A Jerusalem exhibit of Isaac Newton's manuscripts has some newly-discovered papers showing Newton's calculations of the exact date of the Apocalypse. Using the Book of Daniel, Newton argues that the world will end not earlier than 2060. "It may end later," Newton writes, "but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophecies into discredit as often as their predictions fail." Newton also interprets biblical prophecy to say that the Jews would return to the holy land before the world ends.
Yemima Ben-Manehem, curator of the exhibit, remarks that "these documents show a scientist guided by religious fervor, by a desire to see God's actions in the world." Newton's massive corpus of work reveals that he wrote almost as much about Scripture as he did about science, and indeed he saw his discoveries as showing the handiwork of the divine creator. All of which raises the interesting question: if arguably the greatest scientist of all time was such a fervent believer, indeed if most of the great scientists of the past five hundred years have been practicing Christians, what can we make of the insistence by contemporary atheist writers--from Dawkins to Pinker to Hitchens--that there has been an unceasing war between science and religion?
The atheist case relies on a few key episodes, mostly involving Darwin and Galileo. In my forthcoming book What's So Great About Christianity I will show that these episodes have been ideologically manipulated, and that the "lessons" drawn from them are largely fictitious. Here's a small example of that. We have all heard about the famous showdown between "Darwin's bulldog" Thomas Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. When Wilberforce asked Huxley whether he was descended from an ape on his grandfather's side or his grandmother's side, Huxley famously responded that he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a cleric who used his learning to prejudice people against scientific discoveries. The only problem with this incident is that it seems not to have occurred. Huxley apparently made it up to make himself look good. It's not reported in the minutes of the scientific association meeting. Darwin's friend, the botanist Joseph Hooker, was present at the debate. He gave Darwin a full account, which says nothing about Wilberforce's alleged jibe or Huxley's supposed rejoinder. In fact, Hooker told Darwin that Huxley had failed to answer Wilberforce's arguments so that he (Hooker) felt compelled to come to Darwin's defense. Nevertheless Huxley's winning rebuttal lives on in atheist propaganda.
Are science and religion compatible? Don't ask Dawkins and Hitchens, ask Isaac Newton.
Reader Comments ( Page 10 of 11)
136. Wow. There have been a lot of comments today about things I have posted here. And if I tried to comment on them all I would be here posting blogs all evening. That's not to say that I don't want to. The Lord has set before me other tasks which take precedence over this. I found myself on here for 3 hours last night and got nothing done that I needed to. This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart but the Lord has told me that it is not my time. I will admit that I am a little annoyed about some people putting words in my mouth. And also those who treat me with contempt. Does my belief in a Creator automatically make me stupid, moronic, ignorant, simple-minded or any other label that people like myself normally get catorgorized as. No offense, but none of you know me, where or how I was raised, what kind of education I have, what kind of job I do, or what kind of person I am in general. To Wes: You have been saying that even though you weren't here 65 million years ago that your sure it was here and that even though you didn't see a t-rex drink water your sure that he did. I too can understand this concept. I have never seen God but I'm sure he exists. I choose to live by faith. I cannot prove to you that God exists. I could only tell you of the personal relationship I have with him and the personal encounters I have had with him. But what good is this to you having not experienced this relationship for yourself?
What would you say to the scientists with PHD's who are currently working at major public university's who are skeptical of evolution and(or)believe in creation compared to a "commoner" like me. There are many who believe as such. "Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." -Larry Hatfield in Science Digest.
Here is a list: www.creationinfo.com/list.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html
"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.
Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
If so simply answer the following questions: they should be easy for you to answer. follow the link. http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/strikes_back.htm
I want to leave you with 2 scriptures.
2 Peter 3:3-5, "Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. For this they are willingly ignorant: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water."
And
"... God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
Romans 1:19-20 NIV
Josh at 9:28PM on Jun 20th 2007
137. To Josh
" Does my belief in a Creator automatically make me stupid, moronic, ignorant, simple-minded or any other label that people like myself normally get catorgorized as."
Yes.
"What would you say to the scientists with PHD's who are currently working at major public university's who are skeptical of evolution and(or)believe in creation compared to a "commoner" like me"
They're idiots.
"Henry Morris, former evolutionist."
