Kevin Padian: Investigating Evolution

Physics and Theology. About creators of God. # Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit If triangles made a God they would give him three sides / Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 / # If physicists made a God they would give him concrete physical parameters. # Which parameters they can be ? We know that God is something Infinite. What is ‘INFINITY’ ? Nobody knows. The conception of ‘ Infinity’ we can find not only in Bible but in Physics too. Are they equal ? Are they different ? I think that ‘INFINITY’ is ‘INFINITY’ and can be only one for every knowledge, for every meaning. I think there isn’t special ‘INFINITY’ for Bible and special ‘INFINITY’ for Physics. I think the conception ‘INFINITY’ is equal for every part of Science. # Again and again the ‘INFINITY’ appears in many physical and mathematical problems. / Part Physics: Theoretical applications of physical infinity . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity / It means that ‘INFINITY’ is some kind of reality. (!) Does Physicists meet God In the Infinite ? (!) Does God live in the INFINITE ? ( !) To understand this we need to find the answers to the questions: 1) What is / are the physical parameters of the ‘INFINITY’ ? 2) What is connection between the infinity and the concreteness ? 3) What is connection between infinity and quality ? 4) How to explain the unity and inconsistent character between the infinity and the concreteness ? ===============. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus =====================.

Religious fundamentalism has very little to do with scientific illiteracy and it is a pretty much a function of either theological illiteracy or outright theological deceitfulness. Therefor, it can not be solved by the teaching science. It could, however, be solved by teaching proper theology. That, of course, is the real nightmare of fundamentalists... a populus that is actually told about the fundamentals of theology would rob them of any possible arguments, because all they are dealing with really boils down to insults to God, rather than proofs of the failure of science. One of the grand historic failures of the Catholic Church has led to a pretty easy playing field for fundamentalists, by the way. When the Church was at the height of its efforts to suppress heretics, commonly known as the time of the inquisition, it wasn't going after science. It was aiming almost completely at heretics with differing theological ideas... of course, these "heretics" were nothing else than people who had strong religious feelings, except, that they did not agree with the authority of the Church. Because of the rather singular events concerning Giordano Bruno, Galileo and Kepler's run-in with a witch hunt over financial matters targeting his mother, the naive modern interpretation is that the Church was anti-scientific. In the 19th and 20th century this misconception has been used to build up a tension between religion and science that did not exists because it can be used easily to deflect from the real conflict in the middle ages, which was between religion and religion. Today that conflict still exists, even though few people are being formally prosecuted. One can easily find half a dozen pope equivalents with a complete set of cardinals each in every decent town of the US these days. It's the leaders of their churches with their amateur theologians teaching Sunday School. The total religious freedom of this country makes it possible for everyone and their grandmother, and I mean this quite literally, to conjure up their own theological home brew, non-withstanding the centuries of serious thought that have laid the framework for the halfway decent theology that can be learned in any proper theological department of any university in the world. The penalty for this is... absolutely nothing, whereas in the 15th century it would have meant certain prosecution with threat of loss of life, limb and treasure with a few rounds of torture thrown in for good measure. Fundamentalists of all tastes have therefor basically agreed to disagree on pretty much everything theological, but they have also agreed to keep silent about their disagreement in favor of a public campaign against a "common enemy". Sadly, that enemy is, no, it's not science per se, but truth in general. Truth happens to have this particular quality to it, that there is usually only one version of it which, in addition, does not leave a lot of freedom for interpretation. Fundamentalism, however, needs that very freedom of interpretation to twist facts to its own liking... and there is just not a lot of twisting possible if one loves the truth.

Mankind evolution etc. is it not a wonder that man can discuss the issue. Atheism as a word was evolve from the counter point of the god thing believers. to whom needs enemies, not out of believe but pure greed and resentment that other human beings are different and can free from such pragmatic order.

An excellent discusion between two highly credible representatives generating plenty of energy but without the usual spears, arrows, sparks and barbs. It was more like a chess game than a conflagration. Check the links to see Kevin Padian's testimony at the Dover Pa. trial. All in all the discussion leads down a middle road of evolution with the washouts bridged by a god.