Natural selection v Intelligent design

[pshun2404]

Could you stop misrepresenting my position?

This thread and others are replete with evidence of your misunderstandings. It's not my say so. It's your posts.

I don't know what point pshun2404 thinks he is making or how the links he posted support that point. As I noted before, much of the text appears to be amalgamated from creationist websites that quote selectively from the articles in question.

Rebuttal to what? What am I rebutting? I don't even know what point he is trying to make.

I realize it alludes you. No matter how many times I explain it or give no matter how much evidence for it you will not get it because the ability to reason outside the accepted box has been blocked. We Christians run into this all the time when we confront people inundated with cult logic (like JWs)...they are taught what to think and lose the ability to reason.

So if I say

After years of experimentation and research Professor Harold Blum finally admitted that, “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide…seems impossible” (Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 3rd edition, 1968). Yet he insists it must have. But based on what? Well to be honest we have actually found two or three already formed free floating polypeptides in nature. But were they formed from inanimate matter by chemical coincidence or were they actually the remains of some previously alive creature? Were they even polypeptides suited for life? In over 100 years of research shouldn’t there be many many more if they even remotely explain the presence of the billions just in today’s extant life forms?

Consider just one human body which contains over 100,000 such proteins, with millions of polypeptides, not even taking into account the millions of micro-organisms living in and on it (just this one). And that also allegedly “by chance” these proteins repeated themselves in the billions of humans and all supposedly “coincidentally” all code to the same exact way with the same types of functions and forms, etc., with very precise systemic balance parameters and sensitivities in order to maintain a very limited specified and identical form of necessary homeostasis. Are we really supposed to believe this theory without any actual evidence or proof? Allegedly we are. But if we are being objective how can we? The random chance of this happening in order to produce one human being would be 1 time in 10 with 3,000,000 zeros after it but what about the billions of just humans who ever existed?

The only logical and rational conclusion based on the observable and demonstrable facts is that random chance of a totally natural process of abiogenesis simply cannot be responsible for the presence of life in a Universe even 20 billion years old.

Even simple bacteria, such as Mycoplasma Hominis, having only around 600 different types of proteins, means if life formed from inanimate matter by random coincidence they would have to have had this development from zero protein to functional proteins 600 times simultaneously just for this one creature to even exist. For all its subsystems, which are interdependent and necessary to it even being what it is, we must calculate in hundreds more “random chemical coincidences” into these already astronomically mathematical improbabilities.

We would literally have to calculate the 1 in 10 to the 300th power times a chance of it occurring 600 times just for this one organism. If you then add to this the fact that there are 1,000’s, no 1,000,000’s of just this one creature, then you are even way more outside the possibility curve for it ever having happened in a 20 billion year old Universe.

It is so mathematically improbable, and we have found zero natural occurrences outside of already extant living systems then it seems unlikely by any rational understanding. So it is a billion times more improbable that all these proteins would ever come together and form in their exact functionally interdependent sort of way, not to even consider that they would all form uniquely into these creatures in that specifically purposeful way, then it is to consider they were planned with a purpose.

Instead of speculating on what this actually demonstrates (and the same insight has occurred to many as we have already seen) and considering the dilemma this true and testable fact does to the abiogenesis assumption, you will (as your training/indoctrination demands) refuse to reason and consider the implications of true fact and divert to either its too old (though I gave newer instances) or "he is not an Evolutionary Biologist" or some other nonsense excuse to ignore or discredit or disregard the point (which you will claim either you cannot get or else as being not there).

Same game plan every time no matter what is being discussed, nothing goes in, nothing can be thought about independently, and then you loop right back into your non-informative mostly unsupported mantra...you spend so much time insisting on citations from others but rarely if ever provide any of your own...and then when they provide them you shrink the box of acceptability until all that's left are those very recent people that agree with you. All other scientists (if they consider another perspective) are also discredited, disregarded, or ignored (just like what we confront when trying to reason with cult members). So I should be the one saying to you whats the point...no other possible explanation for the evidence is allowed, no insights are allowed, no independent thought is allowed....many others must have already said it or it is not accepted as plausible (and God forbid is many disagree with these selected chosen frozen)...because suddenly many others saying it first no longer applies...

