mesquite wrote:real life wrote:mesquite wrote:real life wrote:mesquite wrote:real life wrote:mesquite wrote:real life wrote:Actually I am fascinated by science and enjoy it immensely.
If you were the head of a scientific research project, and Sir Isaac Newton applied for a position it would be quite an interesting interview, I think.
Would you hire him after he told you he literally believed that God created the world and all that is in it?
Considering the amassed information that was available to Isaac Newton during his time I do not see it as unusual at all that he believed a God created it all.
If however he had knowledge and access to the amassed information of today and then stated that he believed in a literal translation of Genesis, then he would have to have a lot better arguments than I have seen presented here before I hired him for a scientific research project.
Such a belief would to me indicate a lack or reasoning ability which is crucial to scientific work.
It would seem to me that Newton's scientific track record speaks for itself. If you can't recognize the value of what Newton contributed to science , then who has a lack of reasoning ability?
Is your reading comprehension that bad, or is it deliberate that you completely mischaracterize my comment?
If your position is that you would not hire Sir Isaac Newton due to his literal belief in God as the Creator (because that is the question I asked, unless you are mischaracterizing my post) even after seeing his track record of scientific accomplishment then you are not reasoning clearly, my friend.
Let's try this another way.
You asked if I would hire him "
after he told you he literally believed that God created the world and all that is in it?"
That question is a bit vague about time, God, and creation belief.
I attempted to refine it with my answer,"If however he had knowledge and access to the amassed information of today and then stated that he believed in a literal translation of Genesis, then he would have to have a lot better arguments than I have seen presented here before I hired him for a scientific research project.
If that is still too vague for you let me pin it down more. By "literal translation of Genesis" I mean Genesis as the first book of the Bible, and by "belief in a literal translation" I mean a literal belief in the six day creation, the Eden story with talking snake, the Noah story of a worldwide flood that killed all life on earth except for ark passengers, and other attendant folklore.
So yes, if Sir Isaac Newton were alive today, and if he still subscribed to the above fantasies over and above the accumulated scientific knowledge of today, then I would deem him unfit for my scientific research project.
That said however, I suspect that if he were alive today, and being an inquisitive and observant person, that he would not not subscribe to a literal Genesis version of creation.
Hi Mesquite,
The question is quite specific. A creationist is one who believes that God literally created the world.
(Not all creationists believe in the Flood of Noah, original sin as depicted in the Garden of Eden, and other Bible doctrines --although many do.
Your objections regarding a "talking snake" and the ark are just a little odd, to say the least. These things were in the Bible when Newton was alive, but you act as if he might have been unaware of
new evidence[/b] that might disprove them, or that some
new scientific discovery[/b] made a "talking snake" less believable in our day than in his. Can you name one?
He was, (in addition to being inquisitive and observant,) very familiar with the entire Bible, having written an extensive treatise also on Biblical prophecies to define his belief in their accuracy in great detail. )
You attempted to "refine" my specific question by mischaracterizing my post (the thing you accused me of.
My question has to do specifically with his qualifications (in your eyes) as a scientist when seen along with his belief that God created the world.
Now if you can answer the original question, (since the story of Creation as recorded in Genesis has not changed from that day to this): Does Sir Isaac Newton qualify as a scientist in your view, since he believed God literally created the world? Would you hire him?
(This is a trick question so if you would like to punt, since you have already fumbled it so badly, I'll understand.)
real, my answer was quite clear. If you would like to get back to technical discussion of evolution, I will try to keep up. If you want to continue with meta-discussion, I decline. There is enough of that already in this thread.
Mesquite,
Punted, eh? Fair enough. I won't press you on it, as I promised.
If you want to pick up on a more technical theme, you can answer the comments I had begun to make when you accused me of hating science, which is what sidetracked that discussion.
-----------------------------
Everyone else,
I would like to ask others in the thread their opinion of that, however.
Mesquite seems to think this somewhat off topic, but what do you think? Is it?
Do you think the question of 'whether one would hire Sir Isaac Newton in a scientific position, knowing of his belief that God literally created the world' as a way to illustrate this discussion of 'if a scientist who believes God literally created the world is disqualified as a scientist or not' is significantly off topic?
Hasn't much of this thread been taken up in accusations by evolutionists that those who believe in creation are somehow 'not real scientists at all' ?
Now I admit that I framed the question to him in a way so as to trick. The question is, as you can see, impossible to answer correctly without giving up the whole position that those who believe in creation 'are not real scientists'.
But now that this is clearly stated, I still believe it to be right down the middle of the topic at hand as it has been constantly pursued by the evolutionary proponents. What do you think?
