knew Newton personally.
      • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Scientists tend not to be the willfully ignorant types.
      • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Hold on with the burying of didiman. Seriously, we can't PROVE that Newton wouldn't be a creationist. It is unlikely, but still possible.
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3We're aware of his record as a scientist. One would guess that, given his penchant for taking evidence over hearsay, he would have abandoned creationism along with santaclasusism.
    • Fafnir43, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Actually, he was genuinely religious to the point of writing several important theological papers in addition to his scientific ones - he wasn't some sort of closeted atheist. Whether he'd have remained religious if he'd been exposed to other viewpoints is another matter, but just a point of pedantry.
  • Gadren, on 10/10/2007, -8/+24Newton also dabbled in mysticism and the occult (that's why we have ROY G BIV -- Newton wanted 7 colors to fit with his mystic octave worldview, so he stuck in "indigo")... but I doubt that Jeff Jacoby would use that as evidence that occultism fits with science. Also, Newton lived in a time before Darwin, before much of the geologic work that demonstrated the age of the earth.
    • hiscity, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2What? You mean you don't see 7 basic colors?! How sad. Reminds me of black and white television.
    • bonshui, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Wouldn't an octave worldview involve 8 colours?
  • msaleem, on 10/10/2007, -5/+31If you read more about Newton, such information becomes less and less of a surprise. Newton is also infamous for ending competing scientists' careers and silencing or discrediting their research because he felt threatened by their works which were most often superior. I would recommend reading Newton versus Leibniz.
    • abid786, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12"I would recommend reading Newton versus Leibniz."

      I second that. The whole development of calculus is an interesting read to anyone interested in the histroy of mathematics.
    • pedrovoltaire, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1wikipedia has done a bang up job of newton's life.

      my favorite newton quotes:

      (on a {Newton-biased} commission's {correct} conclusion that Newton developed calculus before Leibnitz)

      "I took great satisfaction in breaking Leibnitz's heart"

      (on listing his sins):

      "setting my heart on money, learning, and pleasure more than Thee"
  • ladyarcher85, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Here's the direct link to the Boston Editorial
    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/22/a_teacher_with_faith_and_reason/?p1=email_to_a_friend
    • diggerphelps, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4My Science, that is awful.
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I know that's sarcastic, but please don't use the term 'science' like that. It just pushes the stupid theist idea that science is some kind of replacement for religion.

        It's not. You need science. You do not need religion.
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's from South Park.
          • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Creationists don't watch South Park as a rule.

            And I thought that episode was the dumbest thing to come out of Stone and Parker's heads.
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Science damn you!
  • TygerrTygerr, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Creationists don't need evidence and anti-Creationists don't need telling.
    • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That's the most accurate statement that can be said on the matter. Shame you got dugg down so far.
    • Botanicus, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Creationists recognize the evidence, anti-creationists avoid inconvenient evidence.
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You are absolutely right. Creationist recognize that evidence contradicts all their beliefs so they misrepresent evidence, lie and ignore inconvenient evidence. What is an 'anti-creationist'? Virtually all Scientists? Makes you wonder why doesn't it?
        • Esstee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1People are people and regardless of categorization suffer the same ailments as any other. Scientists, Creationists... same old problems. Emotions get the best of us all and we just can' seem to cope with indifference. It's also interesting that if for the most part people educated themselves equally, such scenarios would most likely loose popularity.
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Hrm. I think you've got that backwards.
  • JonLatane, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27The phrase "scientific dogma" at the end almost made me want to throw up. When people who sound fairly well-educated can use a word like "dogma" to describe inferences from observable phenomenon, and no doubt be believed by millions of ignorant people, it's becoming more and more clear that something needs to be done about these people.

    Religious beliefs are dogma. Scientific fact is NOT. Saying that there is any similarity between the fundamental nature of the two is the whole reason we're in this mess, with people believing the world is 6,000 years old and forcing it upon others. I'm starting to realize more and more that Dawkins has the right idea in actually being open with atheism - when people confuse their belief/opinion with fact, great minds are put to death and natural human progress comes to a grinding halt.
    • JSorrell, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It irks me that we still have things in biology like "The Central Dogma" (which merely states DNA is read to produce RNA, which is used to make proteins). I've had people try to take this to mean it's actual dogma.
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10The Scientific Method's power is self-correction. New data is added to existing knowledge and theories are modified or discarded as we learn more.
    • Esstee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Dawkins is a poor example of social reform. While he certainly has proven himself in his own field, his level of comprehension towards social behavior is about equal to that of a teenager. The only thing Dawkins has establish in his books and speeches, is that he is incapable of tolerating indifference. He makes a great job of stirring the pot but don't expect his antics to take root anytime soon.

