Einstein Said That All Serious Scientists Believe In Intelligent Design

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.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

– Albert Einstein

So why does Common Core refuse to allow serious science in the classroom?

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Einstein Said That All Serious Scientists Believe In Intelligent Design

  1. BobW in NC says:

    Science has turned into ideological paradigms in the classroom. My major professor would be grieved and sputtering at this perversion!

  2. eqibno says:

    Our universe, where entropy and inertia meet order and movement.

    Or is that where chaos and death meet intelligence and will?

    Just the various and nefarious manifestations of existence and its energetic conformances.

    Ascribing anthropomorphic or other significance to those aspects, (good and evil, God and Devil etc.) is a personal prerogative that is both unnecessary and unlikely to require inclusion to allow for inspection and introspection.

    • taransula says:

      Which is why we must redesign our concept of God. Einstein wasn’t pontificating on an old man in the sky who judges our behavior, that is the stale useless model that keeps a trench of distrust firmly dug between science and religion. Einstein spoke more closely to the quantum idea, the active infinite. And once we prove consciousness, like matter and energy, cannot be created or destroyed it remains only to learn more of the WHAT and leave behind the IF.

  3. BrianW says:

    Government (in the form of Common Core authors) refuse to allow serious science because it acknowledging a higher authority diminishes authoritarian government and their ability to control the narative.

  4. Adam Gallon says:

    Anything to do with religion isn’t serious science.

    • Ernest Bush says:

      Apparently, Albert Einstein disagrees with you. You might want to think about that. My sunday school teacher in 1963 (I was 19) was a well-known biologist at Syracuse University. The most important lesson I learned from him was that religion and science can sit comfortably side by side. It is wackos on both sides who cause all the disturbance between them.

  5. NikFromNYC says:

    He is teaching LSD Culture 101. Conservatives just don’t teach it right, so it has become terribly unpopular!

    “Eroticism, like hallucinogenic drugs, like atomic sciences, like Gaudi’s gothic architecture, like my love of gold, comes down to a common denominator: God is present in everything. There is the same magic at the heart of things and all roads lead to the same revelation; we are all children of God and the whole universe tends towards the perfection of the human being.” – Salvador Dali (The Secret Life of Salvador Dali, 1942)

    • Ben says:

      RE: “the whole universe tends towards the perfection of the human being”

      In the 71 years since those words, 100 million+ humans have been killed by other humans.

      How’s that perfection working our for us?

      • NikFromNYC says:

        Survival of the fittest!

