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 6 of 11)
76. It is interesting how the Bible speaks of the Earth before modern times as being round...
Isaiah 40:22 There is one who is dwelling above the circle of the earth....
jackie at 9:16PM on Jun 19th 2007
77. You fail to realize that there would be no science if God did not create the universe for scientists to explore and think on. God wants them to see how awesome and wonderful his creations are and thank him for them. God gave man a brain to think so he can worship God for his greatness not try to give the credit to something or someone else.
Lu at 8:18AM on Jun 20th 2007
78. This Earth continues to evolve from one stage to another. The Universe does the same. I don't understand why people can't see that it is not a mystery, but is evolution of this planet and the creatures on it. There is no GOD that makes this happen. It is just an evolutionary cycle.
Blanche at 9:11PM on Jun 19th 2007
79. Wes Wrote, "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."
It is reasonable to conclude that said dog did pee on the fire hydrant even though no one witnessed it. It is reasonable because you or someone have observed a dog pee at some point previous to this event so you know that a dog is capable of peeing. Is it reasonable then to conclude that a population of fish evolved into humans without anyone having observed it and knowing it is even capable of happening? Not in my opinion.
Josh at 9:54PM on Jun 19th 2007
80. If man supposedly evolved from apes as a result of evolution, then why would there still be apes now?
jackie at 9:19PM on Jun 19th 2007
81. @ jackie (comments 73/74)
A circle is not a sphere. In the Booklet of Job, God speaks of silly ideas like the world being on pillars and storage places in heaven for the snow.
Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
pboyfloyd at 9:33PM on Jun 19th 2007
82. The late Stephen Jay Gould in his book Rock of Ages indicated that science and religion were non-overlapping magesteria. One could not be used to prove or disprove the other.
dennis at 10:01PM on Jun 19th 2007
83. pboyfloyd wrote: "Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor."
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. But some of my ancestors are what I think you mean by apes. For example, the most recent common ancestors that I share with all the orangutans that are alive today lived around 14 million years ago. These two organisms were “apes.” The most recent common ancestors I share with all the gibbons that are alive today that around 18 million years ago. Those organisms were "apes."
Moreover, the most recent common ancestor I share with all the squirrel monkeys that are alive today lived about 40 million years ago. Those organisms were very similar to the squirrel monkeys that are alive today. I also share common ancestors with all the frogs, fish, bananas, bacteria, etc. that are alive today. I have many ancestors that are fish. I share common ancestors with all the organisms that are alive today. I have distant relatives that are bacteria.
Now, the most recent common ancestor that I share with all the chimpanzees that are alive today probably lived between 4 and 6 million years ago. No person knows exactly what these two organisms (that I share with all the chimps that are alive today) looked like. They were “ape-like.” But some reasonable scientists think these two organisms looked more like me than like today's chimps. Other reasonable scientists think they looked more like today's chimps than like me. But these two organisms were definitely somewhere in between me and all the chimps that are alive today.
Wes at 9:54PM on Jun 19th 2007
84. "It is reasonable to conclude that said dog did pee on the fire hydrant even though no one witnessed it. It is reasonable because you or someone have observed a dog pee at some point previous to this event so you know that a dog is capable of peeing. Is it reasonable then to conclude that a population of fish evolved into humans without anyone having observed it and knowing it is even capable of happening? Not in my opinion."
Of course, it is capable of happening. It happened. Here is a link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Humans have observed lots of instances of reproduction. That is how I got here. And I know that chihuahuas and Saint Bernards share common ancestors.
The point is I don't have to see an event to know that it occurred. I can't see electrons.
Wes at 9:56PM on Jun 19th 2007
85. Ginny Papp should do better research stating that Newton was a Jew. I believe that the main reason people in general do not want to think of a God is so that they can live anyway they wish, with no concern of consequences
Bud Katzmarek at 10:04PM on Jun 19th 2007
86. "It is reasonable to conclude that said dog did pee on the fire hydrant even though no one witnessed it. It is reasonable because you or someone have observed a dog pee at some point previous to this event so you know that a dog is capable of peeing. Is it reasonable then to conclude that a population of fish evolved into humans without anyone having observed it and knowing it is even capable of happening? Not in my opinion."
No person has observed a T-rex drink water. And I'm quite sure some T-rexes drank water. No person observed planet earth 65 million years ago, and I'm quite sure planet existed then.
Get away from this silly fundamentalism. It's ridiculous.
Wes at 10:02PM on Jun 19th 2007
87. Dennis wrote: "The late Stephen Jay Gould in his book Rock of Ages indicated that science and religion were non-overlapping magesteria. One could not be used to prove or disprove the other."
I don't know what that means. But the known universe is not less than 10,000 years old.
Wes at 10:03PM on Jun 19th 2007
88. Now some people don’t believe that evolution happened. Some people think that the first two elephants got on earth because of something like the “I Dream of Jeannie” head-bob.
Here is a link to the “I Dream of Jeannie” head-bob theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7I73DNguRI
Wes at 10:06PM on Jun 19th 2007
89. Bud Katzmarek wrote: "Ginny Papp should do better research stating that Newton was a Jew. I believe that the main reason people in general do not want to think of a God is so that they can live anyway they wish, with no concern of consequences."
Whether that is true or not is completely irrelevant to whether I know that God exists. People can have various motives for believing certain things, and still be right. For example, perhaps Copernicus wrote what he wrote partly because he was unhappy with the Catholic church. He was still right that the earth revolved around the sun. You have committed the ad hominem fallacy or genetic fallacy.
Wes at 10:10PM on Jun 19th 2007
90. @ Josh (comment 76)
Job... God talking...
22: "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
23: which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war?
24: What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?
Here God himself is telling Job that He has storehouses full of hail and snow and that there is a place where light is distributed from (He doesn't seem to know that most of the light comes from the Sun) and a place where the east wind comes from.(He doesn't seem to just mean 'the east' here)
But you have no doubt read all this drivel and cherry-picked out the parts that you like about the Behemoth and the stars.
God, still bragging to Job....
"Can you bind the chains of the Plei'ades, or loose the cords of Orion?
32: Can you lead forth the Maz'zaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children?
33: Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?
God seems to think that He is the one that leads the Zodiac(Maz'zaroth) out of the east and across the sky at the right time of year.(in their season)
He also seems to think that these constellations(entirely dreamed up by astrologers) are there being 'ruled' by Him.
Surely God must know that Orion only looks like Orion from the vicinity of Earth and the stars that make up Orion are not otherwise related or need to be 'ruled.'
Binding the chains and loosening the cords of star groups... is God nuts?
pboyfloyd at 10:22PM on Jun 19th 2007