      As frustrating as it seems dealing with mislead people or people who seem to walk in ignorance of the evidence at hand. The solution is not aggression or even bringing the kettle to the horse(so to speak). Based on our own historical record, we can conclude that such methods are doomed from the start. I believe that the key to change lies in consideration and understanding. This entire attack philosophy is nothing more than fuel to fire. - Great form of entertainment but absolutely useless in the face of progress.
  • Tauqmuk, on 10/10/2007, -8/+22In other news: Einstein was a Jew.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12If I remember correctly, he did not practice.
    • InvisibleMan, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4"God does not not play die with the universe"
      • jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14He was referring to Spinoza's God, not a personal God in the traditional sense: http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion#firstChapter
      • corrupt1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8That does not mean what you think it means.
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10

        "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The
      • tylerjames, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I apologize for the comment abuse. But here is a rather large list of Einstein quotes, with citations, that nullify any argument that Einstein was religious in any conventional sense. The quote InvisibleMan posted gets misinterpreted every single day, so please take some of these less cryptic quotes and let's retire the dice quote. Or at least start interpreting it properly.

        http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm
    • gungaroo22, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Einstein was not religious, per se. He bordered between atheist and agnostic.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yes he was. He was proud of that fact. What is your point?
    • Fafnir43, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3But somehow, I don't think he was a young-earth creationist...
  • derforseti, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24SCIENCE DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. In general, people who make great discoveries are credited for the hard work and contribution, but that doesn't make them a prophet. If someone else had come up with the laws of inertia and gravity, they would have been just as valid.
  • sqzz, on 10/10/2007, -12/+14Creationists are, by nature, not of the scientific nature. So, it goes hand in hand that they can't make scientific arguments that make any sense.
    • FeartheKnighted, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2wrong.
    • DiamondDog, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3No. Just because I'm a creationist doesn't mean I don't understand science. If you mean that Creation is not scientific because it wasn't an observed event, I would agree totally.
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6"Just because I'm a creationist doesn't mean I don't understand science."

        Oh, that's rich. You willing to be hired out as the organic brain for an electric monk?
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Argument from false design. First prove that reality was even 'Created'.
  • somegeologist, on 10/10/2007, -9/+65Well duh.
    Sir Isaac Newton (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727)
    Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882)
    • TheUngod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4So simple, yet so incredibly perfect
    • pineutrino, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Exactly! So little scientific evidence about the age of the world had been uncovered at that point that questioning the age of the world according to the Bible, and questioning the Bible in general to the extent that most scientists do so today, didn't really make much sense.
  • orlyfactor, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10Any dissent at that time and you'd find yourself in the gallows. Sheesh.
  • funsutton, on 10/10/2007, -19/+3It's ridiculous to assume that if newton were living today that he wouldn't believe in creationism.

    Faith isn't determined by telescopes and the discovery of Neptune.
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10The assumption is that Newton would be intelligent and care about the Truth and not blind faith.
    • c0yote, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Faith and denying fact are two different things. Creationism has nothing to do with real Christianity. You can accept that the creation in Genesis and Noah and the Ark are non-literal and still have faith in a higher power.
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Faith means the belief in something without evidence or in spite of evidence. Faith IS the denial of fact and deserves to be ridiculed.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Atheists are so tolerant.
          • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The only thing I'm intolerant of is willful ignorance. That, and the Dutch.
        • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Are you tolerant of Satanist? Scientologist? I have no issue with religious beliefs as long as they keep it out of education, science or the public realm. When Creationist push ***** into classrooms or try to discredit science, what do you expect us to do? "Turn the other cheek"?
          • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The public realm? I have no problem with religion as long as it's kept out of education and science. What do you mean by the "public realm"?
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yes, I am. I have no problem with atheists, as long as they don't try to tell parents how to raise their kids. And believe it or not, but most people still believe that parents should have a significant amount of say in what their kids are taught at the school they are paying for.

          If they are so obviously wrong, it should be easy to put together factual arguments to prove your case (I'm not saying you can't, I'm just saying that should be your course of action). Then everyone can make up their own minds.
        • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Reality is not a democracy. Science models reality and tries to explain how it works. Parents who believe in alchemy or magic or creationism should not be allowed to push their false beliefs into schools since these believes are not even closely equal to the evidence behind evolution. If parents don't like what schools are teaching then they can enroll them in Falwel's Academy of ***** and have their kids become as unscientific as they want.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So you are saying that parents should not have a say in what is being taught in their kids' local elementary school. Then who should? Activists from California? Politicians from Texas?
          • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well, not public school. That belongs to the government, so they get to decide the curriculum. I assume they look at theories accepted by the scientififc community backed by a lot of evidence when they write the science curriculum.
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"That belongs to the government" Who in the ***** do you think makes up the government? The last time I checked, it was supposed to represent the people. If the parents have no voice in what their kids are taught, then the local government is NOT representing the local citizens. But I guess that is cool with you as long the government is forcing people to conform to YOUR beliefs. How fitting that your name is "imperium."
          • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Government represents the people and society. Society demands functional citizens that will become useful productive members of society instead of people with useless beliefs that cannot be used for anything except make them feel better. Therefore government does set the standards of education. Creationism is a useless belief that cannot be usefor anything whole evolutionary theory is used in biology, pharmaceuticals, epidemiology etc. Again, if you don't want to conform to basic scientific belief, you can always stick your head into the ground and go to some fundamentalist school.


