National Academy of Sciences says about creation of the universe by Go

betsy · March 26, 2016

I have seen no proof. And trust me. I would love to believe in a god but it ain't happening for me.

To each his own, WestCoastRunner.

This topic is not about converting you to my point of view....or to believe in God.

I'm simply posting what the National Academy of Sciences is publicly stating regarding the many evidences that support Creation by God.....based on scientific findings!

I'm trying to engage thinking minds to read what's being blatantly stated - and left unsaid - between the lines.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

betsy · March 26, 2016

Seems to me no God is the default. Atheists don't have to prove anything.

Well actually....someone who's making an assertion that's contradictory to fact.....has the proof of burden.

If science says it's a fact that there are many evidences to support Creation by God as shown in many areas of science......anyone who contradicts that has to prove the basis for their stance.

So far, all I've read from atheists are the predictable knee-jerk responses that don't really tackle the issue. But, it's interesting how something so simply stated by the NAS can be so muddled in all sorts of ways....suddenly, a simple statement in laymen's terms is so complicated to understand.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

betsy · March 26, 2016

93% of the National Academy of Science are atheists The notion that the text Betsy has quoted is a declaration of an official position on the existence of God is hilarious.

-k

You should re-read the statement, Kimmy.

And no, that percentage is wrong. A recent research study by Elaine Ecklund had revealed:

50 percent of scientists identify with a religious label, and nearly one in five is actively involved in a house of worship, attending services more than once a month.

While many scientists are completely secular, my survey results show that elite scientists are also sitting in the pews of our nation’s churches, temples and mosques.

Of the atheist and agnostic scientists I had in-depth conversations with, more than 30 percent considered themselves atheists; however, less than six percent of these were actively working against religion.

Many atheist and agnostic scientists even think key mysteries about the world can be best understood spiritually, and some attend houses of worship, completely comfortable with religion as moral training for their children and an alternative form of community.

about one-fifth of the atheist scientists I spoke with say they consider themselves “spiritual atheists.” Perhaps their stories are the most interesting. One chemist I talked with does not believe in God, yet she says she craves a sense of something beyond herself that provides a feeling of purpose and meaning and a moral compass.

Within their scientific communities, religious scientists tend to practice what I call a “secret spirituality.” They are reluctant to talk about religious or spiritual ideas with their colleagues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/the-contours-of-what-scie_b_611905.html

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

betsy · March 26, 2016

Since the NAS doesn't have an official position, I certainly don't feel threatened by it.

Depends how you understand "official position."

Here's what's at the bottom of the NAS statement:

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

Quotes from: 1999 report "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition" which is available online from the National Academy Press: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024

When you see a statement by the National Academy of Sciences being quoted in an FAQ section that's addressed to the public, and it gives the source for that statement - Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences - that makes it their official position.

What do you think? They're saying they've got the scientific facts to prove it, and they made a public declaration of it - and you think that's not an official position??? :rolleyes:

They're publicly stating that there are numerous evidences for Creation by God (Theistic Evolution). FYI, making a public statement such as that, is making it, official.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

betsy · March 26, 2016

The 93% figure is something I'd heard kicked around before... it appears to come from the survey referenced here.

The actual figures are 7% believe in god, 72% don't believe in god, 21% agnostic or doubting.

-k

Did you check out the date of that survey?

Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

betsy · March 26, 2016

Since the NAS doesn't have an official position, I certainly don't feel threatened by it.

The quote is what it is, but it certainly isn't what you and betsy claim it is.

The 93% figure is something I'd heard kicked around before... it appears to come from the survey referenced here.

The actual figures are 7% believe in god, 72% don't believe in god, 21% agnostic or doubting.

-k

Anyway, why is it so important to you how many scientists actually believe in God or not? What's that got to do with the NAS statement?

The NAS had made their public statement regardless of the numbers of atheists among their members! The NAS had spoken as an organizational body - and it speaks for its members, regardless whether they're all atheists or not!

You bring up a non-issue. You seem to be grasping for straws....you seem desperate....which means somehow, you do feel threatened by that NAS statement.

Who cares if they're all atheists, Kimmy. That's not the issue, is it?

It's all about the NAS statement! It's all about scientific findings, Kimmy! That's the fact. That's the issue.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

betsy · March 26, 2016

I already posted a link to the publication from which betsy's quote is cropped. You're welcome to look through that and find any such declaration. I doubt you'll even try, because you know full-well that you won't find one. Which is why you're now throwing out more red herring than a Norwegian trawler.
-k

And I've shown how you misunderstood what you've read from your own link! You gave this as your rebuttal, arguing that the views expressed do not reflect that of the NAS. You didn't understand your own rebuttal:

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations that provided financial support for this project.

http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/1#iii

That disclaimer was not referring to the National Academy of Sciences! It refers to the donors and those who gave financial support! Go ahead, read it again! It doesn't say what you think it says!

