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 5 of 11)
61. Wes,
You say there is no evidence for God. Have you ever shot poot? (played billiards)? If you hit a billiard ball, it moves. If you leave it at rest, it rests, unless there's an earthquake, etc. You get the picture. If the moving billiard ball hits another ball, that one will move, but with less force, and so on, until the system of billiard balls on the table runs out of energy. Matter is inert, the second law of thermodynamics says it will tend to arrive at the system of lowest energy, (greatest "rest,"). So, what energized all this universe's matter and set it in motion in the first place? Something (or Someone) with greater energy than the sum total of energy in this universe, savvy? Energy, in this universe, is neither created nor destroyed, but can be transferred, kinetically. This influx of energy into matter is beautifully portrayed symbolically in the world of art by Michaelangelo's Finger of God extending toward the recipient Adam (or, think "atom," if you will.) I hope this helps. If not, read "The Hidden Face of God," to learn how physics points to metaphysics.
Mary K. N. at 6:50PM on Jun 19th 2007
62.
Wes -
Well, a bug took my first reply, and I don't feel like writing it all out again, so I'll try to sum it up quickly.
It's not silly at all. Science does not -ever- state that something with even the slightest possibility of existing does not exist. It is entirely possible that something resembling a Mermaid has existed in one of the many gaps in the fossil record, or will exist as a result of future evolutionary change, or exists on some other planet in some other galaxy or (although extremely unlikely) does exist on Earth now, but by chance has not been discovered yet. That is why Biology textbooks do not state what creatures -do not exist-, but rather what creatures we -know- exist. That is the nature of all science, all that matters is what we -know- exists, we do not need to discount what there is no evidence for yet to lend any more credence to the science. It is very unlikely that Mermaids exist, but it is not impossible according to our natural laws, so formal science makes no assumption about their existence.
Now, there are -only- metaphysical explanations for the Big Bang. We know the process of the birth of the Universe from the start of the reaction, but not what supplied the core components of that explosion, and according to our natural laws, there is no natural explanation for that to this point. So you emphatically stating that no type of God exists anywhere in any form or function is a premature assumption. Until there is a better explanation with more evidence to support it, all theories are equally valid about what was responsible for those metaphysical happenings, and one of those explanations is a force outside the known rules of our universe.
Peter at 7:12PM on Jun 19th 2007
63. Why can't religion and science be compatable? THe Bible states that God created man in His image yet there is nothing stating what God's image is. Perhaps it is refering to the spiritual being. I mean the Bible does not indicate dinosaurs yet we have proof they existed. Science does not have a way to prove the existance of a God yet it is really difficult to believe that all that there is happened by accident. But science needs proof and without that proof there is only theory. Perhaps there is more to what we see. Perhaps there is a different plane of existance. Way too many possibilities to explore them all in the time this planet has left to it. But I don't exactly find Newton's calculation to be accurate. The only thing that has come out of it is the apocalypse MIGHT happen in 2060 or later but not before. Guess we will have to wait and see.
Ron at 7:22PM on Jun 19th 2007
64. Mary wrote: “You say there is no evidence for God.”
No, I didn’t say that. I did say that no person knows of any event that has been caused by a God. Moreover, I also said I’ve never experienced anything remotely similar to a being who caused the universe to exist.
“So, what energized all this universe's matter and set it in motion in the first place?”
I don’t know. But probably not an intelligent being, because it is one more complex variable; and simpler explanations tend to be more plausible. And the same reasoning applies to any being. You seem to be saying that every event has a cause. But that probably isn’t true; because an infinite regress makes little sense. So where does the regress end: With an intelligent being or without an intelligent being? The latter is more reasonable, for it is simpler and because there is no event known to have been caused by such a being.
Do you think it is more reasonable to believe that the regress ends with an intelligent being? If so, why? I’m going to have to finish this up pretty soon.
Wes at 7:23PM on Jun 19th 2007
65. There is no contradiction between the Bible and science. The Hebrew word for day in Genesis is "yom" which can mean an era, eon or time period and is not necessarily a 24-hour period. Stephen Hocking, Albert Einstein and others acknowledged that their various theories proved some type of supreme being.
Chuck Gafford at 11:24PM on Jun 19th 2007
66. Peter wrote: “Science does not -ever- state that something with even the slightest possibility of existing does not exist.”
Science doesn’t state things. Some people state things.
“It is entirely possible that something resembling a Mermaid has existed in one of the many gaps in the fossil record, or will exist as a result of future evolutionary change, or exists on some other planet in some other galaxy or (although extremely unlikely) does exist on Earth now, but by chance has not been discovered yet.”
No mermaids existed on earth. But I guess there could be ones on other planets. But there is good reason to believe that there is not.
“It is very unlikely that Mermaids exist,”
That is all I’m saying.
“but it is not impossible according to our natural laws, so formal science makes no assumption about their existence.”
