(July 1, 2012 at 12:08 am)Drich Wrote:(June 30, 2012 at 9:35 pm)Annik Wrote: It was likely this that didn't get him hired. The story of creation is not supported in astronomic evidence (which, in fact, proves the creation hypothesis wrong)... And he wants to be a professor of astronomy? How can they ensure that the proper information will be conveyed to students? It's like a biologist not believing in evolution. Sure, they probably exist, but they shouldn't expect any respect for their research outside of their religious circle-jerk.This is the exact prejudice that I was talking about. Just because one has not renounced belief in God does not mean he would look to push doctrine in inappropriate situations.
Nor does it mean he was seeking to teaching these things to students. I have reconciled the genesis account with the evolutionary account "On-line." This does not make me a less effective at my job. Nor does it mean I force this reconciliation onto anyone of my employees.
Reconciling the creation account with astronomical findings is not good science, it is trying to force a conclusion which is probably not correct. If all scientists were like that, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages.
Undeceived Wrote:Exactly. Professors teach facts and evidence first. The evidence never changes. Interpretations do. Why is it we can say, “this evidence indicates stars evolved” but not “this evidence indicates the presence of a designer”? Why is it okay to assert materials generate on their own, but not to assert the materials could not have generated on their own? We have positive and negative explanations, and here we cannot consider the negative. We can’t even question that materials generate on their own. We have never seen materials spontaneously generate, and I can’t question that they do?
Science can show within reasonable doubt the processes involved in star evolution, using models and data collected. None of this evidence indicated a creator was involved, so they can say one but not the other.
Quote: Intelligent Design is the belief that spontaneous generation is not possible. ID advocates merely uphold the law of conservation of mass, which is 100% scientific and has been tested using the scientific method.
Mass is never conserved in physical processes, which is why energy is released/absorbed in them.
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. - J.R.R Tolkien
