God's Word and God's creation - both intended for God's glory.

[Shemjaza]

What about it do you find interesting?

By "interesting" I meant self defeating.

Francis Collins is not anti-evolution.

 

[BCP1928]

Sounds like a great reason to pray for both!

I certainly hope and pray that they, and all Christians, remain steadfast in their faith. But you still haven't explained why you posted that particular video. I believe that it is considered bad form here to post a link and not add some commentary of your own.

 

[Joseph G]

I certainly hope and pray that they, and all Christians, remain steadfast in their faith. But you still haven't explained why you posted that particular video. I believe that it is considered bad form here to post a link and not add some commentary of your own.

The title and this introduction, located right above the vid, is all the commentary I find necessary.

Repeat:

"The proper duty of science - giving credit where credit is due..."

 

[Astrid]

The title and this introduction, located right above the vid, is all the commentary I find necessary.

Repeat:

"The proper duty of science - giving credit where credit is due..."

Good to stop there, and not make up answers

 

[BCP1928]

You are the one wh

The title and this introduction, located right above the vid, is all the commentary I find necessary.

Repeat:

"The proper duty of science - giving credit where credit is due..."

You are the one who called the theory of evolution "godless." Maybe you had better change your tune, then.

 

[Astrid]

You are the one wh

You are the one who called the theory of evolution "godless." Maybe you had better change your tune, then.

It’s more in the nature of a glacier than a tune

 

[Astrid]

By "interesting" I meant self defeating.

Francis Collins is not anti-evolution.

I don’t think anyone is actually anti evolution as
they don't even know what it is.

More likely it’s all about ego, vanity, belief in
self as an infallible bible interpreter.

 

[dlamberth]

In my opinion, every scientist on earth should be familiar with John 9.

Science needs to remain totally secular with absolutely no religious influence in anyway, shape or form.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science needs to remain totally secular with absolutely no religious influence in anyway, shape or form.

In other words, take a hike?

 

[dlamberth]

In other words, take a hike?

Just the opposite. The nature of science is that it's self correcting. As soon as religion enters science, the self correcting aspect of science stops.

 

[Hans Blaster]

From: Acknowledging God in Scientific Papers

"Comparison of Multiple Techniques to Determine Saleable Lean Yield in Pork Carcasses"

Author
Dorleku, Justice Bless
Publisher
University of Guelph

Acknowledgements (first paragraph)

"“First of all, I am grateful to Almighty God, the author of knowledge and wisdom, for His countless love and grace that have enabled me to complete this thesis.”

That was a thesis, not a paper. Students often put personal statements in their theses. (I did not.) Thanking parents, coaches, friends, etc.

 

[Hans Blaster]

From: Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living

Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living.

Liu M-J, Xiong C-H, Xiong L, Huang X-L

Excerpt:

"The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way."

Oh my! it was *RETRACTED*. Here is the editor's statement:

Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a 'Creator', and about the overall rationale and findings of the study.

Upon receiving these concerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluation of the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought further advice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review.

Consequently, the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.

The editors apologize to readers for the inappropriate language in the article and the errors during the evaluation process.

You should note that while the "creator" line caught there attention (and it is a very non-scientific statement to make), other problems were found in the paper and how it got published.

 

[Astrophile]

Unfortunately the sky was (and still is) cloudy, so I could not see the comet.

 

[Joseph G]

Oh my! it was *RETRACTED*. Here is the editor's statement:

Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a 'Creator', and about the overall rationale and findings of the study.

Upon receiving these concerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluation of the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought further advice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review.

Consequently, the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.

The editors apologize to readers for the inappropriate language in the article and the errors during the evaluation process.

You should note that while the "creator" line caught there attention (and it is a very non-scientific statement to make), other problems were found in the paper and how it got published.

Such fear...

 

[BCP1928]

Such fear...

Fear of what? Are we supposed to be afraid of the views of people like Francis Collins? Is that why you posted the video.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Such fear...

No fear. Science is an examination of natural process. Invoking a "creator" is blatently unscientific. It turns out there were other problems in the paper (and that wasn't in the acknowledgement) that it was retracted. Otherwise it would have been edited to remove the unscientific phrasing.

 

[Astrid]

Unfortunately the sky was (and still is) cloudy, so I could not see the comet.

The sky is always hazy and terrific light pollution.

 

[Astrid]

Such fear...

Such fantasies.

 

[Astrid]

Science needs to remain totally secular with absolutely no religious influence in anyway, shape or form.

Some of our friends won’t allow any science to influence their beliefs.

Such fear!

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is an examination of natural process. Invoking a "creator" is blatently unscientific.

Just curious.

If it's okay for science to tell our Creator to take a hike, why do people arc and spark when we tell science to take a hike?