As Eugene patiently and consistently reminds us, this list is not made up of scientists or theologians.  Though my legal interests lie in constitutional law, I make my living by representing a number of genetics companies.  I consistently run into scientists who reject Darwin's theory of macro-evolution, though giving significant credence to natural selection.  To the extent that our current discussion indicates that no "true" scientist believes in God or the intelligent design theory, the following nobel prize winners state otherwise.

The German physicist Max Born, who pioneered quantum mechanics, said, "Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist, must be rather silly people." American physicist Arno Penzias shared the 1978 Nobel Prize for discovering microwaves in space -- patterns that physicists have interpreted as showing that the universe was created from nothing. Penzias said, "If I had no other data than the early chapters of Genesis, some of the Psalms, and other passages of Scripture, I would have arrived at essentially the same picture of the origin of the universe, as is indicated by the scientific data."

German-British researcher Ernst Boris Chain was awarded a Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work with penicillin. Chain says, "The principle of [divine] purpose ... stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks ... The probability for such an event as the origin of DNA molecules to have occurred by sheer chance is just too small to be seriously considered ..."  Chain also said that, "The assumption of directive forces in the origin and development of vital processes becomes a necessity in any kind of interpretation."

American physicist Arthur Compton discovered what we call the Compton Effect, relating to X-rays. He said, "For me, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for an orderly, intelligent universe testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: 'In the beginning, God ...' "

William D. Phillips won the 1997 Nobel Prize in chemistry for using lasers to produce temperatures only a fraction of a degree above absolute zero.  Phillips also stated that so many of his colleagues were Christians he couldn't walk across his church's fellowship hall without "tripping over a dozen physicists."

It's been the conventional wisdom that scientists are atheists, but not so, by a long shot. Professor Richard Bube of Stanford says, "There are [proportionately] as many atheistic truck drivers as atheistic scientists." But among Nobel laureates, the number who recognize the hand of God in the universe is remarkably high.

Gene Summerlin
Ogborn, Summerlin & Ogborn, P.C.
210 Windsor Place
330 South Tenth Street
Lincoln, NE  68508
(402) 434-8040
(402) 434-8044 (facsimile)
(402) 730-5344 (mobile)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.osolaw.com


 

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Darrell
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:44 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

I could be convinced, I think, about intelligent design -- were there any significant evidence for it. (Don't mistake my skepticism for an anti-faith statement, though, please).
 
The difficulty is that there really isn't any evidence that withstands surface scrutiny.
 
Consider this:  Studies indicate that there are about 10,000 papers published each year on evolution, either explaining how it works, or how it doesn't work as somebody else predicted, or applying evolution to solving problems. 
 
In the past 15 years, there have been two papers published on intelligent design in biology.  150,000 evolution papers, 2 papers on intelligent design.  Heck, there are more than two dozen papers on cold fusion listed at PubMed, 12 times as many as intelligent design.
 
There may be a case to be made for intelligent design.  We can't know now.  There has not been a significant attempt made to make the case.
 
If we teach intelligent design, shouldn't we also teach cold fusion?  Were you required to find an expert witness on intelligent design, with just two papers in the literature on the subject, do you think you could find someone and, with a straight face, make a case to a judge that the person is an expert on intelligent design?  If there are no certifiable experts, or very, very few, should we really stop the study of the spread of malaria, the conquest of the boll weevil, the propagation of maple trees and wheat, the fight against cancer, the quest for a cure for cystic fibrosis, to spend time on it?
 
It doesn't have anything to do with hostility to the supernatural.  It has to do with my hostility toward junk science, pseudo science, and very poorly evidenced claims.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas

Brad M Pardee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

That's true, there are those who do believe in God, and it's also true that this does not make intelligent design science.  That's why I referred to"some realms of the scientific community".  I'm just saying that, among those who ARE hostile to the idea of the supernatural, there is no explanation for intelligent design that will satisfy them, no matter how much solid science might be behind it.  (And the same is true of the hostility of some Christians whose view of psychology is so jaundiced that no idea that comes forth from the study of the human mind will be accepted.)

Brad

Steve Jamar wrote:

There are many scientists who also believe in god.  That does not make intelligent design science.

But there are also many scientists and others who dismiss the supernatural entirely. And a few who are, as you put it, hostile to it.

But rejection of ID as valid science does not imply hostility to the supernatural.  There is a range of belief about the supernatural or god among scientists as among those in any walk of life.  Some are believers, some are agnostics, some are athiests, some are hostile._______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to