Just Interesting - List of Theistic Scientists

[busterdog]

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/06/11/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/?url=http://
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2....org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html&frame=true

I guess this goes from "just interesting" to argumentative, but nonetheless, list of scientific principles in the Bible:
\
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2....org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html&frame=true

 

[laptoppop]

For the second link, I think you meant this:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I'm always amused by lists like the one in the last link that draw out "accurate biblical descriptions of scientific principles" from both Ecclesiastes 1:6 and 1:7, yet conspicuously overlook Ecclesiastes 1:5 which uses the same form of description to describe something the authors probably don't take as an accurate biblical description of a scientific principle.

Cherry-picking at its best.

 

[busterdog]

I'm always amused by lists like the one in the last link that draw out "accurate biblical descriptions of scientific principles" from both Ecclesiastes 1:6 and 1:7, yet conspicuously overlook Ecclesiastes 1:5 which uses the same form of description to describe something the authors probably don't take as an accurate biblical description of a scientific principle.

Cherry-picking at its best.

Ecc 1:5
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The sun "rising" is metaphor revealing the scientific sophistication of the writer? 1:6 and 1:7 has some smidgen of metaphor, but they seem to point pretty clearly the concept in the webpage. Is a circuit a metaphor? I don't think it really is metaphor on its face.


Agreeing with us on just a few of these verses requires so little. The contrary argument just demands so many major assumptions.

And, if the shepherds were litterally abiding in their fields, how many adjacent verses, chapters, books or whatver must also be taken literally based on proximity?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

It's not merely proximity. It's also similar form:

• The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
  and hastens to the place where it rises.
  
  The wind blows to the south
  and goes around to the north;
  around and around goes the wind,
  and on its circuits the wind returns.
  
  All streams run to the sea,
  but the sea is not full;
  to the place where the streams flow,
  there they flow again. (Ecclesiastes 1:5-7, ESV)

This passage speaks of the circuit of the sun, the wind, and the streams. To take the last two as evidence the Bible speaks in ways that are scientifically accurate while allowing the contradiction with scientific evidence to overturn a literal reading of the first is inconsistent. The movement of the sun is described just as plainly as the movement of the wind and water.

A consistent way of reading them is to see all three as observations and deductions of nature by the author (see Ecclesiastes 1:13 where the author explains this approach). So, the author observes the sun's movement from rising to setting, then deduces that after it sets it hurries back (literally from the Hebrew: "returns panting") to where it rises. Similarly, the wind and streams are observed as they blow and flow, and the author deduces about how the wind and water return to start the cycle over again. There's no advanced science tucked in these verses -- nothing beyond what anyone intent on studying nature could observe and infer for themselves.

Of course, for the geocentrist, consistency is found in the other direction. All three verses are seen as descriptions from which one can glean scientific knowledge.

 

[busterdog]

It's not merely proximity. It's also similar form:

• The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
  and hastens to the place where it rises.
  
  The wind blows to the south
  and goes around to the north;
  around and around goes the wind,
  and on its circuits the wind returns.
  
  All streams run to the sea,
  but the sea is not full;
  to the place where the streams flow,
  there they flow again. (Ecclesiastes 1:5-7, ESV)

This passage speaks of the circuit of the sun, the wind, and the streams. To take the last two as evidence the Bible speaks in ways that are scientifically accurate while allowing the contradiction with scientific evidence to overturn a literal reading of the first is inconsistent. The movement of the sun is described just as plainly as the movement of the wind and water.

A consistent way of reading them is to see all three as observations and deductions of nature by the author (see Ecclesiastes 1:13 where the author explains this approach). So, the author observes the sun's movement from rising to setting, then deduces that after it sets it hurries back (literally from the Hebrew: "returns panting") to where it rises. Similarly, the wind and streams are observed as they blow and flow, and the author deduces about how the wind and water return to start the cycle over again. There's no advanced science tucked in these verses -- nothing beyond what anyone intent on studying nature could observe and infer for themselves.

Of course, for the geocentrist, consistency is found in the other direction. All three verses are seen as descriptions from which one can glean scientific knowledge.

The odds don't have to be astronomical for the description to be significant, nor does the science have to be the most sophisticated.