        “I wondered if I was in a prison being tortured, and why I remembered having heard it said that people learn through suffering, and in view of what I was seeing, the inadequacy of this saying struck me so much that I said, aloud, to suffer is to learn. With that I became unconscious again, and my last dream immediately preceded my real coming to. It only lasted a few seconds, and was most vivid and real to me, though it may not be clear in words. A great Being or Power was travelling through the sky, his foot was on a kind of lightning as a wheel is on a rail, it was his pathway. The lightning was made entirely of the spirits of innumerable people close to one another, and I was one of them. He moved in a straight line, and each part of the streak or flash came into its short conscious existence only that he might travel. I seemed to be directly under the foot of God, and I thought he was grinding his own life out of my pain. Then I saw that what he had been trying with all his might to do was change his course, to bend the line of lightening to which he was tied, in the direction in which he wanted to go. I felt my flexibility and helplessness, and knew that he would succeed. He bended me, turning his corner by means of my hurt, hurting me more than I had ever been hurt in my life, and at the acutest point of this, as he passed, I saw. I understood for a moment things I have now forgotten, things that no one could remember while retaining sanity. The angle was an obtuse angle, and I remember thinking as I woke that had he made it a right or acute angle, I should have suffered and seen more, and should probably have died. He went on and I came to. In that moment the whole of my life passed before me, including each little meaningless piece of distress, and I understood them. This was what it had all meant, this was the piece of work it had all been contributing to do. I did not see God’s purpose, I only saw his intentness and his entire relentlessness towards his means. He thought no more of me than a man thinks of hurting a cork when he is opening wine, or hurting a cartridge when he is firing. And yet, on waking, my first feeling was, and it came with tears, Domine non sum digna, for I had been lifted into a position for which I was too small. I realized that in that half hour under ether I had served God more distinctly and purely than I had ever done in my life before, or than I am capable of desiring to do. I was the means of his achieving and revealing something, I know not what or to whom, and that, to the exact extent of my capacity for suffering. While regaining consciousness, I wondered why, since I had gone so deep, I had seen nothing of what the saints call the love of God, nothing but his relentlessness. And then I heard an answer, which could only just catch, saying, Knowledge and Love are One, and the measure is suffering. I give the words as they came to me. With that I finally come to (Into what seemed a dream world compared with the reality of what I was leaving), and I saw that what would be called the cause’ of my experience was a slight operation under insufficient ether, in a bed pushed up against a window, a common city window in a common city street. If I had to formulate a few of the things I then caught a glimpse of, they would run somewhat as follows: The eternal necessity of suffering and its eternal vicariousness. The veiled and incommunicable nature of the worst sufferings; the passivity of genius, how it is essentially instrumental and defenseless, moved, not moving, it must do what it does; the impossibility of discovery without its price; finally, the excess of what the suffering seer or genius pays over what his generation gains…. I perceived also in a way never to be forgotten, the excess of what we see over what we can demonstrate. And so on! these things may seem to you delusions, or truisms; but for me they are dark truths, and the power to put them into even such words as these has been given me by an ether dream.” – Woman quoted in The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, 1902.

  6. I see in this post and comments just another example of the general incompetence in and about science today. I am the only scientist in the world who can speak authoritatively on the subject of design of the world:

    Challenge to Science and Religion

  7. Colorado Wellington says:

    There is a lot of confusion here. From a lengthy and unwanted exposure, I happen to know the proper Marxist answer. First, the axiom:

    ‘All sciences would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided.’ Karl Marx

    http://academic.uprm.edu/~laviles/id219.htm

    Einstein’s thoughts are part of the bourgeois ideology that underpins capitalist exploitation. Therefore they are not scientific. The leaders of the proletariat decide which teachings serve to unmask the internal contradictions of capitalism. The rest must be eliminated.

    There. Glad to have cleared it up for everyone. Any more questions about Common Core?

  8. Stewart Pid says:

    “The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority” …. so the natural universe shows such wonders that it needs an intelligent designer and must not simply exist … so pray tell who designed the intelligent designer or is it intelligent designers all the way down 😉

    • terrence says:

      “Intelligent Design” does fall into an infinite regression. just as you point out Stewart Pid.
      Dualism always does this when it tries to deal with creation.

      A possible way out is to see the entire universe is a self-creating, and re-creating, oneness of some sort. So, creation is not different then, or apart from, existence.

      • gator69 says:

        I believe one reason why so many great scientists come from the ranks of the religious, is that they are introduced to the concept of infinity at a very early age. Atheists do not encounter this concept until later in life, if ever.

        • terrence says:

          The atheists I know, and those I read, (most, if not all, of whom are scientists) are ALL familiar with and talk about infinity.

        • gator69 says:

          And they learned it later in life.

        • David A says:

          Exactly, and when the do, it is most often vacant from the long history of such thought, often summoned up well in the classic “Cosmological argument”. The short answer is that the existence of anything quantifiable and finite, demands an infinite power of infinite energy, beyond all vibratory finite creation, as necessary. Something can not come from nothing, something beyond the laws of cause and effect, (science) must exist. All “scientific” regressions to the big bang, end in infinite energy beyond time and space, GODLIKE solutions.

          Science and Religion are two different fields. Science is one through any number, quantifiable things. Religion is infinity, by definition unquantifiable, by deduction ll powerful beyond the laws of cause and effect, beyond numbers.

          However one can look for evidence of I.D. in the finite manifest world. For example if science finds that all the fundamental forces of nature are perfectly balanced to allow evolution, instead of rapid entropy short circuiting al of the known creation, then this is evidence of intelligence, a watchmaker.