Here is the title of that project:

Science and Creationism

A View from the National Academy of Sciences

SECOND EDITION

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

National Academy of sciences • National Academy of Engineering • Institute of Medicine • National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS

Washington, DC

1999

http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/1

See that? A view from the National Academy of Sciences! They're claiming it!

Therefore, you didn't give any rebuttals at all! You didn't understand what you gave......mistakenly thinking it's a rebuttal!

It's not.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

waldo · March 26, 2016

Did you check out the date of that survey?

Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

did you check out the 1999 date of that "View from the National Academy of Sciences"... the one your profiled quotes are taken from? You know, the one you subsequently highlight yourself in this post?

Here is the title of that project:

Science and Creationism

A View from the National Academy of Sciences

SECOND EDITION

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

National Academy of sciences • National Academy of Engineering • Institute of Medicine • National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS

Washington, DC

1999 {waldo: bold red colour highlight added}

.

betsy · March 26, 2016

did you check out the 1999 date of that "View from the National Academy of Sciences"... the one your profiled quotes are taken from? You know, the one you subsequently highlight yourself in this post?

.

Not comparable, Waldo. Kimmy is talking surveys. The date matters, especially when there are latest surveys.

The NAS views are about scientific findings.

You saying what we think of gravity should be obsolete because of the date?

Until science discovers otherwise.....scientific findings remain as is. So far, the NASA FAQ section still uses the NAS statement....so it still stands.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

waldo · March 26, 2016

Not comparable, Waldo. Kimmy is talking surveys. The date matters, especially when there are latest surveys.

The NAS views are about scientific findings.

you should save yourself further embarrassment and actually read the NAS 'view' paper... although I expect you'll simply read what you want into it. As below, the closing statement from the chapter of your emphasized quote:

The arguments of creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of "special creation" reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible.

or the statement from the concluding chapter:

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

.

Edited March 26, 2016 by waldo

betsy · March 26, 2016

you should save yourself further embarrassment and actually read the NAS 'view' paper... although I expect you'll simply read what you want into it. As below, the closing statement from the chapter of your emphasized quote:

.

Do I sound like I feel embarassed at all? What's there to be embarrassed about?

I'm not the one making mistakes and having such difficulty understanding a simple statement, and being proven wrong.

Don't just read the closing chapter. You should go back further than that, then you'll understand what they mean by "creationism."

Here:

The advocates of "creation science" hold a variety of viewpoints. Some claim that Earth and the universe are relatively young, perhaps only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. These individuals often believe that the present physical form of Earth can be explained by "catastrophism," including a worldwide flood, and that all living things (including humans) were created miraculously, essentially in the forms we now find them.

Other advocates of creation science are willing to accept that Earth, the planets, and the stars may have existed for millions of years. But they argue that the various types of organisms, and especially humans, could only have come about with supernatural intervention, because they show "intelligent design."

In this booklet, both these "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" views are referred to as "creationism" or "special creation."

http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/3#7

You could say that anyone who takes the Book of Genesis literally, is whom they refer to when they talk about "creationism."

However, we're talking about Theistic Evolution - the belief that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

The NAS holds that view that I posted, on the very same page as that link.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

waldo · March 26, 2016

Do I sound like I feel embarassed at all? What's there to be embarrassed about?

I'm not the one making mistakes and having such difficulty understanding a simple statement, and being proven wrong.

However, we're talking about Theistic Evolution

theistic evolution... you mean 'theistic science creationism'? :lol: Like I said, "I expect you'll simply read what you want into it"

you said, "I'm simply posting what the National Academy of Sciences is publicly stating regarding the many evidences that support Creation by God.....based on scientific findings!".

can you provide evidence examples from the 'NAS view' paper... those you state are based on scientific findings!?

.

betsy · March 26, 2016

theistic evolution... you mean 'theistic science creationism'? Like I said, "I expect you'll simply read what you want into it"

you said, "I'm simply posting what the National Academy of Sciences is publicly stating regarding the many evidences that support Creation by God.....based on scientific findings!".

can you provide evidence examples from the 'NAS view' paper... those you state are based on scientific findings!?

.

The NAS simple statement speaks for itself, Waldo.

If you want details about those scientific findings, you should contact the NAS (maybe they'll point you to a site, or send you a copy of their findings).....after all, it was the NAS that made the statement about the various evidences supporting Creation by God. I simply posted their statement.