How is it cherry picking that that the writer understood the water cycle? Or to have understood the circular parttern of winds caused by coriolis force? To argue that they were just lucky is asking for a lot.

There are more difficult problems in science to be sure. But, all three are literally correct and only the first one is based upon elementary and direct observation. At a minimum, the three descriptions are quite distinct for the ignorance represented by geocentrism and its associated "sciences" and are not easily accomodated in the cultural millieu theory for the origin of scripture.

And yes, all of this assumes that the descirption of the sun rising is a literal description, since that's what it does on the horizon. I really hope I don't need to apologize for that.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

So, the writer was just lucky to have understood the water cycle?

What insights about the water cycle did the writer understand? All I see is a recognition of which way water flows (from streams into the sea), and that even though it flows away from its source, the source still has water, so somehow water must get back there. If you see something more, something that goes beyond simple observation, could you point it out?

Or to have understood the circular parttern of winds caused by coriolis force?

Again, I think you know something about the coriolis force, and so you read it back into the text, even though there's nothing specifically about it. All the author observed is that winds blow from the north and later the south, and they go around and around. Simple observation.

But, all three are literally correct

Are you a geocentrist? Do you think the movement of the sun as it cycles is as factually accurate as the movement of winds and water as they cycle? It's not just that the sun is described as rising, but as hastening back to where it rises each night. This goes beyond describing what is seen to hypothesizing about the sun's movement even when it isn't seen. Pretty clear that the movement of the sun (not the spin of the earth) is being taken quite seriously.

 

[busterdog]

What insights about the water cycle did the writer understand? All I see is a recognition of which way water flows (from streams into the sea), and that even though it flows away from its source, the source still has water, so somehow water must get back there. If you see something more, something that goes beyond simple observation, could you point it out?

Again, I think you know something about the coriolis force, and so you read it back into the text, even though there's nothing specifically about it. All the author observed is that winds blow from the north and later the south, and they go around and around. Simple observation.

Are you a geocentrist? Do you think the movement of the sun as it cycles is as factually accurate as the movement of winds and water as they cycle? It's not just that the sun is described as rising, but as hastening back to where it rises each night. This goes beyond describing what is seen to hypothesizing about the sun's movement even when it isn't seen. Pretty clear that the movement of the sun (not the spin of the earth) is being taken quite seriously.

If one were to bet on the sophistication of the writer, one would be hard pressed to bet the writer was of the same sophistication as the as geocentrist or flat earth believer. That is the point -- that the odds for naivete in the the writer of the Bible get slimmer and slimmer the more seriously one looks.

And no, this is not rocket science. But it aint geocentrism either.

However, the observation about light and time were ahead of their time. Over the last 2000 years, the Bible has been ahead of the crowd on these points until only the very recent past.

As for the run rising, yes it literally rises -- for all practical purposes.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I notice you didn't mention any insights about either water or wind in those verses. I'd still love to see how you came to conclude that the author knew details ahead of his time about the water cycle and coriolis force.

As for the run rising, yes it literally rises -- for all practical purposes.

You've mentioned the sun rising three times, yet that's not what I've focused on. I pointed out how the author describes the sun's movement overnight -- something that can't be written off as the language of appearance, since it isn't observed. Care to address that?

 

[theIdi0t]

I guess this goes from "just interesting" to argumentative, but nonetheless, list of scientific principles in the

I've never been all that impressed with this whole notion of "scientific principles" in the Bible, but I've always been curious to know if the supporters of such theology, have ever seen or read other religions doing the same thing? One quick search on Youtube and you'll seek an Islamic cleric talking about modern science written about in the Quran. There is even a man who shows science in the ancient texts of Hinduism, and lets not forget Nostradamus and how he foretold 9/11. Some YEC here once tried to say that the Bible contained this miraculous numerical code, that proves it is divine. He was so taken by this rapture, that no matter how many posts others wrote that disproved this, he would not listen.

I've always found the Quran arguments, and Buddhism arguments to be much more persuasive than the Christian argument for divine foretelling of science. They served as better ink spots. If divine foretelling of science is how we prove your book is better than other books, then i guess I'm becoming a Buddhist monk

I've always likened the phenomenon to when I was younger and I would read my horoscope paying close watch to see if the predictions came true, and you know what...they always did. If you look hard enough you'll see Angels in ink spots, but of course some ink spots show them better than others. I wonder if other YECs here support the use of divinely foretold science as a case for Christianity? And I wonder if they realize that such a case, only sets one up for failure?