1. He always was a cretinist.
2. Why do cretinists/christians think that saying "former evolutionist/former atheist" means something?
"I want to leave you with 2 scriptures."
Bible babble--how quaint. You realize that bible babble gets you nowhere, and in no way proves anything other than how dumb you are to think that you can quote the bible and all will be proven for your side.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 9:58PM on Jun 20th 2007
138.
Josh-
I already answered all of those questions in previous comments, they are either misinterpretations of science or complete and utter falsehoods.
"I will admit that I am a little annoyed about some people putting words in my mouth. And also those who treat me with contempt. Does my belief in a Creator automatically make me stupid, moronic, ignorant, simple-minded or any other label that people like myself normally get catorgorized as. No offense, but none of you know me, where or how I was raised, what kind of education I have, what kind of job I do, or what kind of person I am in general."
Your belief in a Creator does not make you stupid, ignorant, or dishonest: Your arguments against evolution do. There is room for evolution and a Creator as well, and while the existence of a Creator is a matter of personal belief, evolution is indisputable fact.
Whatever education you have, it clearly wasn't enough as far as evolution was concerned, because you believe the Creationist arguments I and various others have already debunked here. In fact, I made an explicit point to address all of your concerns with evolution in a previous response, including most of the objections in the link you provided, a post which apparently you chose to willfully ignore.
I think you are a very dishonest person for perpetuating these falsehoods about evolution, that's all I really know about you. It has nothing to do with your faith, and everything to do with you lying about science. Perhaps you should read back a little bit in the comments to prove that you aren't willfully ignorant of this subject, and respond to the merits of my argument against those typical creationist claims. If you don't do that and acknowledge the responses to your accusations about evolution, you're a liar who knows he is telling lies, and I'm pretty sure that's not a very Christian thing to do.
Also, there are not "lots of credible scientists out there who flat out reject evolution". There are a lot of fake scientists (a.k.a. Creationists with fake degrees from fake schools like Patriot University) out there, but their arguments have no merit, and that's why the theory still stands and is excepted by virtually the entire scientific community.
Peter at 10:38PM on Jun 20th 2007
139. @ Josh (comment 133)
"The Lord has set before me other tasks which take precedence over this. ...This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart but the Lord has told me that it is not my time."
Wow! indeed! Josh... I'd just like to mention, you know, unless the Lord hasn't clued you in yet... this IS the 21st. Century.
What I'm saying is, if you have something better to do or something that you need to do... don't blame God or Jesus.
Gotta tell you though... I was (>this
pboyfloyd at 11:29PM on Jun 20th 2007
140. Sorry Dinesh but on this we disagree. From the moment our remote anscestors evolved into beings with enough intelligence to observe nature, they started to make deuctions about the operation of the universe based on their limited understanding of how things work. As knowledge unfolded and we gained a clearer understanding of the mechanical and physical processes at work the supernatural aspects of explaining things subsided. The time between newton and the present has seen an explosion of knowledge that Newton couldn't have conceived of. If he were alive alive today, given his intelligence and quest for understanding of the truth of how things are, I believe he would conform his beliefs to reality. At any rate, I don't take stock in basing my belief system on the subjective conclusions of even the brightest people. Reasonable people, even very intelligent ones, still have great capacity for error.
eric at 9:52AM on Jun 21st 2007
141. Poor Dinesh, goes to one character, one episode and then proceeds to expound, not paying much attention to anything else which does not conform to his previously arrived at conclusion (except to dismiss them). One could almost feel sorry for such people if they did not constantly come on these sites displaying such ignorance, and even boasting about it and promoting their shallow intellects in such wared as books.
Of course, the gentleman has every right to do so. We can only wish that he took some pride in what he writes and publishes. He might even come to the realization that Newton did not exist in a vacuum, nor did he seriously question religion, as it was not safe to do so during that period.
Quoting names of famous people whose contributions to human advancement have absolutely nothing to do with their specialty does not enhance one's own credibility. It is first necessary to prove that one understands such people and their philosophies, not merely use their names so as to impress.
If I might make a suggestion to Mr. D'Souza, something I have learned over 65 years. "Those who seek to impress are always the least impressive, and those who need to be impressed are not worth impressing."