I guess we're done here......for now.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

Moonlight Graham · March 26, 2016

Sorry but NASA is wrong in this case.

betsy · March 26, 2016

Sorry but NASA is wrong in this case.

What do you mean? Explain.

kimmy · March 26, 2016

sdfsdf

Read it again!

".....many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

What are those facts?

1. Theistic Evolution ((the belief that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution), is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

2. That, INDEED....There are many evidences to support Theistic Evolution (reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the PHYSICAL universe), which are revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines!

No, your paraphrasing of point #2 is wrong. They are saying that science reveals the remarkable character of the universe, which "many" scientists attribute to God, but MANY OTHERS do NOT.

Science cannot come right out and say, "God exists!" The supernatural is beyond the realm of science.

THEREFORE, you use your logic!

If science says, Theistic Evolution is not in disagreement with the scientific explanations of evolution, and that in fact, there are many evidences that support Theistic Evolution (God created the universe) .....what logical person wouldn't take that as the death knell for atheism?

Logically, if there is evidence for Theistic Evolution (God created the universe....) - and science says there are many evidences - of course that means there's definitely evidence supporting the existence of God!

Really.....how can anyone say there is evidence supporting creation by God, and yet there is no evidence to support the existence of said Creator?

Just think about it! It's so simple: if you have evidences that say a baker had baked this cake, of course that means the Baker must exist!

If there are evidences that support creation by God.......God has to exist!

Think about this. Think of all the years you've been coming to this message board trying to convince people that God exists, posting the latest arguments from all your websites... and now you're trying to peddle the notion that this debate was actually already settled in 1998?

You're telling us that the National Academy of Science found evidence for God's existence... and they buried it on page 7 of a minor publication?

Do you think such an astounding announcement just went unnoticed for 20 years until you discovered it by chance in the FAQ on the web-page of a NASA space-probe that went off-line in 2010?

Don't you think such a significant announcement would have made headlines? That it would have been trumpeted from the rooftops by the religious community? That the websites you get your pro-Creation information from would have mentioned it?

Don't you think all of this just defies logic?

Don't you think the far more likely explanation is that you simply misinterpreted what the quote actually means?

For me and I'm sure everybody else as well, the latter explanation is the one that makes sense.

-k

betsy · March 26, 2016

sdfsdf

No, your paraphrasing of point #2 is wrong. They are saying that science reveals the remarkable character of the universe, which "many" scientists attribute to God, but MANY OTHERS do NOT.

You're taking it out of context (to suit what you want to see), when you edit the specific descriptive term, PHYSICAL, from the statement.

It's really a no brainer statement in its simplicity. Here's the verbatim statement again:

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

When science says, "revealed," it means it's been observed and studied (and everything else that's done by scientists) for the NAS to make such a factual declaration.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

betsy · March 26, 2016

Think about this. Think of all the years you've been coming to this message board trying to convince people that God exists, posting the latest arguments from all your websites... and now you're trying to peddle the notion that this debate was actually already settled in 1998?

:lol:

Oh my goodness.....

Doesn't matter how many posts I made. I posted topics and gave arguments. Doesn't matter whether you agree or not with the subject or the arguments.....that's just how a forum is!

By the way you're showing such difficulty in understanding a simple statement, and you're going through all these non-issues (even the amount of posts I'd made) - which is the most pathetic rebuttal I've ever seen - I don't even want to take you seriously and waste my time with your silly comments.

Until you've got something substantial that's worth responding to.....I'll have to ignore you for now, Kimmy. I think you should take the time to sit down and take several deep breathes. Like I've said, the NAS statement is a big shock for some. I've had some oppositions incoherently sputtering in other boards.

cybercoma · March 26, 2016

Please, don't even bring up that term, "reasonably," here, when your out-of topic response is not being reasonable at all.

Deal with the issue, Cyber. We're talking about Theistic Evolution - the belief that God created the universe and all the process......etc.,

Science says there are numerous evidences supporting this. From various areas of science.

Science doesn't say there's evidence for this anywhere. You posted things that say belief in a creator is not incompatible with science and evolution. That's entirely different than saying science says God created the universe.

kimmy · March 26, 2016

You're taking it out of context (to suit what you want to see), when you edit the specific descriptive term, PHYSICAL, from the statement.

It's really a no brainer statement in its simplicity. Here's the verbatim statement again:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

When science says, "revealed," it means it's been observed and studied (and everything else that's done by scientists) for the NAS to make such a factual declaration.

The statement is simple, but it's not me that's misinterpreted it, it is you. You can post it as many times as you want, and it won't change that.