Functional proteins (that living cells depend on to exist) cannot have arisen from inanimate matter in 13.5 billion years outside a living system.....just really let that sink in....many have done the math....and there are no examples otherwise anywhere in nature we have found....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You seem to think that you are entitled to (wasting) my time. Let me this dispel this for you quickly:

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I realize it alludes you.

Eludes.

Consider just one human body which contains over 100,000 such proteins, with millions of polypeptides, not even taking into account the millions of micro-organisms living in and on it (just this one). And that also allegedly “by chance” these proteins repeated themselves in the billions of humans and all supposedly “coincidentally” all code to the same exact way with the same types of functions and forms, etc., with very precise systemic balance parameters and sensitivities in order to maintain a very limited specified and identical form of necessary homeostasis. Are we really supposed to believe this theory without any actual evidence or proof? Allegedly we are.

No, you're not. Otherwise you'd be asking how two parents can produce offspring that just by chance happen to share their characteristics and grow up to coincidentally have billions of cells, each purely by chance similar to theirs, and that all just happen by chance to be human, and all, by some incredible chance, arranged to make up a human body...etc.

No. Cells contain molecular machines that have evolved to produce the components they require. The very earliest proto-cells would have had very inefficient means of producing the few macromolecules they needed (e.g. no enzymes), but as long as they could replicate occasionally, with some variation, any small improvement would be a major selective advantage. A mechanism to aid polypeptide assembly (and, however seemingly impossible it might be to Professor Harold Blum, peptide bonds do form spontaneously) would be highly conserved, and even minor enhancements (e.g. structural or via enzymatic) would rapidly become the population norm.

If cellular metabolism evolves to assemble, or aid the assembly of, the polypeptides it requires - and it only needs to happen once - talk of blind chance and random coincidence forming those molecules is moot. Even the feeblest advantages in populations of millions or billions under selection will lead to rapid increases in assembly efficiency.

The only logical and rational conclusion based on the observable and demonstrable facts is that random chance of a totally natural process of abiogenesis simply cannot be responsible for the presence of life in a Universe even 20 billion years old.

It only needs to happen once on a planet with oceans full of energetic, mineral-rich aquatic environments, and it has a billion years or so for that to happen. Heritable variation and selection pressure does the rest. Given those odds, it only needs to be energetically possible in some early Earth environment to be almost certain to occur.

Even simple bacteria, such as Mycoplasma Hominis, having only around 600 different types of proteins, means if life formed from inanimate matter by random coincidence they would have to have had this development from zero protein to functional proteins 600 times simultaneously just for this one creature to even exist. For all its subsystems, which are interdependent and necessary to it even being what it is, we must calculate in hundreds more “random chemical coincidences” into these already astronomically mathematical improbabilities.

Not at all; what we see today is the result of over 3 billion years of evolution, producing a highly optimized selection of proteins and the means to construct them. The only random element is the variations in the millions or billions of individuals in each generation which determine the course of succeeding generations. Look how quickly simple bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics - which have only been around 85 years. The stronger the selection pressure (e.g. antibiotic), the faster resistance will evolve - unless you can guarantee to kill them all.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

duplicate

 

[pshun2404]

I realize it alludes you.
Eludes.

Thanks for catching the typo "eludes"

But all of your responses assume prior living systems (of which there is no doubt replication and even some development and speciation)...which are already made of functional proteins...

So what do you think? Did nature bring about the functional proteins to make a cell or did the cell come first? If DNA is required to encode for cellular functional proteins, did it pre-exist the cell? Are there cells before genetic material for it to evolve in? Any thoughts Frum?