RLaitres at 9:28PM on Jun 22nd 2007
142. Anyone care to explain why these mysterious Newton Apocalypse papers still remain tantalyzingly mysterious?
Mr. D'Souza proudly claims Newton solidly on the side of God(Yahweh) with scientifically religious or religiously scientific calculations that reveal the date(sort of) of the Apocalypse.
I gotta tell ya that I remain as skeptical as any reasonable person ought to be.
It is interesting(as DD loves to say) that these papers can only be glimpsed on the site DD's post links to.
Apparently these papers are too precious or HOLY to be shown in a way that it is readable to everyone.
Mystery religions are so full of shit.
Come on DD, link us all to this mysterious 'truth' of Newton's... I challenge you.
pboyfloyd at 4:37PM on Jun 22nd 2007
143. Uh oh... here they are... get ready to convert to Christianity folks...
http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/newton/exhibition_eng.html
I haven't read any of this 'gold' yet.. but the titles of the articles are so 'scientific' by themselves... they are laughable.
In his paper called Apocalypse I... he 'proposes' that the Seven Trumpets are the same as the Seven Vials... blah blah blah
It is all typical meaningless drivel, which is why, no doubt that DD didn't link to it, that much is obvious.
pboyfloyd at 4:58PM on Jun 22nd 2007
144. I'm amazed in all the speculation between God and science, I'm mean if the maker (GOD) wants to create something beautiful (the universe) should not HE be able to and we the created just be able to analyze and in awh just enjoy, knowing someone is in control after all!
djmoore at 5:14PM on Jun 22nd 2007
145. @ djmoore (comment 140)
This is all well and good for you to partition Christianity away from some possible, more generalized GOD but it doesn't change the fact that the large majority of believers living in the Americas(the entire continents) are, in fact Christians.
Mr. D'Souza, in this post at least is refering to Christianity(or Christendom) when he is using the more general term 'religion'.
This is simpy disingenuous of both you and DD to move from 'religion' in general to Christianity in particular, at will.
Are you not noticing the tendency of Christians to back up their own religion by changing the subject to a GOD of religion in general?
Perhaps this technique is unintentional and naive of you Christians but it is definitely disingenuous of Christians to 'move goalposts' like this constantly.
Why do I say that this post must be dealing with Christians?
Mr. D'Souza says this, "All of which raises the interesting question: if arguably the greatest scientist of all time was such a fervent believer, indeed if most of the great scientists of the past five hundred years have been practicing Christians..."
If Mr. D'Souza is not trying to use Newton to back up Christianity here, he is being deliberately obscure and deceitful.
How you guys can shift from a general GOD that cannot be disproved to an ancient tribal WARGOD that apparently decided to 'disown' his 'chosen ones'... then not notice that you are simply splitting hairs trying to come out ahead on a 'debate' or 'controversy' which has nothing to do with reality... is beyond me.
The day is coming to an end when you can demand respect for this pointless, superstitious drivel which you choose to believe simply because you don't want to die and be really dead... forever.
If you were to tell the truth, most of you would probably admit that you are now abusing your own faith to back up your selfish political views on immigration, hatred of gays etc.
"My God is my God", goes hand in hand with, "My land is my land", and "My money is my money."
pboyfloyd at 6:52PM on Jun 22nd 2007
146. #143 update:
The fourth paragraph from the end of entry #143 should read:
If evolution were true, then God is a liar. This would mean the eyewitness to Creation was simply a liar. If God is a liar, then it behooves me to believe a scientist who can look at a tooth, or a piece of rock or even an entire mountain range and tell me what happened some 10 million or 65 billion years ago, based on what he/she is interpreting from the find. The problem is they cannot remember all they did the week before. Who should I believe? The one who was there or the one who speculates!
Thanks for reading the clarification.
Steve
Steve at 1:28AM on Jun 27th 2007
147. One must remeber to keep Newton and his beliefs in context of his era. Would he hold the same beliefs today, given the body of scientific knowledge accumulated since that time? The big bang (which is now common science)? DNA? Molecular Biology? Advances in Paleontology and Geology? Present state of Astronomy? Modern Physics, including Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Theory, Nanophysics, etc.?
We are each a prisoner of our time, and the body of knowledge surrounding it.
Phillip Eaton at 4:35PM on Jun 23rd 2007
148. "Scientific facts always are in harmony with the Bible"
Bats are birds?
Insects have four legs?
