A recycled ruse of the bible-beaters is to try to press (usually) past scientists into their fold and try to sell their gullible minions that yes, science really stands with them in their superstitions, and no - it isn't true that most scientists are skeptics or atheists. Ordinarily, simple fact would dispel this jabber, but because the bible believers are insularly locked into their own la-la land zone, it doesn't. And since they can't controvert actual surveys (such as the one by New Scientist in 2000 showing 74% of professional biologists are atheists, as are 64% of physicists) they have to lean on the "scientists" of old - not even able to process that the bulk of what we call genuinely modern science (incorporating quantum theory, relativity and advanced genetics) wasn't consolidated until after 1925-26.
One of the biggest howlers going, which I had also heard from Duane Gish when he gave his illustrious creationism vs. evolution lecture in Fairbanks in 1986, was that all the "modern scientists, including ....Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Maxwell, rejected evolution"! Any sane person or let us say educated one, knows however that Darwin's Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859 and took at least 20 years to be circulated outside a limited specialist domain. And neither Kepler, Galileo or Newton were ALIVE then! Hence making such an assertion is about as dumb as saying that the ancient Ptolemaics of Greece wouldn't have accepted the heliocentric theory of Copernicus!
As for Maxwell, he died in 1879, just as the theory of evolution by natural selection was starting to make the rounds - and hence, there's little chance he'd ever have read a single paper. But this doesn't give the bible beaters any pause. Just utter the word science and all their moron followers will stop and take note.
As for Newton, so often cited as some kind of spiritual exemplar by the know-nothing fundies, let's look at some hard historical facts. As opposed to aimless bloviations and imaginings.
Not mentioned by these supercilious fools - who go out of their way to sic disasters on the Hatians for their voodoo- is that Newton dabbled constantly in occult “mysteries". For example, attempting to numerically “decode” parts of the 30 different bibles he owned- that put his shtick more in line with witchcraft, and counting chicken entrails.
In the PBS documentary ‘Newton’s Dark Secrets’ – much of Newton’s occultism is made known, including his calculation that the world would end in 2060. This and other discoveries shed light that Newton was not the “rationalist” so many made him out to be but rather an irrationalist – and as we know this lot gravitate more to superstitious beliefs.
The PBS documentary noted that Newton lived in violent times rife with political turmoil (e.g. the Cromwellian rebellion, beheading of the King, restoration of Charles II and the monarch) and this may have driven him into irrational occultism.
At Cambridge, Newton roomed with John Wickens, who may have influenced his later occult obsessions, including Alchemy and the pursuit of the “philosopher’s stone”. Newton had to conduct his alchemy in private because alchemists if caught were hung on gilded scaffolds, as they were regarded as little different from warlocks. So, how are we to square this fundie belief, that Newton was a genuine theological personage, when his spare time was spent in alchemy and the occult? History, in fact, refutes this claptrap of Newton being a sincere Christian in many ways and I encourage people to see the PBS documentary themselves.
The documentary also goes on to note that Newton violently rejected becoming a Minister at Trinity College – which had been required of all Fellows. Instead, Newton veered into heresy denying the divinity of Christ, as well as the Trinity. The College relented and excused Newton from Ministerial obligations, though he did run the risk of being branded a heretic and even facing death because of his beliefs. I wonder how many fundies would cite Newton as some stalwart if they were remotely aware he denied the divinity of their "Lord and Savior"?
The true fact to take away is had Newton not been protected in an established academic environment, where he made formidable contributions (e.g. with dynamics, the Calculus) he would almost surely have been hung, drawn and quartered. (Incidentally, while I am at it, Kepler was an even more occult devotee than Newton. Invoking Kepler therefore confers no more gravitas on bibles, creationism or other assorted superstitious codswallop)
Another scientist often used as fodder for the gullible believer bible thumpers is Albert Einstein. To all intents, Einstein was an implicit atheist – in the sense of not accepting a personal God. For example, an excellent clue is from Einstein's own book Ideas and Opinions, wherein he says:
"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".
Einstein, as his quote warns, was thoroughly aware that sundry agents, news editors had been putting words into his mouth, trying to portray them as at least allowing for a personal God, or some related pseudo-Christian interpretation. After all, even today, scientists speaking to newspapers have little or no control over their content. Many times they are astonished to see words put into their mouths they never uttered.
More astounding for these lame brains that so often cite Einstein as their pet, he made it abundantly clear he subscribed to NO personal God, nor did he accept an afterlife - nor did he accept the concept of “free will”. After all, he also wrote in his ‘Ideas and Opinions’:
“A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity – internal and external- so that he cannot be responsible….any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motion it undergoes.”
Sadly though, fundies like "Pastor Mike" are clearly so desperate to find some kind of remote scientific support for their claims, they're willing to grab onto a personage (Einstein) that – in any other setting they'd have relegated to a False Doctrines webpage, with Muhammad, Buddha and the Pope!
I mean LOOK at the words! NO free will!
"A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable "
How high an IQ is needed to see that this is not a gentleman whose words should be quoted as some kind of spiritual exemplar or example? Probably a much higher IQ than most bible believers possess.
To put the final kibosh on these erratic efforts to push religion by impressing scientists into the fold, I quote another passage from Einstein, from his same Ideas and Opinions - and hope the words sink in to people like my brother Mike:
"The man who is thoroughly convinced of universal causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events- provided of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causation really seriously. "
Look at the words and context! “The man who is thoroughly convinced of universal causation”. What does this mean? It means, following the original concept of Lagrange, that every physical effect has a direct physical cause EVERYWHERE in the universe. E.g.
O---------o (B)
A
If object A above collides with object B it will cause B to move off at some defined angle and with some momentum and velocity. Things do not occur without physical causes. Thus, for the serious scientist that accepts this premise, it is impossible to accept also a “being who interferes in the course of events”. In other words, NO miracles – no raising the dead, NO resurrections, and NO God men!
If one cites Einstein, one must at least generically accept this thesis - else one has no clue at all what Einstein is really saying. And it certainly supports no part of the Christian religion or belief system!
No comments:
Post a Comment