I find the use of scripture in such a way to be utterly appalling, and I understand the naivety of some believers who jump on the ship, without realizing it has already sunk, because I was a victim at one time to that darling little space in the paper that foresaw my future. But have others woken up to see that Jesus did not appear on a piece of toast?

 

[busterdog]

I notice you didn't mention any insights about either water or wind in those verses. I'd still love to see how you came to conclude that the author knew details ahead of his time about the water cycle and coriolis force.

You've mentioned the sun rising three times, yet that's not what I've focused on. I pointed out how the author describes the sun's movement overnight -- something that can't be written off as the language of appearance, since it isn't observed. Care to address that?

Yes. You are splitting hairs. The sun rises Monday and then on Tuesday in the same place. Obviously it moves so that it can rise again in the morning.

My argument was simple enough and needn't be restated. But, I guess we do it again. The writer was not ignorant of any demonstrable scientific fact. He was not a geocentrist and was not ignorant of very large regional wind patterns or the water cycle.

One of the common arguments here is that the people of this time were ignorant of heliocentrism. Flat earth beliefs are implied at times. Neither argument is consistent with the scientific knowledge demonstrated. Either the argument of the cultural millieu is wrong because the ancients generally knew more than we presume or God told Solomon how it worked. Either way, ignorance is a very poor presumption for this writer.

 

[busterdog]

I've never been all that impressed with this whole notion of "scientific principles" in the Bible, but I've always been curious to know if the supporters of such theology, have ever seen or read other religions doing the same thing? One quick search on Youtube and you'll seek an Islamic cleric talking about modern science written about in the Quran. There is even a man who shows science in the ancient texts of Hinduism, and lets not forget Nostradamus and how he foretold 9/11. Some YEC here once tried to say that the Bible contained this miraculous numerical code, that proves it is divine. He was so taken by this rapture, that no matter how many posts others wrote that disproved this, he would not listen.

I've always found the Quran arguments, and Buddhism arguments to be much more persuasive than the Christian argument for divine foretelling of science. They served as better ink spots. If divine foretelling of science is how we prove your book is better than other books, then i guess I'm becoming a Buddhist monk

I've always likened the phenomenon to when I was younger and I would read my horoscope paying close watch to see if the predictions came true, and you know what...they always did. If you look hard enough you'll see Angels in ink spots, but of course some ink spots show them better than others. I wonder if other YECs here support the use of divinely foretold science as a case for Christianity? And I wonder if they realize that such a case, only sets one up for failure?

I find the use of scripture in such a way to be utterly appalling, and I understand the naivety of some believers who jump on the ship, without realizing it has already sunk, because I was a victim at one time to that darling little space in the paper that foresaw my future. But have others woken up to see that Jesus did not appear on a piece of toast?

Sometimes a flashlight is just a flashlight.

And, sometimes it really is Jesus on the toast. Assuming otherwise makes good comedy, but I'd like to see you prove it wrong without the aid of snickering.

Since the quaran was dictated by the one Jesus called the prince of this world, I am sure that science can be derived from the quaran. But, not prophecy.

Hinduism is obviously quite sophisticated at times. I have no problem with that either. It was even way ahead of its time in suggesting patterns of big bang and big crunch, which is of course a modern, though unprovable theory.

My argument is against deconstructionism and the ignorance that is presumed by modern writers. All your arguments in that respect suit me just fine.

Being appalled is like the reverse of opinions, the latter being aptly aphorized by Dirty Harry. You want to focus on what appalls you in others, go ahead.

 

[theIdi0t]

Being appalled is like the reverse of opinions, the latter being aptly aphorized by Dirty Harry. You want to focus on what appalls you in others, go ahead.

Perhaps you did not understand my use of appalling, I find the use of science in the bible to make a case for Christianity to be appalling, not your opinion about science in the Bible. The difference between the two is this: I read my horoscopes and believe they foretold my future, the other is telling the World to place their faith on Horoscopes predicting the future.