 

[stevevw]

It shows that the claim that all of the sources non-creationist was false. Either the poster was unaware of the content of his alleged sources or being less than honest. Either way, if he can't get a simple claim correct we should be be a good bit more skeptical about the more extreme ones - such as implications that scientists have dis-proven evolution.

First off all of pshun2404 are non creationists except for the one from Bio complexity. But even so this is a peer reviewed and open accessed journal that should be able to stand along side any other journal as it is subject to the same rigors as anyone. It bases all of its work on the science and tests and it publishes everything it does for anyone to view and scrutinize just as any other journal does. It is primarily about the science and only science so it would be discriminatory to exclude it based on any indirect connections to religion.

Secondly what it claims is often backed by non creationists work as well so it shows that it is following the evidence that is out there. If it is wrong then it can be challenged and that is what the science is all about. It seems unfair and biased for people to keep homing in on the one link that may have even a slight connection to anything religious and then throw everything out including the non religious work. Or to make a big issue of the non religious work and overlook the rest which sort of creates a distraction away from the facts and evidence.

Lastly its ironic and hypocritical that quite often we find that there is evidence for non religious peer reviewed work to be false and sloppy and people just accept it because its science or from scientists who must be correct no matter what. This shows a massive inconsistency and hypocrisy and shows that even the science can have a false faith and trust of their own just like they claim about religion.

They were mostly uninteresting quote-mining cribbed from creationist propaganda sites. Thanks for asking, though.

See what I mean and I honestly didn't read your next reply.

Are you willing to convert to Einstein's view of god because of his accomplishments as a scientist? If not, why expect than anyone else would care?

I think I already am. Einstein believed there was a God or spirit of some sort. He couldn't deny that the amazing things he seen were just a random act of nature and that there was some intelligence behind it.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
Albert Einstein

 

[stevevw]

From the abstract: "In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution."

As with peer reviewed work it is open to be challenged and that is what Durrett and Schmidt did. But in their effort they actually strengthened Behe's arguments. They themselves had already calculated what they said was n unrealistic amount of time to wait for the two human mutations of 216million years. So still their own work was showing it would take much longer that evolution is said to work. But Behe shows that they had also underestimated things by several magnitudes and have ended up making an even stronger case for what Behe had said in the first place.

Their own model for developing a population genetic model to estimate the waiting time was flawed. Behe draws his calculations from empiracle evidence whereas Durrett and Schmidt make up theirs from their own estimates which are unrealistically assumed considering all the possibilities that could happen. Factoring these back in then shows they underestimate the times by many magnitudes.

Its a bit like most models that are made for evolution. They assume some things are already in their right place and makeup so that it allows their calculations to flow better. They already have their intention in mind and therefore ensure that the conditions will be favorable along the way. But when you look at it for how it would be in a naturalistic environment where all possible situations could occur we begin to see it for what it really is. This is only for two mutations to occur. In other tests which I have posted a few posts back from Doug Axe it has been shown that to evolve 6 or more mutations which are needed to change proteins to create just a simple new function it would take more time than the entire history of the earth existing.

Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 1020. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 1020 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years).

Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 1020 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. Generally, when the results of a simple model disagree with observational data, it is an indication that the model is inadequate. Furthermore, DURRETT and SCHMIDT (2008) err in several ways in applying their model to the PfCRT data:

The difficulty with models such as Durrett and Schmidt’s is that their biological relevance is often uncertain, and unknown factors that are quite important to cellular evolution may be unintentionally left out of the model.
http://www.genetics.org/content/181/2/819.full

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As with peer reviewed work it is open to be challenged and that is what Durrett and Schmidt did. But in their effort they actually strengthened Behe's arguments. They themselves had already calculated what they said was n unrealistic amount of time to wait for the two human mutations of 216million years. So still their own work was showing it would take much longer that evolution is said to work. But Behe shows that they had also underestimated things by several magnitudes and have ended up making an even stronger case for what Behe had said in the first place.

