Also my wife found out that I'm into forums again and my days here may be numbered. (Damn! This is so much fun!)
You'd let her do that, take away so much fun from you? Maybe you need to think about renegotiating the terms of your contract with her.
She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed allows me just so much rope before she jerks my chain (metaphors too mixed?). After 35 years I'm just too domesticated to assert any great amount of independance.
He fudged his equations because they clearly implied an expanding universe, and there was no data at the time in support of that. The fudging results in a static solution.
HE was under a lot of pressure from his contemporaries to remove his fudge factor because it made his equation unworkable, but wouldn't do it because of the implications. AS soon as his original equation was verified, he removed them and said there must be a creator, and was then under pressure to recant that statement. Surprised you haven't heard that, it's quite well known.
Behe and Johnson are hardly ignorant.
In their fields of expertise, you're right, they're not. But about evolution, they are.
Hmmm....I get the impression that anyone who disagrees with your view on this subject would be labeled ignorant.
Can you suggest a way that such a proceedure could have evolved?
Ah, the heart of the matter. Offhand, no, I can't, I don't have the detailed expertise required,
Interestingly enough, neither can those who do have the detailed expertise required. I've read the attempt of one. He used such scientific terms as "arises, appears, springs forth is unleashed". Almost like saying it happens by magic. I've read some of Dawkins. He goes to such extremes it's almost laughable. Matter of fact, it is laughable.
"We have always underestimated the cell...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call them machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts"
(Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences)
"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.
(Biochemist Franklin M. Harold)
Have you heard about Millers Challenge to Behe? And how Barry Hall claims to have successfully demonstrated through experimentation that Behe was wrong? I can give you a brief summary if you wish. Behe came out ahead on that one.
On the contrary, your position determines what information you choose to present and how you choose to interpret it. So yes, it does make a difference.
If you put it that way, I suppose so. What I meant was you knowing my position is irrellevant because the only thing that matters is my questions and comments, which wouldn't change by your knowing where I'm comming from.
Not really, he was mostly a pantheist in Spinoza's sense, though exactly what that means is a deeply complex subject that makes my head hurt.
A number of things make my head hurt, primarily imbibing a little too much, which is something I did this evening. She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed frowns on that too, so since I'm already in **** I might as well spend some time on the forum.
Pantheism means that nature and god are one/intertwined, and Einstein did not belive that at all. He admired the cosmos for it's beauty and harmony, and admired the creator for making such a wonderful universe, but did not consider the universe to be part of the creator. He understood that the creator must be transcendant.
There are perfectly satisfactory naturalistic explanations for speciation
Actually they all fall short, but I imagine we'll get into that eventually.