          The only argument against this is a poor one indeed. The multi verse argument ASSUMES that their are millions of other universes, and all of those are likely void of evolving matter because the forces are likely random, and so they experience rapid entropy. We just happen to live in the one in many billion, that have them all balance.

          This is a child’s argument going against rules of logic, and science. It is assumption without evidence, and conclusion from that assumption. As the only observable we have is our universe, then it is far more likely that all other universes also have this perfect balance.

      • X says:

        Creation itself exists beyond the creature, an electron does not “create” itself…
        Then, who is the Creator of all creatures?

    • Ben says:

      It is interesting that both sides postulate a self-creating “blah-blah”, yet in the same breath criticize the other side for espousing such a view.

      Irrational creature, man.

  9. omanuel says:

    Belatedly I came the same conclusion, although it would be politically incorrect to admit it in public.

    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  10. Okie says:

    I believe in intelligent design of the universe, but Obamacare is unintelligent design, more like chaos theory.

  11. gator69 says:

    I was given this book last Christmas, and found it a most interesting look into the history of geology, and its relationship with religion. Having a heavy background in geology I was pleasantly surprised to learn some very interesting history I somehow missed. I highly recommend this to anyone who finds geology and/or religion of interest. I hope to be able to share some passages from my bookmarks at a later date.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0393346242

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      The Rocks are on my list of books I want to read. Time to get it, I reckon.

      • gator69 says:

        You will find it most informative and insightful. Montgomery really deserves respect for this book, very well researched and written.

        • Stewart Pid says:

          gator what is your geology background … a degree or just some exposure?

        • gator69 says:

          I spent about 6-8 years as a geology student, bouncing around the Earth Sciences department. I also spent time as a student of climatology, cartography, geography and received a degree in Remote Sensing. My first geology teacher actually wrote the first text book that was adopted for nationwide use in High Schools, and I worked as a student teacher for him.

          I have been a life long student of this incredible planet, both in and out of university.

    • terrence says:

      At gator69 November 9, 2013 at 7:17 pm, says: “And they learned it later in life.”

      Please name 15 or 20 people who “learned it later in life”. Are any of your group in the group I was referring to? I KNOW that NONE of them are.

      Do you have ANY idea how many scientist are atheists? And why a large percentage of them do NOT speak publicly about it, because of the uninformed, intolerant bigotry of “religious” people – christian, muslim, hindu, even buddhist?,

      • gator69 says:

        Atheist parents generally do not teach children the concept of eternity at an early age, as it is not part if their core belief. Religious parents do teach children about eternity before the child can even read, as it is the one of the fundamentals of their core beliefs. And for the religious this lesson is reinforced constantly over a lifetime. Why is this difficult for you to understand?

        And as far as persecution, scientists who are also religious are often persecuted for their “faith”, so not sure where you are getting your facts. I have never met an atheist who was afraid to tell me ghere is no God. Are you living in a different century than the rest of us?

        • terrence says:

          Did you ever take a high school calculus course, gator69? Infinity is an integral part of calculus. How about grade school algebra, gator69; ever take grade school algebra? Infinity is an integral part of algebra.

          What planet did you go to school an, gator69? Did you actually go to school? Ever study math, basic grade school math? If you did, too bad you did not understand it.

          You religious fervor is very sad, gator69. You sound like a global warming fanatic.

          There have been MASSIVELY LARGE surveys of scientists and the largest MAJORITY of them declare themselves to be atheists. Can yo spell g o o g l e; can you use it?

        • gator69 says:

          Obviously you have more problems than the evident reading comprehension disorder.

        • NikFromNYC says:

          Different-sized infinities are now mainstream Philosophy, thanks to naughty boy Gödel, the 1951 recipient of the Einstein Award, and different *sized* infinities nuke exinstentisl theory, period, as scattershot bullshit that improperly lacks healthy humility.

        • gator69 says:

          I prefer my infinities super sized. 😉

        • Gamecock says:

          Split infinities?

