jjl - 10/19/2005 10:10 PM
Sorry to disagree, but no, he didn't. The 'Einstein believes in god' myth is just that. Look up what he said. He was consistent throughout his life in saying 'I do not believe in a personal god'. His idea of god, if you can call it that, was the whole universe.
I'm not confusing ID with god, but others are confusing ID with science, because they don't know what science is and/or have a theological axe to grind. It's creationism in a fancy dress.
How would you go about finding out if we are 'an experiment'?
I never said my friend Albert believed in "God" but he did beleive in intelligent design:
"But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.
I have found no better expression than 'religious' for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism.
The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand. . . It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength."
The argument is does intelligent design belong in our kids classrooms and to that I say "Yes". Science is about proposing a theory and then submitting it to scrutiny until it is proven otherwise. Those that argue against it proposes we focus on the "Evolutionary Theory" which in itself is just that a "Theory".
JC (Not from Bethlehem)
Irvine, CA (The OC)
JC, you are seeing what you want to see in Einstein's words. He was not religious, in the usual meaning of that word, but saw god as 'Nature', like Spinoza. I work in theory a little too (I'm in science), albeit a pale shadow of Einstien's stuff. I understand the aesthetic motivation Einstein is talking about. But it is a far cry from legitimising any Christian view of the world. The notion that a scientists admiration for the beauty of nature and the idea of a personal god, responding to prayers or tinkering with the laws of nature from day to day, are two very different things; the former tends to extinguish the latter.
ID should not be taught as worthy of equal consideration as evolution; that is simply ludicrous, because there is massive evidence supporting the latter. ID is outside science - it is not falsifiable. That is all the scrutiny it needs. If you disagree, show me what evidence we can collect to treat it like any other scientific hypothesis. If you can't, then it isn't science. Evolution is a theory in the same way gravity is a theory. The evidence is as great.
If ID is taught as 'science' there is a danger that even more students who are unable to think critically are produced (there are enough already), because they will be confused about the nature of science. Put religion in science class and tell them that superstition is science and you will potentially generate a population of village idiots. IMHO what should be taught, more than anything else, is how to think carefully and critically, and how to teach yourself. Once you learn how to learn, the rest is easy.