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 7 of 11)
91. I wrote: "But these two organisms were definitely somewhere in between me and all the chimps that are alive today."
I shouldn't say that. It is possible that the most recent common ancestors that I share with all the chimps that are alive today looked very very much like some of the chimps that are alive today.
Wes at 10:29PM on Jun 19th 2007
92. You miss the main point, p'boy (as usual):
Actually, a good portion of the book of Job is God challenging the notion that Job (or his so-called "friends") knows everything about the universe, or has any control over the universe. Job is "upset" (for lack of a more eloquent term) because he feels a lack of control over losing what he had gained in his life. God is questioning whether Job ever really was in control of anything or not...
It's an interesting concept to be discussing on this thread...
eM at 10:38PM on Jun 19th 2007
93. pboyfloyd wrote,"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?"
I did as you suggested and looked up the definition of theory on wikipedia. Here is the scientific definition for theory:
"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation." This certainly applies to microevolution which is testable and observable. This, however, does not apply to macroevolution which is not testable and not observable. But people tend to generalize the term evolution and combine the two. What Darwin observed on the Galapagos was microevolution. He saw how there were different kinds of "finches" and he saw how the evolved but he then made an assumption that they must have evolved from a different species which he did not observe.
With the current state of our planet I do not think it is reasonable for a man to live to be 969 years old. I do not believe the earth was always like we see it today. Let me explain myself. You see you and I start with presupositions about how the world got here and how it explains our current existence. You presuppose that the earth is very old and evolution took place and that it is true. So you work backward from our current state and try to figure out how evolution got us here. I presuppose that the Bible is true and that we really haven't been here that long and God made the earth and the genesis account is true. So if I work backward when I get to about 2500BC I say there was a worldwide flood(which there is much scientific evidence of). And then I read what Genesis says the earth was like before the flood. I believe that God created all matter. Genesis 1:2,"The earth was without form and void;" Then I think he took all the matter and formed our universe. And he made our universe with age. He made the trees and animals and everything else already mature. One could argue that this is a reason many people who don't believe in God think that the earth is very old. I believe God made it with age. Reading on you will read where he made the firmament which we would call the sky and that it separated the waters which were under the firmament and the waters above it. Creation scientists say there was a canopy of water covering the earth in those days which would cause the entire earth to be a tropical climate. This would explain why palm trees and other plant fossils have been found in the arctic regions. Also this canopy would mean there would be double the oxygen and the air pressure greater creating what we know as a hyperbaric chamber. Doctors use hyperbaric chambers because people tend to heal from injuries twice as fast as normal. Scientists also believe that people would have been able to run for many miles without even running out of breath. Also, the water canopy would have greatly reduced the amount of radiation we receive from the sun which we all know is a significant source of our aging process. At the time of the flood, something caused this water canopy to collapse and the earth of course became much different. If you were to chart out (I have) the ages of men listed in the Bible who lived before the flood as compared to those who lived after it you will see that the lifespans dramatically decline. The flood was a significant event that changed the earth and thus drastically. Genesis 6:3, "And the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh;yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." This seems to be the uttermost limit on man's years on earth as we know it. I think the oldest person on earth now is 114. God said this just before the flood because he knew that it would alter man's lifespan. All these things can and are backed up scientifically. I have a great book called "the evolution cruncher." It is over a thousand pages of scientific evidences pointing toward a young earth and the flood. I guess I should be sceptical about whether it is "real" science since it refutes evolution. I also know a man who will give anyone $250,000 if anyone shows him any empirical evidence supporting macroevolution. So far no one has claimed the prize. His website is www.drdino.com
If I were to go to the equator and walk around the earth what shape will I have made. You guessed it, a circle. Give yourself a cookie. To understand what God is saying in Job about snow one must understand that the word heaven(s) is used three different ways in the Bible. 1.referring to the sky. 2. referring to space. 3. referring to heaven.
Where does originate? In the sky. Is it warm way up in the atmosphere? No, it is very cold. That is where snow would be stored until it falls. I'm not familiar about the pillar verse so I can say anything about that. Sorry to all who are reading this that I have probably taken so much of your time. It probably takes an hour to read this huge thing. And at this point I'm really tired so don't be upset if I don't resond to any replies to this until tomorrow night after work. Goodnight.
Josh at 11:04PM on Jun 19th 2007
94. Scientist and Religious are in harmony! Have you heard about World Baha'i Faith?
When I discovered it last 1997, I had been gather on research and created the summary discharge on my profiles, http://profiles.yahoo.com/ily2uily
Still struggle, want to know "Who made God before us?" if unknow, Does it mean something like it may be called as meaning to God = "Government of dept".
About Adam & Eve! We ought to vote Hillary Clinton for our President in 08'
Thelbert Ray Ivey, Sr. at 6:37AM on Jun 20th 2007
95. Do you not get the point Wes? Yes you can't see electrons but again they have been observed. I know that chihuahas and saint bernards share a common ancestor. They are both the same species. Dog. Again this has been observed. I checked out your link and here's one or two for you to check out.
http://evolution-facts.org/Downloads/Evolution%20CruncherP.pdf and http://evolution-facts.org/
Josh at 11:17PM on Jun 19th 2007
96. Science and theology are in unity - some one has to prove to me that the Bible conflicts with science, while I can prove that it doesn't conflict with science on many levels.
Chuck Gafford at 11:26PM on Jun 19th 2007
97. As a scientist, I know life evolved on this planet billions of years ago and we are just some temporary lifeform that inhabits this ball of rock. And countless other planets are forming and evolving life. So what the heck difference does it make if we destroy our environment and wreak havok through global warming? Life will go on here and everywhere else it exist with or without us.
Or are we special? Is your mother or father special? Are your thoughts and emotions just the results of 4 billion years of chemistry? Hmmmm.
John at 11:59PM on Jun 19th 2007
98.
Josh-
I'm so sick of having to explain that Macroevolution and Microevolution are, in fact, the same thing, that I think I'm just not going to bother this time. Speciation, that is, the transition from an ancestory species to a new species which -cannot- mate with the ancestory species, but in fact, can mate with members of it's own, new species, have on -multiple- occasions not only been observed but have also been recreated in a laboratory setting. If speciation happens, macroevolution happens, and speciation has been proven and replicated, so honestly, just shut up with this crap.
Peter at 12:14AM on Jun 20th 2007
99. @ eM (comment 88)
You take all these really silly things that God is saying and compress them down to God telling Job that he was never in control of anything because He, God, was.
You skipped over the part where I was wondering why God would be the least bit interested in what humans call the constellations, or other groups of stars, which are totally unrelated, except when viewed from our planet, and even then only in our imagination.
In this story, God seems irritable and petty... hardly Godlike at all.
@ Josh (comment 89)
You seem to be willing to twist and bend the words to suit yourself under any and all circumstances in these booklets. This Behemoth is being taken by you to mean at least one actual living dinosaur... but these storehouses of snow and hail are made out to be metaphorical simply because that suits you.
On Anne Wright's webpage on Orion you will find...
"....in the various versions of the Book of Job and Amos the word Orion for the original Hebrew word Kesil, literally signifying "Foolish," "Impious," "Inconstant," or "Self-confident."
... and it goes on..."Later on the Jews called Orion Gibbor, the Giant, considered as Nimrod bound to the sky for rebellion against Jehovah, whence perhaps came the Bands, or Bonds, of Orion"
... which would explain why God is talking about loosening the cords of Orion.
Apparently God himself is saddled with the Jews imagination of what the stars signified.
Josh, you say this, "If I were to go to the equator and walk around the earth what shape will I have made. You guessed it, a circle."
Sure Josh, and if I were to walk around a tree... same thing... but a circle is still just a circle and NOT a sphere... no matter how many times you imagine walking round the equator.
I think that you AIG nuts are just too used to talking to children.
And now it is time to bring up the talking snake again... I'm quite sure that you Christians feel that you have talked this subject to death already... but if you look back you'll notice that you have all avoided it like the plague. You might throw in a brief explanation of the talking donkey story and the Witch of Endor story while you are at it.
pboyfloyd at 1:31AM on Jun 20th 2007
100. You know... something nice and 'sciencey.'
pboyfloyd at 1:46AM on Jun 20th 2007
101. There is no doubt that science and religion agree; there is harmony between science and religion; if one is too much into science, he will become materialistic; if one is too much into religion, then he becomes superstitious. As a practicing Cardiologist, I have seen how this connection works.
Ramin Manshadi at 2:12AM on Jun 20th 2007
102. @ Chuck Gafford (comment 92/93)
You say, "There is no contradiction between the Bible and science. The Hebrew word for day in Genesis is "yom" which can mean an era..."
"4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
I don't know about you Chuck, but I imagine that an evening and a morning are probably not eras... and the last that I heard a period of light followed by a period of darkness called a day was pretty much what we call a day.
To this day(24 hour kind) the Jews still start their day(24 hour kind) in the evening through 'til the next evening.
It would not be so bad for your 'debate strategy' or whatever you call it if God didn't seem to be defining what we would call a day.
...He goes on in verse 8. .... And the evening and the morning were the second day.
... and again... 13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Now you say that this does not conflict with science... well, Chuck... I believe that this conflicts with common sense because in this story, God has not created the SUN yet.
Of course Christians and other religionists have had thousands of years to bandy these words around apologizing(explaining away) any silly sounding statements...
Thus 'evening and morning' become metaphorical representing a revealing of the new progress made to date.
My point is that no-one complained of the wording or the meaning of that wording at the time the translation was made. In latin, it is...
Appellavitque lucem Diem, et tenebras Noctem: factumque est vespere et mane, dies unus.
Here there is still no mistaking that God is calling the light day and the darkness night, evening and morning... the first day.
You can explain it all away all you like but that is ALL that you are doing... explaining it away, very unscientifically, I might add.
pboyfloyd at 2:37AM on Jun 20th 2007
103. Newton and the commentaries on science vs. religion apparently validate the definition:’ A Fact is, that which is observable and measurable whereas Truth is a philosophical construct.' The ludicrousness of all the arguments is that the comparison and attempted intertwining is even made. Of course, the argument could be made that science and religion cannot be considered incompatible until first deciding if they are in or part of the same universe.
Just how ludicrous some of the arguments involving Christianity are the question of why the deliberate perpetuation of the mistranslation of the original commandment ‘Thou Shalt Not Murder’ into Thou Shalt Not Kill. And, then there is the blatant violation via rationalization of ‘Thou Shalt Not Have Any God Before Me’. At that time, Romans declared themselves to be gods and demanded they be worshiped as such even though everyone knew that they were human and their likenesses were just statues; ‘.....eyes they have but see not, ears they have but hear not, tongues they have but speak not...’
To escape the dictates of European religions and religious personages is one of the primary reasons why people came to the Americas but then proceeded to slaughter the inhabitants using the sword and disease in the name of religion, intolerant religion, hypocritical religion, ignorant parties who destroyed what they didn’t understand rather than absorb, correct and/or reform.
Talk about dumb, blind, herd animal mentality and faith.
Jerry Leffel at 4:19AM on Jun 20th 2007
104. Scientific facts always are in harmony with the Bible, never in conflict.
Truth is very narrow...historical, mathematical, archeological, astrological, and on it goes. The first President of the United States was not Abraham Lincoln, but George Washington. 2+2=4, not 4.001 or 3.999. Cities and events mentioned in the Bible have been unearthed and shown to have existed. The planets revolve around the sun, not the other way around.
Here is the point:
God is Truth:
God is the creator of everything and all truth originates from Him. The creation is never greater than the Creator, but is subject to the Creator. Because God cannot lie, all truth known in the universe must be in harmony with Him. God also says that the Bible or all scripture is inspired by Him and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness, that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.
The Bible, His Word, is Truth.
While the Bible is not a book about science, there are many scientific facts found in the Bible. The Bible says that life is in the blood. Had the scientific world known the Bible better, they would not have used leeches to suck the blood from George Washington.
Scientific truth is never going to be in conflict with Him, because He is the one who established the myriads of systems that exist in our universe. All these systems work together and are not dependent on our discovery to operate.
Columbus knew the Bible referred to the roundness of the earth; hence he was willing to travel where no one else would go.
The problem is this:
Any theory that starts with the pre-supposition there is no God, like evolution, instantly, collides with the Truth.
One time D.L. Moody, a great preacher in the 1800’s, was told he was rubbing the people the wrong way in his preaching. His reply was this: The old cat is headed to Hell. If she'd turn around, she wouldn't get rubbed the wrong way.
Those who are convinced that the theory of evolution is fact are being rubbed the wrong way by those who know the theory has a faulty foundation. If those who believe in evolution would study the facts, they would turn around and wouldn't be rubbed the wrong way. The scientific facts always point to a Creator.
If Evolution Were True:
If evolution were true, which theory am I to believe? There are thousands!
If evolution were true, then why can’t scientist agree on the age of the earth and the age of man? Every new “evolutionary discovery” adds to the conflict of the age of man and the earth. Who do I believe?
If evolution were true, then why do people become so angry when asked for the facts, not speculation, but facts? The facts speak for themselves.
If evolution were true, then there would be myriads of facts to support all the thousands of theories. At least one theory should surface that the majority of scientists could agree on. They can’t and never will, because it is not based on facts.
If evolution were true, then it would not be a theory.
If evolution were true, then God is a liar. This 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!
God’s wants for mankind to study and search and to do all he can to understand his world. This God initiated, when He told Adam to name all the animals and plants.
Now there are many different fields of study. He wants us to see His awesome creation so we can give Him praise and glory. He also wants to use the findings to cause us to realize how awesome a God He is so we would seek His face. The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know.
My Conclusion:
I would rather trust the One whose Word has been proven true thousands of times, over many centuries, rather than one who is speculating.
Steve at 1:38AM on Jun 23rd 2007
105. What is "religion?" Is it as defined by the texts of Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam? If so, these texts have been rewriten an d editted by the "powers that be" over thier entire lifetimes to suit those in power's needs or to control populations.
As for the "scientific" approach, no discussion has been brought up a few oddities that are undeniable. Why does water expand slightly just before it freezes (making liquid water present and not lakes of ice), why is Earth in just the right orbit, the right distance from the Sun to allow liquid water on the surface of the Earth (allowing the absorbsion of gasses that would otherwise have Earth's atmosphere into one such as Venus' and completely uninhabitable, or to cold as Mars also uninhabitable, and not be on its third atmosphere)and the odds of "primordial ooze" randomingly collidining and staying together to form the early stages of life (let alone evolve into intellegent life that can ponder and discuss itself almost instantaniously all over the world using highly complex tools and equipment that no other species has seemed to manage to do?).
So science needs some help and "religion" , at least the three major ones (also follow the same theme, an angel descends to Earth, relates god's truth to one man, whom then relates it to others before it is recorded) are inconsistant with each other, while Eastern and other minor religions define attaining a oneness with god (nirvana, the Tao, The Dao, Brahma, etc) as an understanding of the ways of the Earth.
Are these two ideas mutually exclusive or at constant battle? Or are they two different ways to the same goals?
Dan at 4:01PM on Jul 1st 2007