        • David A says:

          terrence says: November 9, 2013 at 8:19 pm
          Did you ever take a high school calculus course, gator69? Infinity is an integral part of calculus. How about grade school algebra, gator69; ever take grade school algebra? Infinity is an integral part of algebra…”
          ———————————————–
          Terrence, infinity in science often refers to exponential feedbacks etc, usefull in finite things, but not to true infinity which if neither a number, nor a closed loop cycle of some quantifiable aspect of creation.
          Your lack of understanding the logical philosophy of infinity, which any number Xs any number is no closer to then one, is evidence of Gator’s assertion. The arguments of most atheist are ignorant of the Infinity which philosophy has long debated, and the atheist have lost this argument, based on logic and deductive reason. Einstein understood this, as did Marconi, when he stated , “The inability of science to solve life’s mystery, is absolute.”

        • Gamecock says:

          David A says:
          November 10, 2013 at 12:29 pm

          The arguments of most atheist are ignorant of the Infinity which philosophy has long debated, and the atheist have lost this argument, based on logic and deductive reason. Einstein understood this, as did Marconi, when he stated , “The inability of science to solve life’s mystery, is absolute.”

          =========================================================

          Atheist lost nothing to your Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

        • David A says:

          Actually that is the atheist argument, as my longer post shows. The scientific evidence points to infinite energy beyond time and space, and cause and affect solutions, All singularities agree with this evidence.

        • Gamecock says:

          David, atheists didn’t invoke Einstein; you did.

          Your use of the Einstein quote, “The inability of science to solve life’s mystery, is absolute,” is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. The lack of proof of a theory is not proof of an opposite theory.

        • David A says:

          Sorry but no. First it was Marconi, and it was just one facet of an argument, never intended to create the straw man you postulated. It was a statement on the inability of science to ever answer that “singularity” question, logically deduced through the concept of infinity as expressed by many astute philosophers.

          See my post here for a VERY brief summary of the ID debate, expressing why I.D. (as defined by the argument) is legitimate, and how science can participate, while acknowledging the limitations of science…. David A says November 10, 2013 at 12:17 pm

      • omanuel says:

        I am one of who belatedly came to the same conclusion after decades of research on the origin of the solar system and irs elements:

        https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_1.pdf

        See the quote from pp. 7-8:

        “The student would later be disturbed to realize that the products (atoms) of element synthesis in the Sun had organized into living creatures capable of comprehending the process that made the elements, sustained the origin and evolution of life, and endowed humans with creativity and rationality. The student still finds it difficult to accept and communicate that almost inescapable conclusion from half a century of careful measurements and rational analysis of the results: Human consciousness is the result of spontaneous transformation of a condensed form of matter (neutrons) into an expanded form of matter (atoms). This highly skeptical, simple-minded experimentalist cannot even deny empirical evidence of a possible reincarnation in the next cyclic expansion of the universe, although he certainly does not espouse it!

        Was this an imaginary conclusion at the interface of spirituality and science, like an imaginary meeting of East and West? Who knows? The conclusion is unavoidable when the scientific method is rigorously used in order to avoid interference from our instinctive FEAR of any aspect of reality that might indicate our powerlessness.”

      • NikFromNYC says:

        In the clean-up operation, Steve is the the double agent who needs downing. Plays dumb, al-fucking-ways, in the face of freak dumb fuck crap-a-zolla, in nearly every fucking thread. MAGIC NEUTRONS?!!?!??!

        REALLY?!?!??!

        EVERY FUCKING DAY, HERE?!?!?/

        MAGIC FUCKING NEUTRONS???!?!??!

        Yup.

        No, THAT”S NOT IT…IT’S….MAGIC STAR GODS.

        MAGIC FUCKING STAR GODS!!!

        EVERY FUCKING DAMN DAY….

        HERE.

        So I submit the theory that “Steve” is Omanuel.

        • I submit the theory that drugs make you paranoid and irrational. But then that is pretty well known.