            PS: Nice ad hominem. Imperium2000 is my old RPG name that I've used since 1992
    • cersad, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Creationism isn't just about faith. Creationism also requires a certain rejection of scientific evidence, including the principle of uniformitarianism, a massive fossil record, and extensive research performed by hundreds of brilliant people.
      It *is* possible for people to recognize that evolution exists and yet retain their faith in a supreme creator without ridiculous arguments about "creationism" and "intelligent design." Read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins if you want such an example. Interestingly enough, Collins makes special note that early Christian theologians viewed the first two chapters of Genesis as a more symbolic parable.
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4This is the same argument as the article, it is an argument from authority. Francis Collins is an intelligent man but his arguments for his faith is as unsupported and unjustified as any Creationist. I can respect him for his defense of evolution but I cannot respect him for his unjustified belief in a deity.
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You can't respect him? Interesting. I'd think you could respect him, but not agree with him.
      • phatt-matt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Creationism also requires a certain rejection of scientific evidence, including the principle of uniformitarianism, a massive fossil record, and extensive research performed by hundreds of brilliant people."

        Doesn't it really come down to how that "evidence" is interpreted? It isn't a rejection of the evidence.
    • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Right, faith is determined by ignorance, willful or not. And Newton would likely be significantly less ignorant.
  • monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17I am pretty sure he's a scientologist.
  • MattB123, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15No such thing as scientific dogma. There's science, and there's dogma. Scientific dogma is like religious atheism.
    • hiscity, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3How have you missed all the evangelistic atheism going on?
      • pw378, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No scientific dogma? Dogma=A blind belief in things often without a material base.

        Ever hear of string theory?
        • arkaro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm certainly no where near accepting String Theory, but the fact that I don't rule it out doesn't make me dogmatic. Nor can the scientists working in the field be considered dogmatic. They put their ideas out there (as preliminary as they are) with all their current reasons and formulas with the request that others look it over for flaws. This is exactly how things should work in science.

          For your claim of dogma to hold up, you'll have to show how String Theorists are avoiding the careful analytical scrutiny of the scientific method. And this case almost doesn't make much sense since a cohesive String Theory hasn't even really been completed or presented for the public for them to be dogmatic about it. It's still very much considered fringe science at this point.
  • Anthem26, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Newton did indeed claim to be religious. So did almost everybody until the nineteenth century, when there was less social and judicial pressure than in earlier centuries to profess religion, and more scientific support for abandoning it.
    • overbyte, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2he wrote the book on modern-day end-times theology - many eschatological scholars rest heavily on his work in this field even today - to suggest that his faith was a result of social pressure is naive to the point of contempt
  • nfstern, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Jacoby's an idiot, what's the surprise? Read some of his other editorials & you'll find the same kind of intellectually lazy thinking in action.
  • brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+32This argument is ridiculous. Newton didn't have the knowledge and evidence needed to come to the conclusion that the diversity of species came about by evolution. That's like saying "Socrates believed in Zeus. Socrates was a smart man. Therefore, Zeus is real."
    • joot2112, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Don't bother trying to explain LOGIC to creationists!!!
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Which brings us to the point of supposed atheist intolerance of theists.

        It's not intolerance. It's frustration. How can we have a rational discussion if you're going to just skip the logic portion of the argument?
        • amosclan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Most of these arguments are missing the point. It's not that God or creationism is real because Newton believed in it. It's not that Newton would or wouldn't be a creationist if he were here today. It's that our modern educational institutions would refuse Newton employment if he even so much as hinted that he didn't believe in molecular / macro evolution, even though he redefined scientific thought for his time.
          • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"It's that our modern educational institutions would refuse Newton employment if he even so much as hinted that he didn't believe in molecular / macro evolution, even though he redefined scientific thought for his time."

            Except you have no similar examples of that happening; nowhere do you have a creationist making huge strides in the scientific field.
          • 3adkied, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm pretty sure they'd still welcome him in the physics department. Biology on the other hand, you're probably right, and I don't have a problem with that.
    • amosclan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Most of these arguments are missing the point. It's not that God or creationism is real because Newton believed in it. It's not that Newton would or wouldn't be a creationist if he were here today. It's that our modern educational institutions would refuse Newton employment if he even so much as hinted that he didn't believe in molecular / macro evolution, even though he redefined scientific thought for his time.
      • brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I doubt they'd deny him. Universities don't deny professors employment if they're religious. Newton was a physicist, not a biologist. Belief in God has no effect on the ability to teach physics, so it probably wouldn't matter either way.
  • tony4moroney, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6Einstein can be likened to a creationist as well.