It seems that you are saying that the Quran and Hinduism have foreseen today's science, and that this was revealed to them by unholy spirits? Is this what you are saying?

I'm saying that none of these ancient texts foretold today's science, but that the idea that they do is the product of over excited believers. If the world was flat and if the sun revolved around the earth, then believers would jump on the verses in Job and other places, to show that the Bible had foreknowledge of such things, since we know that the sun does not revolve around the earth, and that the earth is not flat, we discard such passages.

Do you understand yet?

If God wanted to use the Bible as a container for science to prove his divinity he would have made a better showing than those obscure passages you use for your defense. He would have wrote of DNA, the inner workings of the eye, and the womb, if he desired to prove his existence by such methods.

The Bible is filled with symbols that can squeeze any understanding of today's reality into various houses of scripture, you might find a verse or two that fits the shoe quite nicely, but you seem to forget the multitude of verses that do not. My last name is Peter, and every time I read of Peter in the Bible, I assume that the writer has me in mind and that he is trying to pass me some secret code about my destiny, perhaps he wants me to build a church.

Do you understand yet?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Yes. You are splitting hairs. The sun rises Monday and then on Tuesday in the same place. Obviously it moves so that it can rise again in the morning.

Exactly. This same kind of reasoning apparently led the author to conclude that water somehow gets back to the top of the stream so it could keep flowing down to the sea. No advanced science about the water cycle. Just simple inference.

The writer was not ignorant of any demonstrable scientific fact. He was not a geocentrist and was not ignorant of very large regional wind patterns or the water cycle.

These are faith claims. You have not presented any evidence from what the author wrote to back up these claims.

What I don't see is why this matters so much for you. Would you lose trust in what the author said about God and God's dealings with us if they were shown to be unaware of any "demonstrable scientific fact"? If it could be shown that this author didn't know about germs or how electricity works, would they suddenly be an improper vessel for God to use to convey his message to us? If so, why?

 

[sfs]

My argument was simple enough and needn't be restated. But, I guess we do it again. The writer was not ignorant of any demonstrable scientific fact. He was not a geocentrist and was not ignorant of very large regional wind patterns or the water cycle.

Well, that was your assertion, but I haven't seen you present an argument in its favor. I don't see anything in this passage to suggest the author was a heliocentrist, knew anything about large-scale wind patterns, or knew anything about the water cycle (aside from the bare fact that water must cycle somehow).

 

[mark kennedy]

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/06/11/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/?url=http://
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2....org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html&frame=true

I guess this goes from "just interesting" to argumentative, but nonetheless, list of scientific principles in the Bible:

Copernicus was the first to formally suggest that the earth revolved around the sun, the Catholic Church really had no problem with that. The fact is that it had no bearing on the Scriptures or religious doctrine, in fact that man was a devout Roman Catholic.

Galileo built a telescope that magnified the view of the heavens 35X. It was not long before he saw moons around Jupiter and craters on the moon. Jesuits made many of the same observations and his problems did not arise from some conflict between astronomy and Scripture. What happened is he got into an argument about Aristotelean philosophy with a Professor who slandered him as some kind of an infidel. Galileo challenged the status quo, that was his only crime.

Francis Bacon was basically a philosopher who emphasized experimental method, something the Classical Greek scholars frowned upon. Rome controlled the academic world across Europe and to contradict Aristotle was to challenge Rome.

What is not fully realized is that the Protestant Reformation had shaken the foundations of the Roman Empire at it's intellectual core. Martin Luther defied a Roman Emperor by his stand on Justification by Faith and the cry of Solo Scriptura (Scripture alone) saying he did not hold to councils since they contradicted one another.

During the Scientific Revolution there was a bloody Protestant/Catholic war (The Thirty Years War) that devastated Germany. Rene Descartes served in the Catholic army as an officer in his First Principle of Science describes how he came to the conclusion of Ego Sum Ego Cognito, I think therefor I am. Sitting beside a pot bellied stove with very little to do he found this to be true every time he thought about it. What it was, was a blending of Algebra and Geometry and it laid the groundwork for Newton's Principia along with about a hundred years of breathtaking advancement in natural science.

