[billwald]

A belief in God is immaterial to conducting lab experiments and objectively recording what one observes in a microscope or a telescope. The existance of God only matters to those analysing the data.

But a belief in the existance of God might preclude some experiments and not only on moral grounds. If the answer of every question is "God poofed it" then there is no purpose of asking another question.

[bob b]

Originally posted by billwald

A belief in God is immaterial to conducting lab experiments and objectively recording what one observes in a microscope or a telescope. The existance of God only matters to those analysing the data.

But a belief in the existance of God might preclude some experiments and not only on moral grounds. If the answer of every question is "God poofed it" then there is no purpose of asking another question.

Thanks bill.

This just verifies my view that evolutionists will not consider the possibility that God created the universe and first life, because of the bogus argument that this means that "the answer of every question is "God poofed it"".

[Stratnerd]

But that isn't true despite evolutionists saying so.. I guess you'll only hear things that will support your world view and ignore the rest.

Excellent!

[Turbo]

Stratnerd, can't you tell the difference between a general statement and an absolute?

[Stratnerd]

No. Which one is it?

[Turbo]

Originally posted by billwald

If the answer of every question is "God poofed it"...

Who says it is?

...then there is no purpose of asking another question.

Then why do you suppose so many scientists believe in God and Creation, including many who were fathers of their fields? Newton, Kepler, Joule, Kelvin, the Wright Brothers... just to name a few.

You've built an awfully ugly strawman here, billwald.

[Stratnerd]

Turbo,

How strange.. you seem do the same thing you accuse me of doing.

When asking question like "where do elephants come from" - a creationist will say "God did it" and since creation is beyond any investigation. That's about all you can say about it.

Questions about origins lead to this type of answer these are different from the types of questions all those guys you listed were asking.

[Turbo]

Stratnerd, bill didn't say that the answer to "Where did the first [elephant/tree/water molecule] come from?" was "God poofed it." He said that that is the answer to every question.

Now, I recognize that bill was not being woodenly literal when he said "every question." For instance, I don't think he meant to include questions like, "What's your favorite color?" or "When was the Declaration or Independence signed?" But I do think he meant that to Creationists, "God poofed it" is the answer to every question pertaining to science and the study of nature, and that belief in Creation causes disinterest in science and stifles curiousity.

If I've misunderstood him, perhaps he'll clarify.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

No. Which one is it?

bob b was making a general statement, of course. I was one of the exceptions to his statement (and I think he is too), but I didn't get bent out of shape when I read it because I don't go out of my way to misunderstand what others say.

[Stratnerd]

Neither do I.

[aharvey]

Originally posted by bob b

Thanks bill.

This just verifies my view that evolutionists will not consider the possibility that God created the universe and first life, because of the bogus argument that this means that "the answer of every question is "God poofed it"".

How should an evolutionist consider the possibility that God created the universe? Why should an evolutionist consider this possibility?

How should an evolutionist consider the possibility that God created the first life? I assume you're being incomplete here; you really mean the possibility that God created the first life fully formed and advanced, over the span of a couple of calendar days about six thousand years ago, in a manner clearly outside the realm of natural processes. Because there's nothing in the evolutionary model that precludes God from being the ultimate source for all the physical laws and processes, the chemical laws and processes, the biological laws and processes, that led to the evolution of life on Earth.

[billwald]

If the Church had won control of science and there had been no rationalist era, would we be communicating by computer? Could scientists then investigate anything that requires a random event? Or an electron disappearing from one side of an electronic barrier and appearing on the other side? Would these things ever occur to someone with a 6 day creationist world view and would it be rejected as ungodly if it did? Would creation scientists consider the possibility of a residual temperature left over from the creation?

[bob b]

Originally posted by billwald
If the Church had won control of science and there had been no rationalist era, would we be communicating by computer? Could scientists then investigate anything that requires a random event? Or an electron disappearing from one side of an electronic barrier and appearing on the other side? Would these things ever occur to someone with a 6 day creationist world view and would it be rejected as ungodly if it did? Would creation scientists consider the possibility of a residual temperature left over from the creation?

You seem to have a grudge against the Church.

So do I, but that has nothing to do with the rise of science, because all of the great scientists believed in creation and it didn't seem to affect them in their pace of scientific discoveries.

It is a modern myth that belief in uphill evolution is required to do outstanding work in science. If anything such belief holds back progress instead of enhancing it.

[billwald]

I don't have anything against the Church. 6 Dayers drive me crazy.

Uphill evolution is social darwinism, not evolution.