Their own model for developing a population genetic model to estimate the waiting time was flawed. Behe draws his calculations from empiracle evidence whereas Durrett and Schmidt make up theirs from their own estimates which are unrealistically assumed considering all the possibilities that could happen. Factoring these back in then shows they underestimate the times by many magnitudes.

Its a bit like most models that are made for evolution. They assume some things are already in their right place and makeup so that it allows their calculations to flow better. They already have their intention in mind and therefore ensure that the conditions will be favorable along the way. But when you look at it for how it would be in a naturalistic environment where all possible situations could occur we begin to see it for what it really is. This is only for two mutations to occur. In other tests it has been shown that to evolve 6 or more mutations which are needed to change proteins to create just a simple new function it would take more time than the entire history of the earth existing.

No idea how the discussion got onto this. It comes completely left of field.

Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 1020. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 1020 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years).

Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 1020 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. Generally, when the results of a simple model disagree with observational data, it is an indication that the model is inadequate. Furthermore, DURRETT and SCHMIDT (2008) err in several ways in applying their model to the PfCRT data:

The difficulty with models such as Durrett and Schmidt’s is that their biological relevance is often uncertain, and unknown factors that are quite important to cellular evolution may be unintentionally left out of the model.
http://www.genetics.org/content/181/2/819.full

Durrett and Schmidt's response can be found here.

 

[KCfromNC]

No I didn't. Why would you lie like that? Very unbecoming I must say....

It isn't a lie. It is a fact you didn't just come out and admit you couldn't answer my post. You wrote lots of paragraphs of unrelated nonsense to try and hide the fact that you couldn't. It is a pattern in this thread - people ask reasonable questions about your posts and you change the subject.

 

[KCfromNC]

After years of experimentation and research Professor Harold Blum finally admitted that, “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide…seems impossible” (Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 3rd edition, 1968).

Interesting. Wonder why the creationist site you took this from cut out something in the middle of the quote.

Yet he insists it must have. But based on what?

I don't know. How about you post the stuff cut from the quote as well as the paragraphs before and after it. The actual context of the quote might be useful in answering that question - assuming you're really interested. I'd do it for you, but I'm obviously finding a different printing of the book than you're quoting from since the words above aren't found in the copies I've looked up.

And that also allegedly “by chance” these proteins repeated themselves

Please post some links to biology or chemistry textbooks which say that protein chemistry is thought to be random. Here's a helpful hint - you won't find a single one.

Your argument is akin to being shocked that things fall. Every time I drop a book it hits the floor. But what are the odds? If I ignore everything we know about gravity, golly gee, it could have ended up anywhere. It could have stayed in place, floated to a wall, hung around 3" off the ceiling. There's an infinite number of positions and orientations is could have ended up in, and yet it always falls down. Think about how unlikely that is.

The conclusion you'd want us to draw from that fact is that physics is wrong and god must be intelligently pushing things to the ground, just like it is intelligently putting together every individual bit of DNA for each cell which reproduces. Since it can't be "random", it's all magic. You're ignoring the obvious - natural non-random processes exist.

 

[KCfromNC]

First off all of pshun2404 are non creationists except for the one from Bio complexity.

So he was only somewhat wrong in the easy stuff we can all check. Glad we agree.

Secondly what it claims is often backed by non creationists work as well so it shows that it is following the evidence that is out there.

Sure. In this case it has nothing to do with creationism or disproving evolution at all, out-of context quotes nonwithstanding.

Lastly its ironic and hypocritical that quite often we find that there is evidence for non religious peer reviewed work to be false and sloppy and people just accept it because its science or from scientists who must be correct no matter what.

This sounds like a failing on your part. Don't project it onto others.

I think I already am. Einstein believed

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Fair enough. If this is really what you agree with looks like it is time to change your faith description.