What amazes me is that with all the scientific zealots in this forum not one of you has shown the slightest interest in these things. Instead of an interesting discussion about how science and political systems were divorced from religious conviction you choose instead to put religion against science as if they were mutually exclusive.

To the scientific apologists that haunt these threads I would challenge you to consider something crucially important to the rise of modern science.

Had there been no Protestant Reformation there would have been no Scientific Revolution. The representative Republic of the United States would not have been established and Christian religious systems would not have been decentralized.

Frankly, I find the contempt secularists have for fundamentalist and evangelical theology to be shallow. So did Sir Francis Bacon:

"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

And Sir Isaac Newton:

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." (Principia)

In modern times they would not be considered theistic scientists, they would be branded Intelligent Design pseudo scientists and shunned in academic and scientific circles. The ones that had the audacity to challenge the Medieval Aristotelean science in fact were.

 

[gluadys]

Rene Descartes served in the Catholic army as an officer in his First Principle of Science describes how he came to the conclusion of Ego Sum Ego Cognito, I think therefor I am.

Actually that is Cogito, ergo sum.

cogito=I think (as in the English equivalent "cogitate").
ergo=therefore
sum=I am

cognito=known. On old maps, unexplored territory used to be marked "terra incognita" = "unknown land". Today celebrities like occasionally to travel "incognito" as "unknown".

[/pedantry]

In modern times they would not be considered theistic scientists, they would be branded Intelligent Design pseudo scientists and shunned in academic and scientific circles. The ones that had the audacity to challenge the Medieval Aristotelean science in fact were.

Yes, they would be considered theistic scientists, because they were theists and they did science. The problem with modern IDists is not that they are theists. It is that they don't do science.

Francis Collins, by contrast is a theist who does science; ergo, a theistic scientist.

 

[shernren]

Copernicus was the first to formally suggest that the earth revolved around the sun, the Catholic Church really had no problem with that. The fact is that it had no bearing on the Scriptures or religious doctrine, in fact that man was a devout Roman Catholic.

But of course, the Catholic Church did eventually have problems with heliocentrism.

(1) That the sun is the center of the world, and is completely immobile by local motion: All agreed that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy and is formally heretical, because it explicitly contradicts sentences found in many places in Sacred Scripture according to the proper meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and of learned theologians.

(2) The earth is not the center of the world and is not immobile, but moves as a whole and also with a diurnal motion: All agreed that this proposition receives the censure in philosophy; and in respect to theological truth, it is at least erroneous in faith.
​

- Decision of the Consultors of the Holy Office, 23 Feb. 1616 (quoted in Galileo, Bellarmine and the Bible, Richard Blackwell)

Galileo built a telescope that magnified the view of the heavens 35X. It was not long before he saw moons around Jupiter and craters on the moon. Jesuits made many of the same observations and his problems did not arise from some conflict between astronomy and Scripture. What happened is he got into an argument about Aristotelean philosophy with a Professor who slandered him as some kind of an infidel. Galileo challenged the status quo, that was his only crime.

Do you have any source for this, or are you making it up off the top of your head? My sources show that in fact, key people who opposed Galileo were non-Aristotelian. For example, Cardinal Bellarmine, who delivered the 1616 judgment to Galileo in person, was decidedly anti-Aristotelian: he held that the heavens were not incorruptible, and that the planets did not move on solid spheres in them, but that they instead moved through a fluid heavens under their own motions in complicated trajectories neither linear nor circular - which contradicts Aristotle on so many levels that if Aristotle was the issue, Bellarmine would have been the condemned instead of the condemner! Bellarmine, despite his firm rejection of many Aristotelian precepts concerning astronomy, was a co-signer of the judgment above declaring heliocentrism formally heretical. It wasn't Aristotle that made him do that. What was it?

Christoph Clavius, key leading astronomer of the Jesuits and chief of the calendar reform project that led to the Gregorian calendar, was also one of those that were willing to reject Aristotelian principles. When Tycho Brahe observed the novae of 1572, 1600, and 1604, and concluded that they must have occurred in the sphere of the fixed stars, Clavius was entirely willing to abandon the Aristotelian idea that the heavens were incorruptible: clearly the novae showed substantial change happening in them! He was even willing to adopt a mathematical construct of Copernicus', the threefold motion of the earth, to explain the trepidation of the stars, against an Alphonsine theory which was far more Aristotelian. Yet he never wavered from geocentrism, no matter how much Aristotle he rejected.