Hares chew cud?
The blood of doves cures leprosy?
Epilepsy is caused by demons?
There was a global flood?
There was some mass exodus from Egypt by the Israelites?
Really?
"Here is the point:
God is Truth:"
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Try again.
"The Bible, His Word, is Truth."
As from above: BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Try again.
"Columbus knew the Bible referred to the roundness of the earth"
No it doesn't. It refers to a circle, and in fact, in Matt 4:8, it implies that the Earth is flat.
"Those who are convinced that the theory of evolution is fact"
Are correct, since it's just as much both fact and theory as gravity is (gravity and quantum THEORY of gravity).
"If evolution were true, which theory am I to believe? There are thousands!"
No, there are not.
"If evolution were true, then why do people become so angry when asked for the facts,"
They don't.
"If evolution were true, then there would be myriads of facts to support all the thousands of theories. "
There are such facts, and there aren't thousands of theories. You really need to learn that a theory means neither guess nor conjecture nor hypothesis.
"If evolution were true, then it would not be a theory."
Then gravity isn't true. OOOOPS! Looks like you have a problem.
"If evolution were true, then God is a liar. "
1. There are theists who acknowledge the fact of evolution. They aren't quite as backward as the creationist morons.
2. There is no god in the first place.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 8:32PM on Jun 23rd 2007
149. @ Steve (comment 143)
You say, "The scientific facts always point to a Creator."
This glib statement is meaningless.
If there is any meaning to be gleaned from your statement(and I don't think that there IS) then the scientific facts that point to Evolution by Natural Selection must point to a Creator too, right?
Either that or your statement is a lie, by your own standards.
On the subject of standards, I am under the impression that one of the reasons that you believe in God is that you 'notice' that everything seems to have a creator/designer.
I say that there is no comparison at all between God creating/designing the universe and a person creating/designing something.
If I were to create/design something, the atoms, the electrons and protons of those atoms, of myself, my environment, the tools and the thing itself are certainly just there and in no need of creation/design by me.
My point is that you need to invoke God to create/design the universe before humans are able to come up with the idea of 'creating'/designing things to explain that there must be a God who is the creator/designer.
If you say that 'something cannot come from nothing' then say that 'God created the universe from nothing', you are simply saying that God CAN make something out of absolutely NOTHING.
But... I can make a bowl from clay and it is still clay and I can make a spoon from wood and it is still wood... so God must have made the universe from SOMETHING, himself maybe, and it must still be himself, right?
So what IS the 'something' that God made the universe from?
It must be some kind of energy, right?
If it is, then speaking strictly from a scientific point of view, we should be looking for it, for a way to detect it, right? If you disagree, then you should go back to the top of my comment and reread your statement that I am commenting on.
.... maybe you think that that is what science is doing and you feel that scientists should stop because it is disrespectful to religion...
... religion always seemed to be saying this ... and that is what religion is saying now, that we should stop looking, call it a day, inject Intelligent Design into biology then the other sciences...
... why not cut out this middle-man and go straight to the source/answer?... forget science... it is essentially meaningless... hey..."The scientific facts always point to a Creator."... anyways, right?
Wrong.
pboyfloyd at 6:10PM on Jun 24th 2007
150. Well, here is what I find interesting about scientists. We can take Galileo's equations
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Then we take the two equations that describe the Michelson-Morley experiment:
x=wt where w = velocity of light
x'=wn' n'= time on a cesium clock in the moving frame of reference S'
wn'=wt-vt
n'=t(1-v/w)
w=x/t=x'/n' = (x-vt)/(t-vt/w)
= (x-vt)/(t-vx/w^2)=(x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma
In fact, n' in these equations agrees with t' in the Lorentz equations to eight decimal places for something moving at the velocity of Mercury, the planet whose orbit was used to prove Newton's equations wrong. The Galillean transformation equations are correct if you are using one reference for time in both frames of reference such as rotation of the earth. The notable thing about the Galillean transformation equations is that they do not have a distance contraction the way the Lorentz equations do.
Scientists seem compelled to regard only one definition of time, a certain number of transitions of a cesium isotope molecule being one second, except in the case of evolution, where they seem to believe in absolute time.
Robert B. Winn
Robert B. Winn at 8:40AM on Jun 26th 2007