I don’t know what you mean by that. “Science” doesn’t make assumptions. “Science” is just a word some people use to refer to a method that some being use. The point is that there are probably no fifty foot humans in our solar system.
“Now, there are -only- metaphysical explanations for the Big Bang.”
What do you mean by that? Right now no person knows what triggered the onset of the matter and space that is the known universe. But our descendants might know. What about in 40 million years?
“So you emphatically stating that no type of God exists anywhere in any form or function is a premature assumption.”
I didn’t emphatically state that. I said there probably is no God. And I should have said that there probably is no intelligent being that contributed to the existence of the known universe.
“Until there is a better explanation with more evidence to support it, all theories are equally valid about what was responsible for those metaphysical happenings, and one of those explanations is a force outside the known rules of our universe.”
I don’t know what you mean by that. But I didn’t fart the known universe into existence.
Wes at 7:29PM on Jun 19th 2007
67. @ Mary K. N. (comment 57)
You said, "Something (or Someone) with greater energy than the sum total of energy in this universe, savvy?"
I guess you've never heard of Occam's Razor, then?
Adding Something or Someone to the mix is simply not necessary, can you 'savvy' that?
Oh, yea, and physics does not point to metaphysics at all... not at all...okay?
pboyfloyd at 7:32PM on Jun 19th 2007
68. Wes, I think even you know you're being stubborn at this point. Just come out and say that you believe what you believe because it's what you choose, not because it's the most proven theory. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it more true-- that only works in politics. :) (joke!-- must clarify for our less jovial readers who will flame me!) Also please stop with the vampire references. The concept of the vampire was based on a real person -- Vlad the Impaler who lived in the area of Romania actually called Transylvania. So if you use that argument (which is comparing apples to oranges anyway), you're in essence saying that stories about a deity might have *some* basis in fact.
Peter-- amazingly, I think you and I seem to be a little closer to agreement! I don't 100% agree with everything you've said, but most of it, and it is pleasant to hear someone be somewhat open-minded about what science does and does not do... especially as it relates to an intelligent higher being ("God").
Also I have a little less trust in "scientists" than I do in science itself. I don't pretend to completely understand all the theories leading scientists agree on... therefore I have to trust them to an extent and of course strive to add to my scientific knowledge. However, if I have to choose between believing them and believing established religious leaders, as many suggest we have to if science and religion are supposedly at such odds with each other -- I'm really in a pickle! I've hardly met, in person, any church leaders whom I could actually trust! I am one of those who came to be a Christian *in spite of* organized religion and its current leaders, not *because* of them.
However, I am of the personal belief that if we are open to concept of a God (not necessarily to a dogma of a religious sect or to a dogma of specific scienTISTS), it can only stimulate our curiousity and hopefully advance scientific causes. That's what we seem to be here for -- learning about and trying to solve mysteries and problems. Of course, sometimes we humans CAUSE problems, but unlike animals, we often seem to have an underlying propensity to try to understand and resolve them, in turn.
eM at 7:48PM on Jun 19th 2007
69. eM wrote: "Wes, I think even you know you're being stubborn at this point. Just come out and say that you believe what you believe because it's what you choose, not because it's the most proven theory.
I didn't say it is "the most proven theory." I said that probably no intelligent being contributed to the existence of the known universe.
Wes at 7:52PM on Jun 19th 2007
70. Wes on page 1 has made some comments that interest me. He makes what he believes are factual statements. That a snake did not talk to eve nor did methuselah live to be 969. Then says that 3.8 billion years ago there were self-replecating molecules from which we humans evolved. How does he know these things for certain. Was he there to witness them? Science is all about observation. That is why Theory of Evolution is still a Theory. It has not been observed. Now don't get me wrong microevolution has been observed, i.e dogs can evolve to other types of dogs, flowers can evolve to other types of flowers. The crux of the conversation in macroevolution, i.e. the evolving of a species into a completely different species which has never been observed. Technically, can it really be science if it can't be observed. It seems to me that it becomes more of a matter of faith or belief. Many scientists believe (underline believe) that evolution is true and the earth is billions of years old. How do you know it is that old? You weren't there to witness it. Well, we have tests that tell us how old. How do you know your tests are accurate? Were you here billions of years ago. There is no way to test the tests that tell us the earth is that old. It can't be observed nor can we tell if the tests work until we've been here another billion years. On the other hand, it seems reasonable me that methusaleh could have lived to be 969 years old. There could have been witnesses who eventually passed the account down and finally wrote it down. That seems much more reasonable to me. An entirely different matter would then be explaining how he lived so long. Which I believe can be shown scientifically. So in summary, do you believe in evolution or God either way it comes down to faith because neither one can be put in a test tube.