    He ignored quantam physics which he pretty much formulated because he believed God didn't let anomalies like that happen, his universe was perfect.
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Wrong. He ignored Quantum physics until the evidence showed him it was correct. Einstein changed his mind.
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Wrong. He ignored Quantum physics until the evidence showed him it was correct. Einstein changed his mind.
    • Fafnir43, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Wrong, you moron. He accepted quantum physics' validity as a model, but disagreed with one particular interpretation of it (the Copenhagen interpretation). This was for two reasons. Firstly, it was horribly counterintuitive, as it postulated that a particle actually has no position or momentum until it measured (as opposed to a particle having position and momentum that cannot be measured precisely). This is where "God does not play dice" comes from. Secondly, there was an alternative theory that fit the data equally well - the hidden variable theory - which was only experimentally disproved after Einstein's death.

      The first reason, taken alone, could be likened to creationist logic. When you factor in the second, it loses all resemblence to it.
    • Fafnir43, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Wrong, you moron. He accepted quantum physics' validity as a model, but disagreed with one particular interpretation of it (the Copenhagen interpretation). This was for two reasons. Firstly, it was horribly counterintuitive, as it postulated that a particle actually has no position or momentum until it measured (as opposed to a particle having position and momentum that cannot be measured precisely). This is where "God does not play dice" comes from. Secondly, there was an alternative theory that fit the data equally well -
      the hidden variable theory - which was only experimentally disproved after Einstein's death.

      The first reason, taken alone, could be likened to creationist logic. When you factor in the second, it loses all resemblence to it.
    • brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Einstein did not believe in God. When a physicist talks about "God" it's nothing like what most laymen imagine. Einstein clearly stated later in life that his "God" quotes were misunderstood, and that he in fact was an atheist. It's sort of like how creationists tend to think "Theory" means "guess" rather than "a framework created with facts."
  • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16To be honest. If Jesus was born today he would be some kind of socialist pacifist. There is no way he would fit into Evanglestic or Catholic Ideas of what christianity are.
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Jesus would be a socialist? Something tells he would not want to be part of something that has hundreds of millions in one century alone. Where in the New Testament can you point to an example of Jesus being a Marxist?
      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Dude, are you serious? A high school class with objective readings of multiple religious texts should be required in this country, I swear. Indoctrination is an ugly thing.
      • RoyRP216, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5socialist != marxist
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2My political science professor, wikipedia, and Karl Marx himself must be wrong. A high school class with objective studies of multiple ideologies (and real world examples of their implementation) should be required in this country, I swear.
        • brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Socialism is not Communism, it's the other way around. Marxism is socialism taken to the extreme: the government does not allow free enterprise and provides the citizen everything; his job, food, living quarters, everything. Different governments choose different levels of socialism. Nazi Germany considered itself socialist, even though it was vehemently anti-marxist. The modern UK, France, and yes, even the US have socialist governments. Here in the US, our government provides us with roads, schools, libraries, and a public television station.

          The difference between full-blown communism and a socialist democracy is that communism is authoritarian or totalitarian.
      • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3"A high school class with objective readings of multiple religious texts should be required in this country, I swear." Great so do I.
        I am just asking Hetman to back his claim that Jesus was a collectivist who believed that the government should control the means of production and in the abolishment of private property.
        Since Jesus' form of salvation was based on the individual, he believed that morals and religion shouldn't be a part of government, and his teachings can be summarized as "don't harm others," I think he would be libertarian.
        • arkaro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Funny.. a libertarian that preaches an ideal society described very much in socialistic terms. I can see it happening. It fits incredibly well with other biblical contradictions.
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Jesus' ideas had Marxist undertones. Why not do some critical reading of that book you put so much of your damned faith into?
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Can you give me an example since it is so obvious?
          • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1How about you do your own damned research?
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1How about you support your own damned statements? All I am asking for is a little proof. And who said it was MY faith? If someone tried to claim that Buddha was a capitalist, I would be quick to correct them too.
          • arkaro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It's certainly fair to ask for some proof of a claim. I personally couldn't care less what you would consider Jesus to be economically.. but freely passing out magically multiplying loaves and fishes certainly comes to mind. Also the concepts of giving up your property and relying on the tithes of the masses suggests socialism to me. Sure, it's pictured as individualistic but then Jesus commands gathering and slaying all that refuse to follow him.. which errs more on Naxist socialism as far as I'm concerned.

            Of course, now it's time for you to dismiss my points regardless of the fact that you'll likely agree with them when the opportunity fits you. Dance, Christian, dance!
      • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2From Mark 10:25 "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
        jesus and mohammad were very egalitarian and socialist in their views. their messages have been distorted and pretty much flipped upside down in the 1000+ years since.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Does it say anything about taking the rich man's possessions by force? Didn't think so.
      • Fafnir43, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4*rolls eyes*

        "There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet."
        (Acts 4:34-37)

        All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
        (Acts 2:44-45) [of the early Christian community]

        Too long to post here, but Acts 5:1-11 talks about a man called Ananias who sold a possession and didn't give all the proceeds to the apostles. God killed both him and his wife.