        • NikFromNYC says:

          You create a haven for crackpots that defeat my every effort to normalize your data mining efforts in the court of public opinion…but *I* am the oddball?! No, that’s backwards, shock jock. Iron Sun guy (you?) raped his four daughters. Harry sees patterns in fractals that spells GODWORK. But I’m the paranoid drug guy? Where? How? When? Who? Certainly not me. That’s you, Creationist.

        • Censoring ideas is for Nazis.

        • X says:

          Steve is *NOT* Omanuel (omanuel’s first name is Oliver)!! WTF!!
          What is the problem with Omanuel’s postings? He’s not even a warmist!
          He’s just a freethinker, like many here.

        • Nik, your insanity is showing, as others here have noticed. Why do you rant about fractals, for example? I have never implicated fractals in my research into the Great Design or in my writings about it, and if you want to implicate them, know that fractals cannot explain the simplest physical evidence for that design, which I provided in my 2009 “Challenge to Earth Scientists” post (it is incompetent hubris on your part, indeed, to think fractals could explain a dodecahedral pattern of great circles–undeviating, world-girdling lines, not complex shapes–indicated by the landmasses on the globe). I deal in the definitive, objective facts only (and I have no more use for fractals and “chaos theory” than I do for the “greenhouse effect” or “Ice Ages”–or, for that matter, Omanuel’s patently false idea of a traumatizing fear of nuclear annihilation behind the current insanity).

          And, to gator and others, religious experience is not about infinity, but merely the overarching truth behind the coherence of things, especially our reason. Eternal truth, yes, but still just truth.

          But of course, these are just so many ugly words to you, Nik, with the wrong emotional effect upon you. I’m sorry, but I can only discuss the facts I have uncovered, and the truth illuminated by them. Your emotions–the emotions of all who are deluded by false dogma today–are your problem. You may think plucking them out would be like plucking out your eyes, but it would really only be like weeding a garden–a tedious task, but a relatively short and most useful one, I assure you.

        • Gamecock says:

          Harry, the presence of a design is not proof of design.

  12. Gamecock says:

    The United States has 600,000 doctors to deal with our “intelligent design.”

  13. Stewart Pid says:

    Come on folks … play nice …. we all know that we can fight like cats and dogs about this for an eternity / infinity and not settle anything!!

    • gator69 says:

      I just wish Terrence would make up his mind. In one post he claims scientists are afraid to disclose their atheism, and then in the next he claims they are the majority. Ever try squeezing jello? 😆

      I have no issue with atheists, as Jefferson said, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

      But then I am no atheist. 😉

      • terrence says:

        Do you read English, gator69 – . What planet did you go to school on, Gator69

        Look at the survey and SEE what the SCIENTISTS said (they JUST MIGHT say why they do NOT publicly proclaim their atheism). Could it be because of uninformed, intolerant religious bigots?

        Since you are probably not capable of searching the internet, here is something I found in TWO seconds. “In 2009, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press polled members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on belief in a higher power. The study found that 51 percent of members polled expressed such a faith, compared to 95 percent of the American public. Additionally, the National Academy of Science charted belief in God as low as 5.5 percent among biologists and 7.5 percent among physicist and astronomers in a 1998 study.”

        And, please stop fantasizing about what you PRESUME atheists tell their children, and what you PRESUME religious people tell theirs. When you did these things you really did make yourself look like an AGWer of the extreme kind.

        • gator69 says:

          So from your post, scientists are not afraid to admit their atheism. The larger portion of abuse I see is hurled at the faithful, with epithets like ‘creationists’.

          As I said, I don’t care what you believe of do not believe as long as you do not force it on me, or hurl insults at anyone for their faith or lack thereof. I do see one bigot on this thread, one who still has not understood my previous comments.

  14. Karl W. Braun says:

    V-ger

  15. Colorado Wellington says:

    ID. Didn’t know them was fighting words.

  16. I describe my religion as “math and physics older than I am” .
    Beyond that , is mystery , and that is all that can be said .

    I consider Pythagoras to be the greatest ancient theologian .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s