If the persecution of Galileo was really about Aristotle, then why were his persecutors as willing to abandon Aristotle as he was?

What amazes me is that with all the scientific zealots in this forum not one of you has shown the slightest interest in these things. Instead of an interesting discussion about how science and political systems were divorced from religious conviction you choose instead to put religion against science as if they were mutually exclusive.

What amazes me is that you don't see that you are the scientific zealots making science mutually exclusive with religion, instead of vice versa! (I myself would not have gone the extent of calling you zealots: but they are your own words, not mine, and they shall fall on your head as they deserve.)

Discovery is a group of brilliant and courageous scholars and scientists that actually suggest God as an explanation for our ultimate origins.

What I find fascinating is how they get attacked by many other TEs. The TEs love to talk about how they are Christians (which I do not doubt), but when it comes to evidence that supports God having a hand in His creation, they attack right alongside atheists.

(emphases added)

Now if you think about it for a moment, TEs here do not deny that God is an explanation for our origins. We fully acknowledge that conventional cosmology, geology, and evolution are the best theories we have to explain how the world became what it is; at the same time, we have never stopped seeing God's hand in all these processes. Science can only be science where God is God, and cosmology, geology, and evolution are true only because God allows them to be true and to be investigable by our human minds. (In fact, I've read liberal scholars who will fully accept God as the explanation of our origins, much more strenuously and explicitly than I do - bordering right on ID - and then go on to deny the Incarnation and Resurrection! Careful how you say you want to choose your friends.)

We have never tried to show that God did not have a hand in creation. (Where some may have said that, we disagree.) We happen to oppose how you say God created - but then again, why should we have any scruples about opposing you where we think you're wrong? After all, you're not God ... right?

On the other hand, if you think that we are opposing God's active creative and sustaining work, then you must think that our theories - of cosmology, geology, and evolution - cannot possibly incorporate or include God. However, these are only scientific theories and nothing but scientific theories. In that case it is you who thinks that scientific theories cannot possibly incorporate or include God. It is you who tries to separate science and religion, saying that where some sciences are, religion cannot be. It is you who have fallen prey to scientism - and since any evidence for evolution is evidence that God had a hand in creation (since we believe that evolution, if we accept it, must have been a God-given process), it is you who attack the evidence that God had a hand in creation.

Isn't this exactly what I talked about a month and a half ago?

But isn't it strange that some people think the exact opposite? They think that some science is able to exclude God, and that some other science is able to include God. And I'm not just talking about the creationists - I include in this the atheists, who believe just as fervently that evolution works without God. If one scientific theory is true, then God does not exist; if another scientific theory is true, then God exists.

I don't know about you, but I think that's a fairly silly position to take in the light of the theistic declaration that all creation derives its existence from God. Imagine our dear visitor, having finished another meal trying to determine what salt is, standing up and declaring: "If the food is green, it has salt in it; if it is any other color, it doesn't." And imagine him still saying that right after we have told him that there was salt in every dish!

It is quite silly for the atheists to think that science is operating without God. If the theists are right, then the atheists would never notice anything different. But it is similarly silly for the theists to think that their science, and no-one else's, takes God into account. It is the same error, in a different and far subtler direction. Both think that evolution is somehow atheistic, that evolution involves drawing a box up around a certain section of nature and saying "Here there is no God". But as we've seen, one simply cannot draw up such a box.

At least the atheists' doubts are excusable; one cannot think God is everywhere in creation if one does not believe there is a God! But the creationists are the ones who really ought to know better. They are like the visitor, who has now insisted that the pasta has no salt while the steak has salt - while all the while we have tried to hammer into his head that there is salt everywhere in this meal. There is either God everywhere or God nowhere. And if they insist that the evolutionists' methodology is atheistic - well, what does that say about their own? Richard Dawkins' "Methinks it is a weasel" program isn't programmed to accommodate the occasional miracle, but then again neither is Baumgardner's "Terra" simulator. Runaway subduction has as little leeway for the breaking of physical laws as radiometric dating or the law of superposition.

Either God is everywhere in science or God can be nowhere in science.