        And those are just the communist parts. "It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven"? Ring any bells?
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yup. The early disciples lived in communes. They were very Communist. Jesus certainly taught that selling all your stuff and giving money to the poor (wealth redistribution) and sharing things among everyone (Communism) were good and should be done. As far as Ananias, he was killed because he lied about selling all his stuff, more than for not selling all his stuff. And the "rich man" comment was more a slam against greed than wealth (of course, whether there was much of a difference in those days is debatable). But I digress. Jesus certainly taught leftist ideologies.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2But all of it is VOLUNTARY. Jesus never advocated using violence to FORCE people to conform to his views.
      • idonthack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5*****. This is what Cold War propaganda has done. It's ruined any kind of debate over economic systems in America because millions of people believe "socialism" means "totalitarian dictatorship".

        If you even take a basic economics class in high school, even by their extremely biased perspective, they tell you socialism has nothing to do with government. I bet you don't know it, but most countries today have socialist programs, even our great capitalist USA. Think of Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, even child support - those are all major socialist programs. Anything done for the betterment of a community is socialist. SOCIALISM IS NOT EVIL. COMMUNISM IS NOT EVIL. MARXISM IS NOT EVEN EVIL.

        What's evil is totalitarian government.
        And don't tell me communism has to have a totalitarian government. In fact as Marx described it, communism would have no government.
        In fact there have been very capitalist countries with a free-market policy that had totalitarian governments (think Fascists)

        So shut up and learn some economics before you start telling me that communism kills. It's not communists. It's Hitler, it's Stalin, it's Mussolini, and it's Mao.
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I've always felt that socialism doesn't need a government. As far as Communism, I guess you don't need a government, but everything is owned by the state, so you at least need a state. As far a Marxism, that's pretty close to socialism/communism; he disliked capitalist exploitation and believed in wealth (re)distribution. I am a staunch capitalist and free market advocate. As far as the socialist programs in the US, you're absolutely right. We are unfortunately a bit of a welfare state that practices some wealth-redistribution.
    • DiamondDog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I think you mean Evangelical.
    • RoyRP216, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4it's not letting me delete this reply digg me down.
    • insonh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3dude if Jesus was born today there would be no Christianity
      think about it
    • hiscity, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2In the first several chapters, Revelation opens with a scene from Christ telling 7 different churches what they were doing right and what they were doing wrong. Why do you think Christ would reject part of his family for making mistakes rather than correct them? (at least those that accept correction or being rescued from their errors)

      ps. Jesus would be seen as an anarchist today. http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/
  • roodammy44, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8It was the 1600s. Most people still believed the world was flat then. Things have moved on.....
    • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Columbus was 1492, and they had pretty well established that Earth was spherical at that point. Newton was 200 years later.

      I agree with your point, but not with your example.
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In the Middle Ages, science began and ended with Aristotle.
  • brandonvan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I don't care what my scientists religious beliefs are. Just keep making new and more powerful pills to keep me happy.
    • DiamondDog, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Maybe if you would listen to some "religious beliefs" you wouldn't need the pills ;)
      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5If you're claiming some sort of placebo effect from prayer, okeydokey. If you're claiming that believing in God ever actually healed anyone, I've got a bridge to sell you (and several double-blind studies that prove you absolutely wrong).
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5That's pretty accurate; some people need religion to remain sane, productive members of society.

        Why do *you* need religion?
      • Fafnir43, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3*gasp* Religious beliefs can substitute for Viagra now? Damn, I gotta get me some of that! ;)
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2FYI, science is more than pharmacology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and cell biology.
  • kaiser44, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I can not believe this is news to anyone. His knowledge and critical thinking on matters did not have to come in to conflict on this isssue.
    We may think it odd, but that was settled in his mind.
  • shaun1018, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Newton lived before the time where evolution was understood or natural selection was even dreamt of. "God did it" back then was the most correct answer they new back then any thing else seemed insane. There is no place for outdated 16th century ideas in the 21st.
    • hiscity, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1By the time you're 30, you may realize that the world hasn't improved from "21st century ideas."
      • PenquinDude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0By the time he's 30, all new ideas will still be 21st century ideas.
  • DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10The guy who invented the wheel was very smart but probably believed the world was flat and that rolling bones could tell the future.
  • peyotea, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1assumptions are what got us in this mess from any side where mob mentality rules. polar opposites of politics, religion/non, etc. are usually wrong & they impose their beliefs with different tools whether it be wit (or assumption of wit) or religious pious overcast or mish-mash of both.