Josh at 8:14PM on Jun 19th 2007
71. given the religion versus science argument (that seems to be never ending ) have you ever asked yourself why?
tammy hancock at 8:29PM on Jun 19th 2007
72. Josh wrote:
"Wes on page 1 has made some comments that interest me. He makes what he believes are factual statements. That a snake did not talk to eve nor did methuselah live to be 969. Then says that 3.8 billion years ago there were self-replecating molecules from which we humans evolved. How does he know these things for certain. Was he there to witness them? Science is all about observation. That is why Theory of Evolution is still a Theory. It has not been observed. Now don't get me wrong microevolution has been observed, i.e dogs can evolve to other types of dogs, flowers can evolve to other types of flowers. The crux of the conversation in macroevolution, i.e. the evolving of a species into a completely different species which has never been observed. Technically, can it really be science if it can't be observed. It seems to me that it becomes more of a matter of faith or belief. Many scientists believe (underline believe) that evolution is true and the earth is billions of years old. How do you know it is that old? You weren't there to witness it. Well, we have tests that tell us how old. How do you know your tests are accurate? Were you here billions of years ago. There is no way to test the tests that tell us the earth is that old. It can't be observed nor can we tell if the tests work until we've been here another billion years. On the other hand, it seems reasonable me that methusaleh could have lived to be 969 years old. There could have been witnesses who eventually passed the account down and finally wrote it down. That seems much more reasonable to me. An entirely different matter would then be explaining how he lived so long. Which I believe can be shown scientifically. So in summary, do you believe in evolution or God either way it comes down to faith because neither one can be put in a test tube."
No person has witnessed a population of fish evolved into humans. However, that no person has witnessed an alleged event does not enable me to determine that I don't know whether the event occurred. For instance, no person has witnessed a living T-Rex, and I'm sure some T-Rexes drank water. No person has witnessed 100 meters below the surface of earth's moon, and I'm sure the moon is not made of cream cheese. When I close my eyes, no person is witnessing my computer screen, and I’m quite sure that when I close my eyes the screen does not vanish just to reappear as soon as I open my eyes again.
The other day I was walking a dog. We came up to a fire hydrant. I made sure that no other person was around. As soon as the dog lifted its leg, I closed my eyes. I kept them closed for about 1 minute. When I opened them, the fire hydrant was covered in dog pee. I'm quite sure that said dog peed on said fire hydrant, though no person saw it happen.
Therefore, that no person witnessed a population of fish evolved into humans does not enable me to determine that I don't know whether the event occurred.
Either I share common ancestors with all the fish that are alive today or I do not share common ancestors with all the fish that are alive today. And I do share common ancestors with all the fish that are alive today.
Here is a link to an article on evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Wes at 8:44PM on Jun 19th 2007
73. Ron wrote, "I mean the Bible does not indicate dinosaurs..." Actually the Bible does describe 2 dinosaurs. The largest land animal and the largest water animal. Our name for the largest land animal that ever lived is the Brontosaurus or Brachiosaurus. Not exactly sure which is the biggest. You get the point. When the Bible was written the term dinosaur nor brontosaurus had been invented. I don't know if any of you actually have a Bible handy but if you find Job Chapter 40 starting with verse 15. God tell Job to "look at the Behemoth which I made along with you." This implies that Behemoth and Job are alive together. If you read the passage you will see that it describes a brontosaurus. What other creature can swing it's tail like a cedar tree. That requires strength in the hips. All the beasts of the field play there. A raging river does not disturb him. What creature currently living does this describe? None. Job chapter 38 and chapter 41 are also interesting as God describes his dominion over the Earth, Space, and Time. God talks about Orion, the Pleiades, and the "Great Bear and it's Cubs" which we know as Ursa Major and Ursa Minor. Most historians credit Job as being the oldest book written in the Bible with it being written sometime around 4000 years ago or about 2000 years before the time of Christ. So now you know in case you want to research this for yourself.
Josh at 9:40PM on Jun 19th 2007
74. I am so thankful that all of the great scientists ignored religion and discovered the truth.
Blanche at 9:12PM on Jun 19th 2007
75. @ Josh (comment 65)
You say, "Science is all about observation. That is why Theory of Evolution is still a Theory."
I invite you to type 'define theory' on your search bar... and observe... observe that there are two different definitions.
You say, "It seems to me that it becomes more of a matter of faith or belief."
Yea, well, since you have your own pet theory of what a scientific theory is... one has to wonder what your definitions of the words 'faith' and 'belief' are.
You say, "On the other hand, it seems reasonable me that methusaleh could have lived to be 969 years old."
Once again, the definition of the word 'reasonable'
is fairly clear to most people... but what would YOUR definition of that word be?
Does it seem reasonable to you that I might be over nine hundred years old?
Does it seem reasonable to you that Methuselah might have been nine hundred sixty nine months old... for a total of 80 years and nine months old when he died... a ripe old age for a man who lived in those days with no medical coverage and no medicine for insurance to cover at all?
You seemed to 'slither' by the talking snake deal... or did your 'reasonableness' of Methuselah's age somehow cover that too?
I've got just one question for you, Josh... where is He?
pboyfloyd at 9:01PM on Jun 19th 2007