 

[pshun2404]

The conclusion you'd want us to draw from that fact is that physics is wrong and god must be intelligently pushing things to the ground, just like it is intelligently putting together every individual bit of DNA for each cell which reproduces. Since it can't be "random", it's all magic. You're ignoring the obvious - natural non-random processes exist.

Again this is not anything like what I said or implied. Physics is not wrong (though all theories are not correct). Physics in fact works on the premise that the Universe is very lawful and that all things that are effect have a cause. It notes, discovers, and works with reliable laws and principles that guide actions. The second absurd lie is that I said if it is not random (which it clearly is not) then it must be magic. How foolish is that...

Also the "simple questions" you were referring to were "his" (Arche's) not yours...what I am saying is that many scientists are seeing or have seen that the math does not fit the explanation (that's all) and that information precedes form and function....information is NOT matter or energy, so...therefore an intangible precedes and effects the tangible outcome. I never mentioned "God"....or "magic"...it is all about something quite natural....

no DNA no functional Proteins,
no cells not dependent on functional proteins for their existence,
however no cell no DNA...

So in my opinion based on 20 years of study there are no cells evolving from inanimate matter by chance...none are nor fif they ever do so and there is not one iota of proof or evidence they ever did...so why should we but into that mythos...it is cool science fiction I admit but thats all it is...

 

[bhsmte]

The conclusion you'd want us to draw from that fact is that physics is wrong and god must be intelligently pushing things to the ground, just like it is intelligently putting together every individual bit of DNA for each cell which reproduces. Since it can't be "random", it's all magic. You're ignoring the obvious - natural non-random processes exist.

Again this is not anything like what I said or implied. Physics is not wrong (though all theories are not correct). Physics in fact works on the premise that the Universe is very lawful and that all things that are effect have a cause. It notes, discovers, and works with reliable laws and principles that guide actions. The second absurd lie is that I said if it is not random (which it clearly is not) then it must be magic. How foolish is that...

Also the "simple questions" you were referring to were "his" (Arche's) not yours...what I am saying is that many scientists are seeing or have seen that the math does not fit the explanation (that's all) and that information precedes form and function....information is NOT matter or energy, so...therefore an intangible precedes and effects the tangible outcome. I never mentioned "God"....or "magic"...it is all about something quite natural....

no DNA no functional Proteins,
no cells not dependent on functional proteins for their existence,
however no cell no DNA...

So in my opinion based on 20 years of study there are no cells evolving from inanimate matter by chance...none are nor fif they ever do so and there is not one iota of proof or evidence they ever did...so why should we but into that mythos...it is cool science fiction I admit but thats all it is...

Which theories do you deem "not correct" and why?

 

[stevevw]

No idea how the discussion got onto this. It comes completely left of field.

Durrett and Schmidt's response can be found here.

I think this was one of pshun2404 posts in which you has shown Behe to be shown wrong by Durrett and Schmidt. I was responding to the post to show how Behe had replied with another paper showing how Durrett and Schmidt were wrong about their calculations of Behes original paper. Then Durrett and Schmidt's come back again to show how Behe is wrong for thinking they were wrong. Now Behe just has to come back to show how they were wrong for thinking he was wrong again. Thats how it works. But it still doesn't change the fact that even Durrett and Schmidt calculated what they had said was an unrealistically long time for the mutations to form.

 

[asherahSamaria]

The conclusion you'd want us to draw from that fact is that physics is wrong and god must be intelligently pushing things to the ground, just like it is intelligently putting together every individual bit of DNA for each cell which reproduces. Since it can't be "random", it's all magic. You're ignoring the obvious - natural non-random processes exist.

Again this is not anything like what I said or implied. Physics is not wrong (though all theories are not correct). Physics in fact works on the premise that the Universe is very lawful and that all things that are effect have a cause. It notes, discovers, and works with reliable laws and principles that guide actions. The second absurd lie is that I said if it is not random (which it clearly is not) then it must be magic. How foolish is that...