    whatever, most people are wrong & most people have a halo of superiority with a yolk of 'duh.'
  • evilcaptain, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4If I could have sat down with him for 20 minutes and explained evolution, he wouldn't be a creationist. He never refused the truth, which is all that counts. Unless the creationists, who are so critical of evolution, actually understand the science, they cannot participate in any discussion without being hypocritical about using the precepts of science in their arguement.
    • phatt-matt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Wow. You must be awesome!
      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nope, he just happens to be correct. To a true scientist, evidence will always outweigh "really, really wanting to believe something".
        • 3adkied, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe. True modern science (i.e. experimentation and observation) wasn't really standard practice until Newton was dead. During his lifetime most of science came about from logic, rational thought, and common sense inside one's head. To convince him of evolution would probably require bringing him up to speed on around three centuries of the development of the scientific theory. That's quite a bit to fit into 20 minutes.
    • Dralha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Pfft. Facts and evidence hardly ever shake the arrogant faith of the most devout creationists. It's extraordinary watching them prance around, committing fallacy after fallacy after fallacy, their 'arguments' ruthlessly eviscerated, and still they think the universe is 6000 years old.
    • Fafnir43, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think you're being a little optimistic with twenty minutes - being a great scientist, he'd want to see all the evidence, and he'd want the full theory (as taught in universities, not as taught in high schools). But a few months I can believe.
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The full theory is taught in universities?
    • overbyte, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you are extremely arrogant - hence the digg down
  • Dark1Knight, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This guy's name reminds me of that smart Jacobi (Carl), except he's much dumber and by no means a mathematician. It's almost like "The Bible is God's word and therefore infallible. The Bible says God exists. Therefore, God exists." But his argument doesn't even have the *infallibility* (sarcasm) of God. Nice try though, MORON.
  • jricestevens, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2There is certainly such a thing as scientific dogma.

    We continue to act as though science presents Truth when it has to do with people and society.

    Ever heard of phrenology? It used to be scientific "fact" that one could tell if someone was predisposed to criminality by the size and shape of his or her head.

    Racist, sexist and normalizing science exists today and is often widely lauded and praised. Science as Truth is dogmatic in the same way Bible is Truth is. Both are lenses that filter our worldview.
    • JSorrell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Phrenology wasn't a "scientific" fact at all. It was as much as "fact" as alchemy was a "fact" before chemistry came along. You don't get to call something a scientific fact if it isn't scientific to begin with.

      Science is the search for truth, so I think it naturally leads itself to finding pieces of truth inevitably. The Bible is the opposite, not allowing any searching. Science is not dogma, science is a search.
    • gerfenstein, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Science as Truth is dogmatic in the same way Bible is Truth is. Both are lenses that filter our worldview."

      True, but they are fundamentally different lenses.
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What a load of crap. Phrenology was never scientific nor was it a fact. Science is a method for searching for the truth. It is a tool to understand how the universe works. It develops models and tests it continuously. If those models fail, it is discarded.
    • sfanetti, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Sometimes scientists get invested in a particular model ( theory ) or how the universe works in some way. As evidence presents itself, those scientists are challenged to discard their old ideas as new ideas are confirmed, or they get stuck in belief that they cannot shake. Scientists are human and are apt to make all the mistakes that normal humans make. Science itself, however, is self-correcting. It reinforces the truth and casts doubt on false claims or incorrect assumptions.
      Newton would not have believed in an expanding universe either, but Hubble showed us that the universe is expanding. This does not invalidate Newton's body of work. It simply illustrates the cumulative nature of science. It always marches ever closer to the truth.
      • jricestevens, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I think viewing science as the progressive march towards truth while discounting the fact that it still produces results based on cultural stereotypes and current social paradigms is problematic. As you can see from the rest of the replies to my comment, most Diggers refuse to accept that science cannot account for itself.

        Often science reinforces false claims and casts doubt on the truth. We can move through the history of science and find this again and again. I do agree that when it comes to the make up of the universe or particle physics, there's less of an argument, but even then, the way we frame things is based on our particular perspective. Science is ultimately creative and not merely descriptive, an attitude most positivists immediately discount (as seen in the response to my comments).
    • Dralha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Ever heard of phrenology? It used to be scientific "fact" that one could tell if someone was predisposed to criminality by the size and shape of his or her head."

      The key phrase is 'used to be.' Phrenology used to be considered scientific. But it isn't anymore. Because of science. Caloric, phlogiston, aether, these are things that used to be considered scientific. But they aren't anymore. Because of science.

      Religion, on the other hand, is 'infallible,' incapable of being changed, asserted to be absolute and 100% certain with no evidence: that's dogma.
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just like dark matter. Eventually, we'll learn what it is and its properties and it will go the way of aether.
    • Fafnir43, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nope. You can get dogma that is incorrectly labelled as science, such as phrenology (which was actually rejected by mainstream scientists even at the time), astrology or intelligent design, but that's a long way from being scientific dogma.
  • dmsean, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7He also ate mercury....
    • gerfenstein, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0i think starbucks puts mercury in their coffee
  • RubberMullet, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Archimedes > Newton there for I believe in Zeus.

  • edcro, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Remember, gravity is just a theory.