Here is what it says has been "revealed":

"Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

Some scientists see god's hand in this, but others clearly do not.

You keep going on about this "scientific evidence" in favor of theistic evolution. What is it?

This seemingly enormous statement from NAS was made nearly 20 years ago, but nobody in the field of Christian Apologetics seems to be presenting this alleged evidence. "Intelligent Design Scientists" like the Discovery Institute haven't been able to identify this evidence. What "scientific evidence" are you actually talking about?

-k

Big Guy · March 26, 2016

I remember attending a lecture by a well known scientist who was asked in the post presentation question period, "Do you believe in a God?" He answered, "When we scientists are able to explain infinity and draw a picture of the universe then we will not need faith"

“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” - Isaac Newton

cybercoma · March 26, 2016

And saying scientists 'believe' that there is a god, is not genuine scientific proof that there is a god as science does not deal with the supernatural which you obviously understand.

The other gods thing is important because the academy described deism, which is not theism as I said earlier. The deity who set things in motion is not necessarily the Abrahamic God that Betsy believes in because that God is an intercessory power who answers prayers and is involved in the world. There is no evidence for a specific God or any God at all for that matter. The fact is the origins of life and the universe are still debated, as such putting God in the gaps makes a belief in God not incompatible with science. Of course, the issue is that the gaps get smaller and smaller as scientific knowledge progresses.

March 26, 2016

I've had some oppositions incoherently sputtering in other boards.

Yeah, that's not surprising.

It's actually quite interesting the way you manage to see what just isn't there. I suppose that's what faith is.

GostHacked · March 26, 2016

Oh my goodness.....

Doesn't matter how many posts I made. I posted topics and gave arguments. Doesn't matter whether you agree or not with the subject or the arguments.....that's just how a forum is!

Yes. that is how a forum works. You asked, and you got responses, however not the responses you were looking for. You are not looking for opinions on what atheist think.

By the way you're showing such difficulty in understanding a simple statement, and you're going through all these non-issues (even the amount of posts I'd made) - which is the most pathetic rebuttal I've ever seen - I don't even want to take you seriously and waste my time with your silly comments.

What is pathetic is your lack of understanding of what science is and how it differs from belief. Otherwise, you are simply trolling.

Until you've got something substantial that's worth responding to.....I'll have to ignore you for now, Kimmy. I think you should take the time to sit down and take several deep breathes. Like I've said, the NAS statement is a big shock for some. I've had some oppositions incoherently sputtering in other boards.

Do you want to discuss what NAS said or are you interested in what athiests think?

betsy · March 26, 2016

The statement is simple, but it's not me that's misinterpreted it, it is you. You can post it as many times as you want, and it won't change that.

Here is what it says has been "revealed":

"Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

What is that "it?" Theistic Evolution.

Theistic Evolution, in fact, reflects the character of the PHYSICAL universe, and that has been revealed by various areas of science. Why do they have to specify physical? Because they can only observe/study/analyze the physical.

Those observations/studies/researches/analyses had revealed evidences for Theistic Evolution.

Some scientists see god's hand in this, but others clearly do not.

Doesn't matter even if most scientists don't see the hand of God in it. It's not about what they see. It's about the scientific findings, which the NAS says support Theistic Evolution.

Kimmy, you're not grasping this.

You keep going on about this "scientific evidence" in favor of theistic evolution. What is it?

Contact the NAS and ask for details about them. They're the ones who issued the statement.

This seemingly enormous statement from NAS was made nearly 20 years ago,

So what? I accidentally stumbled upon that FAQ section only sometime last year!

Perhaps you've been too engrossed with Dawkins' propaganda, Could it be that you've been gorging on his anti-God spews, and completely swallowed his rhetorics hook, line and sinker so to speak, that science and religion don't jive.....thus something like this coming from the NAS is just so unbelievable to you.

You're in a state of shock, by the looks of it.

That statement could be a century old, it doesn't matter. It's still being used in the NASA FAQ section, and the NAS booklet is still apparently available......therefore it still stands. Oh boy..... :lol:

but nobody in the field of Christian Apologetics seems to be presenting this alleged evidence. "Intelligent Design Scientists" like the Discovery Institute haven't been able to identify this evidence. What "scientific evidence" are you actually talking about?

I can't speak for them. Why don't you go ask them?

Could it be that perhaps Intelligent Design scientists have problems with the theory of evolution itself? Or as the NAS Booklet itself had mentioned (if you even bother reading it), the NAS doesn't acknowledge Intelligent Design as science.....clearly, there's some problems between them.

Anyway, the issue is about Theistic Evolution. I'm not talking about Intelligent Design.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy