The naturalism that anti-evolutionists most object to is philosophical naturalism, which insists on natural explanations even outside science — i.e., that “nature is all there is.” Many scientists, however, do not accept philosophical naturalism either. Some are staunch believers in God or other supernaturalism, including major contributors to evolutionary theory, such as Alfred Russel Wallace, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Ronald Fisher, and active researchers and defenders of evolution today, such as Kenneth R. Miller and Francisco J. Ayala (see also Slack, 1997). In the United States, by one poll, roughly 40% of scientists believe in an active personal God, and there are surely many more who believe in a God fitting a definition less restrictive than the one used in the poll (Larson & Witham, 1999). These scientists would hardly work to support a philosophical position that they are steadfastly opposed to. Right away, then, we see that the main complaint about naturalism is trivially untrue.

Just a bit of a peace offering, is all.

Regarding Dr. Ross, on 11/16/05 @ 15:15, you said:

Because he’s not a scientist.

Then you back-peddled on 11/16/05 @ 15:39 and said:

Dr. Ross does indeed have training in physics and astronomy

So which is it? You seem to acknowledge that I?m a scientist:

?if you are indeed a scientist, then why not publish your findings? 11/16/05 @ 12:00

and you have yet to demonstrate that I no longer abide by scientific principles; but on the other hand you appear to think that Dr. Ross has somehow been ?corrupted? by Christianity. Earning a PhD in a science, by definition, makes one a scientist. It?s a training that one cannot ignore when dealing with Christian theology. If you?d take the time to actually read the content of his web site, or better yet, one of his books (like The Creator and the Cosmos) you?d see that they?re full of scientific facts, scientific principles, and are faithful to the scientific method. But you?ve obviously given in to your intellectual bigotry and prejudice and, simply because he claims to be a Christian, you think he?s a fraud. It?s precisely this character trait of atheists like you that I find so pitiable?in your arrogance you?ve deluded yourself in to believing that you?re somehow qualitatively better than anyone who claims to be a Christian?simply because you think you can use science to automatically disprove what they claim. And you obviously don?t know as much as you thought. It musta been quite a shot to your ego to have a Christian point out a reality you weren?t aware of?and then be able to buttress it with facts.

The really sad part about you is that it has obviously never occurred to you that you don?t own the facts with which you try to belittle the people you despise.

Contempt is a rather strong word to apply at the personal level. I don’t have any contempt for the actual human that is jcc.

Oh, really? So there?s absolutely nothing personal in a statement like

Your so utterly full of shit it’s unreal. 11/14/05 @ 15:48

This is just further proof that you?ve deluded yourself into believing that your conclusions are always right and all Christians like me who have different ones are simply boobs.

You know, the really sad thing about atheists like you is that in reality, you are exactly what you think Christians are: smug, self-righteous, narrow-minded, and above-all, arrogant.

P.S.
As for the whole ID thing,
here’s how I’d handle it, were I a U.S. science teacher:

“Welcome, class, be seated.
Today we’ll learn about evolution.
Did a God or Gods direct/plan it?
From the evidence we have, no one can say for certain, and I’ll direct those of you interested in said question to sign up for philosophy class. Okay? Okay. Let’s start with facts…”.

But of course, in several states I’d probably be burned at the stake.
Salem 1692, here we come!

How is it that you can accept Christianity with no proof at all, yet you dismiss evolution because it has gaps?

“We?ve been over all this before; there is historical proof that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, and taken in context, the eye-witness accounts validate the internal consistency of His theology.”

THE EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS?!?
Oh, you mean the Bible!
Yes, “proving” something is true by pointing to a highly faulty, self-contradicting ages old document making extraordinary claims…
Now THAT’S what I call evidence!

As for “internal consistency” of the theology… go ahead, try me.
If the Bible is INERRANT & CONSISTENT, then genocide, rape and more is smiled upon by God.
Which, to me at least, would mean that, even if God existed I’d defy and fight as much as I were able.
At least SOME people’s morals have improved since the writing of that Satanic Document called the Old Testament…
Too bad that only a few (vocal) of those people are religious.

And now for somthing completely different:

As for faith or belief having no value as “evidence”, jcc answered:
“Only to those without it or with faith in the wrong thing, but it has infinite epistemological value when it?s put in the only One who can reward it.”
Uhm, great… so what about a muslim or hindu or moonie or whatever who claim the same as you?
That someone feels “blessed by the lord”, is no more “evidence”, than someone claiming to “have been engineered by aliens”.
It only goes to excuse whatever said believer does as being “right” by virtue of Divine Guidance.
How is that evidence?
If anything it is only evidence of said person’s delusion of power and infallibility.
A dangerous notion if ever I heard one.

You’re referring to the Meyers debacle, or is this something new?

Something new.

Actually, I’m wrong. It is the same thing after all. Skeptic Magazine is just telling the whole story from beginning to end in the latest issue. Sorry for the mislead.

Hmmm. He?s ?not a scientist,? but he holds a BS in Physics, an MS in Astronomy and a Ph.D. in Astronomy, and was a Research Fellow in Radio Astronomy, California Institute of Technology from 1973-1978.

Yep, Iike I said I was expecting that. I guess the way I look at it is this:
Science is a body of knowledge, but it is also a strict discipline – a process. Ross may have extensive scientific training, but he subverts it. He has decided to skip the process, the discipline, and focus on christian/creationist apologetics. Basically, he left science to become a preacher, and now presents his scientific credentials as some sort of proof that creationism is a real science. But without the process it is not a science, and without the discipline he is not a scientist.

At least rainbows4dinosaurs has admitted his contempt for me

Contempt is a rather strong word to apply at the personal level. I don’t have any contempt for the actual human that is jcc. I do have contempt for thinly veiled god-of-the-gaps arguments. I do feel contempt when creationists attempt to gain credibility by hiding their motives, forcing you to pry it out of them. I do hold contempt for the double standard that the “evolution lacks the right amount of evidence/my personal experience is evidence of the healing power of christ” line of thinking presents. I do have contempt for the idea that faith is reasonable, for even Aquinas taught that the two belonged to different spheres of thought.

Anyway, that’s probably it for this thread. Good night, and good luck (can’t wait to see that movie!)

Patience my friends. A national secular backlash is already brewing.