    Jrice -- flatly, you're an idiot. The difference between science and dogma is that science is self-correcting. It's a method of looking at evidence, not a set package of facts to accept or not to accept, e.g. global warming or natural selection.
    • hiscity, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There is no science apart from scientists (that we know of). Along with scientists, as part of being human, comes all the other mess, such as politics and cut throat competition for grant money. Please don't put science up on a pedestal and make it a new god.
  • junebughunter, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1You can not believe in god as defined by modern/standard religions and believe in all of what we know about science, now. Things were different 300 years ago.
    • DiamondDog, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Science continues to prove what the Bible has always stated. So you would think that it's EASIER now for people to realize there is a God...
      • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That reminds me of a Muslim friend of mine who says that "science has proven" that Mecca is the center of the world. I wonder how you can have the center of a sphere on the outside? There is a difference between science, and junk science.
        • Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2true - and by the way...the Earth isn't a sphere....
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Uh... Science constantly disagrees with the bible. I don't know what you're on about, but seriously, put the crack pipe down.
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3DiamondDog: You forgot to use the /sarcasm tag in the end of your statement.
    • sfanetti, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1My God religion makes you stupid. I would never curse my children with an indoctrination that made them so bat ***** stupid.
    • Fafnir43, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yes you can. You can't take a literal interpretation of most holy books, but there's nothing to prevent a symbolic one - things are a bit distorted in America, but in Europe the vast majority of Christians believe in evolution and the Big Bang.
  • licoricewhip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9When you are having a hard time discovering the law of inertia, just keep going.
  • sfanetti, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Newton would have scoffed at quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity too. Does that make those theories irrelevant? Did my computer just stop working because Newton would have had no concept of how it works?
  • bobangitanov2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1May Elohim, the great God of all peoples have mercy on you sinners!
  • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Newton was also a Freemason, a practicing alchemist, and if my teacher is to be believed, the creator of Calculus.
    • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Teaching that Newton invented calculus makes Leibniz a sad panda :-(
      • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I just checked the wikipedia article on calculus and found out about their spat. I can just picture the scandal in the newspapers back then.
  • demonthesis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Check this video out for a different view on the matter.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-102519600994873365&q=BEYOND+BELIEF+%2706&total=57&start=30&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
  • msbabc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Sir Isaac Newton is a hero of mine. One of the greatest scientific minds. But he was also completely ***** mental. I'm amazed that people are still amazed by this.
  • Zer0up, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Einstein, Plank, Bohr, Newton, Kepler, Tesla... the founders of modern science all believed in God.
    Atheistic world views among the scientific community was more prevalent in the 16th century... before
    quantum physics, relativity etc. proved that the physical world that Copernicus, Hume, Descartes etc. placed
    so much emphasis on was actually an illusion...
    • demonthesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And in a 300 year span before Islamic nations adopted there religion they named Almost Three quarters of the stars we can see from earth. Atheism is again becoming very common among the scientific community.
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What a lie. When did science 'prove' that the physical world is an illusion. Please show the scientific data. I guess that's the reason why most physicist, biologists, cosmologist and scientists don't believe in a personal God?
    • Dralha, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Einstein did not believe in God. That is a pervasive lie.
    • hiscity, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Einstein:

      "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

      "The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."

      http://sciencereligionnews.blogspot.com/2007/04/einsteins-god.html
  • TheDHC, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0jesus did it
  • Dralha, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Well, people who weren't young Earth creationists back then were simply executed for heresy. It must be very frustrating that the church can no longer use torture and murder to enforce their dogma.

  • rothgar, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I know this article says he was a young creationist but just so everyone else is clear.
    creationist != young earth
    there are old earth creationists.
    not my site but here is some info
    www.reasons.org
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Old Earth Creationist and Young Earth Creationist are equally deluded. What is your point?
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Technically, a young Earth creationist is more deluded. An old Earth creationist is closer to reality.
  • Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6WOW does this guy hate religion! He isn't "insulted" that a smart person could be a Creationist...he's UNCOMFORTABLE because he doesn't like it anymore then a religious zealot likes the theory of evolution.

    And what a European-centric objection he has too...consider this from the article:

    "Consider: When Newton lived, Uranus and Neptune had not yet been discovered. Neither had any asteroids. The nature of the Milky Way Galaxy was almost totally unknown; they lacked the instruments and mathematics necessary to understand much of what they saw (math, incidentally, that Newton invented). They couldn’t possibly have known the terrible age of the Earth, how the continents moved. The discovery of radioactivity was 150 years in the future when Newton lay dying, and its use as a clock for geologic eras was still more years later. f Newton were born today, he wouldn’t have to invent the parabolic mirror telescope; instead, he could use one– perhaps one orbiting the Earth. He wouldn’t have to invent calculus; by the age of 20 he would have mastered it. He could then use it, apply it to his observations. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and that allows us to see very far indeed. Newton was one of those giants, but today’s Newton would see even farther."

    The ancient Egyptians, the Chinese, the Mayan's and Inca; the Ottoman's - might all heartily and rightly disagree with some of the author's assertions about what had not yet been "discovered". I can hear the spittle flying off this poor angry author's lips as he spouts his fanatical objections.

    An then there is this last bit of rage against religion. His fist-in-the-air proclamation:

    "If Newton were born today, he wouldn’t be a creationist. He’d be a cosmologist. "

    Maybe. Maybe not. No way of telling. And that's the point isn't it? This author objects to Newton being "borrowed for the cause" and then borrows Newton for his OWN cause. This is just an hysterical rant and its a shoddy one.