Also the "simple questions" you were referring to were "his" (Arche's) not yours...what I am saying is that many scientists are seeing or have seen that the math does not fit the explanation (that's all) and that information precedes form and function....information is NOT matter or energy, so...therefore an intangible precedes and effects the tangible outcome. I never mentioned "God"....or "magic"...it is all about something quite natural....

no DNA no functional Proteins,
no cells not dependent on functional proteins for their existence,
however no cell no DNA...

So in my opinion based on 20 years of study there are no cells evolving from inanimate matter by chance...none are nor fif they ever do so and there is not one iota of proof or evidence they ever did...so why should we but into that mythos...it is cool science fiction I admit but thats all it is...

"that all things that are effect have a cause." How do you explain quantum mechanics where there is no cause and effect?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think this was one of pshun2404 posts in which you has shown Behe to be shown wrong by Durrett and Schmidt. I was responding to the post to show how Behe had replied with another paper showing how Durrett and Schmidt were wrong about their calculations of Behes original paper. Then Durrett and Schmidt's come back again to show how Behe is wrong for thinking they were wrong. Now Behe just has to come back to show how they were wrong for thinking he was wrong again. Thats how it works. But it still doesn't change the fact that even Durrett and Schmidt calculated what they had said was an unrealistically long time for the mutations to form.

Has Behe returned with a comment? Is this an ongoing area of research? And I'm still not seeing the relevance.

 

[stevevw]

So he was only somewhat wrong in the easy stuff we can all check. Glad we agree.

I dont understand. What easy stuff we can all check. If you want to check out any of the papers you can. They are all subject to the same open access and peer reviewed criteria no matter where they come from.

Sure. In this case it has nothing to do with creationism or disproving evolution at all, out-of context quotes nonwithstanding

No the bio complexity paper does have a lot to do with proving that evolution may be unlikely. It is saying in the test they had done on bacteria that the likelihood of producing the several mutations needed to make a small change of function in the proteins would not happen in the entire history of the planet earth existing. In other words you may as well say its impossible.

This sounds like a failing on your part. Don't project it onto others.

No its a failing of the system really. It has allowed work that is wrong or sloppy to be passed off as good science. This is then used as evidence for various things such as for funding or for anyone who wants to use it for backing up their claims. So even though people say science seeks the truth and is the only way to find the facts its also the people behind the science who can be unreliable or deceptive. Just because they are scientists doesn't mean they are can be subject to wrong doings. But some will automatically trust them just because they think its science or that scientists are always right. That in itself is a form of faith.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
http://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."[/quote]Thats fair enough and you are entitled to your opinion. For many the bible is different things for different people. Many archeologists use the bible as a source for their digs. The bible has been very reliable for revealing the life and times of civilization back in those times and most of the bible has been verified by the archeology digs in finding the places, people and artifacts that are mentioned in the bible.

As far as the stories well thats something for each of us to look at and consider. Its not meant to be a history and scientific lesson. It is a divine message about God and his love for us. It is written by humans about how they seen God and so we have to see how they seen things in those lives and times.

Fair enough. If this is really what you agree with looks like it is time to change your faith description.

Einstein is talking about there being something more than the science he used so often. He more than most was looking at Gods creation and seeing something there that was more than just the maths and materialism. He knew that there was something great behind everything because it was too magnificent and complex and has a design about it that could have just happened by a naturalistic self creating process.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Einstein is talking about there being something more than the science he used so often. He more than most was looking at Gods creation and seeing something there that was more than just the maths and materialism. He knew that there was something great behind everything because it was too magnificent and complex and has a design about it that could have just happened by a naturalistic self creating process.

 

[stevevw]

Yes he was an enigmatic man but he definitely thought there was something behind the science. He could see that both the science and belief were important.

I like someone like Tesla who had this insight into the power of things beyond what we see. He realized that there was this practical power in which we could tap into to have an effect on our lives both scientifically and spiritually.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes he was an enigmatic man but he definitely thought there was something behind the science. He could see that both the science and belief were important.