Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumJoe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)the ones who pioneered the great paradigm-changes all believed in intelligent design, ergo were, at least deists, such as Einstein, the poster boy for ID, Planck the founder of quantum mechanics, a Lutheran, than which no more successful paradigm has emerged, nor, it has been mathematically proved, can emerge; evidently, a uniquely curious phenomenon.
Bohr, too, insisted that consciousness precedes matter, while Pauli scoffed incredulously at the omission on the part of Darwinists to even perform a study of statistical probablilities:
'"In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of natural selection in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely scientific and rational, they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word chance, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word miracle. (pp. 27-28)
- Wolfgang Pauli
For the Darwinist (or Christian Darwinist) natural selection is, quite simply, magic. It is not and never could be anything else.
But then, corporatism had not yet imposed itself via its funding of scientific research in the universities.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)enki23
(7,794 posts)"For the Darwinist (or Christian Darwinist) natural selection is, quite simply, magic. It is not and never could be anything else. "
For future reference, use of the term "Darwinist" is an enormous strobing red light by which we recognize cranks.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Disappointing.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)One assumes one can only be humiliated so many times, but here you are again back for more it seems!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Didn't he used to be KCabotDullesMarxIII ?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I do believe you are correct.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)About how much scientific research do you think is funded by private corporations, Mr. Sock Puppet?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You smell lost.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)And that 1st physicist is kinda cute.......
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)with their tens of thousands of galaxies, each with millions of stars, each, possibly, with planets, and tell me with a straight face that a patch of desert in the Middle East is what "God" set aside as the "promised land" for his "chosen people". According to the Bible everything important that "God" ever did was done in that small patch of desert. It's not only supremely arrogant, it's sad and pathetic that people continue to believe such fairy tales.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Bingo.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)There is so much awe and beauty to be found in our universe to wonder about. All the greater, for me, without hoping to find 'something more' to believe in.
Cartoonist
(7,531 posts)He didn't know all the answers, so people peg him as a believer. None of his quotes has him kneeling before a God.
onager
(9,356 posts)It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-on-a-Personal-God.htm