    Those who speak in absolutes are doomed to learn nothing - whichever absolutes they are spouting.
    • msbabc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Newton lived in England. His views were no doubt Euro-centric.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1uh...I wasn't talking about Newton being Euro-centric you dolt - I was talking about the author of this article whose supports his argument by stating that if modern science was available to Newton he would be a Cosmologist. There are many "modern science" bits of knowledge that were invented and lost by the time Newton was even born. Something we - thru archeology mostly - continue to rediscover (as in "Holy Crap! The Egyptians figured that out 5,000 years before us!). These cultures I listed had more mdern science in many respects (particularly in Math) than did Newton and still believed in A God or Gods. The availabilty of relatively modern science isn't what makes smart people creationist, cosmologists, scientists or the like. Its knowledge coupled with knowing there is more to know and what that individual believes about the nature of the unknown that determines what they "are".
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But the point is that Newton didn't know them.
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You haven't countered any of the points he stated except launching an ad hominem attack. No where do I see any 'rage against religion'. We are talking about Creationist here aren't we? Yes it is Eurocentric since we ARE talking about Newton who lived in some place called England aren't we?
      • Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Its an opinion piece right? This article attacks the subject article's perspective thru counter opinion. The only facts he uses are what modern science was and was not available to Newton at the time. A point which is relative. 500 years from now modern scientists may well view us as - scientifically speaking - rubes.

        As to the rage against religion/creationism the article is replete with it. "an editorial that I found very irritating" is in the 1st sentence and grows from there.

        As to your third point you can read my reply above.

        I'm not objecting to the whole creationism vs science thing just that this article's author did EXACTLY what irritated him about the article he objects to. To paraphrase the Bible (and yes it funny and irritating to do so) "remove the log from one's own eye before attempting to remove the speck from your neighbor's"
    • WileEPeyote, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1@msbabc - I don't think he was talking about Newton when he said "euro-centric"

      @imperium - I think the main point of the comment was that the author of the article rails against someone else using Newton for his cause and then spend the rest of the article using Newton for his cause.

      What has happened to reading comprehension in the world?
    • omgwtflawl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The Mayans, Incas, Ottomans, and Egyptians had not discovered Uranus or Neptune. They did not know the nature of the Milky way. They did not know the age of the earth. They did not know calculus. What are you complaining about again?
  • kaiser44, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It is really hard for me to understand that all of the people on this page would be so ***** sure of all the things they have been told.
    We are finding out things in the universe we did not know or even theorized
    about.
    We have had more discovery and invention in the last 100 years than was ever thought possible.
    Do not be so arrogant as to believe that we have even a modicum of knowledsge about the universe and how all this ***** got started.
    The hubble has opened our eyes to stuff that we had no inkling even exsisted.
    In the scheme of all things we know very little. do not be so quick to throw creationism out, and why would that bother so many people if it were true, maybe not in the biblical sense.
    I for one am not a believer , but I am not one to claim man has enogh knowledge to be so ***** sure of anything.
    • liangonesearmy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3i think you have a good poiint about ppl being so confident that they got it all right... 20 years from now we'll probably look back and think we were retarded in some areas of science/culture/lifestyle, etc.
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And where is anyone claiming absolute Truths except for Creationists? If Creationist can show evidence of this 'creation' then science would change to accept that evidence. So far, their claims continue to be *****.
      • WileEPeyote, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just do a search for Creationism or Darwin or Bible on Digg and you will se plenty of people on both sides claiming to know what "truth" is. They don't put it in those words, they are too busy calling eachother idiots, but it is obvious from content that a great many people think they know the "truth".
      • Narasil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Jeez I dunno i saw an article about "Evolution isn't "just" a theory" a while back claiming it's an unassailable holy nugget of deductive logic brought from the almighty Darwin to us mere mortals.

        FTR I'm NOT a creationist, but oddly enough I have less esteem for their theory than I do evolutionists, but far more esteem for them as people. They are certainly not as pretentious, pompus, and self righteous as the latter.
    • AngelaQ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I've read Jeff Jacoby's columns for years, and if there is only one constant in this world, it's that he's an idiot who is utterly clueless about science. He takes a fact or two out of context, makes up a bunch of stuff to "support" it, and writes a pile of totally embarrassing drivel every week. As far as he's concerned, the facts that science has demonstrated for hundreds of years are worth no more than lies he makes up to fill column space.
  • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Newton also believed in witchcraft, alchemy, and kabalism like cult things. He spent a great deal of his life trying to create the philosophers stone and turn lead into gold.

    He also served the King of England as the head treasurer and had people brutally tortured and then drawn and quartered for counterfeiting the kings image on gold coins.

    Doesn't mean he was less of a physicist though.
  • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Only people with rather limited minds can't understand how philosophy and science do not interfere with each other. Those types of brains are also prone to bigotry which is why you see all the anti-religioun dumbass bashers. Too stupid to see their own flaws.
  • Yage2006, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Greatest mind ? I think not.
    He was very smart though . But he also went crazy when he got older.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.