I take issue with the third line that you describe. What scientists are publishing that gain insight from belief in god? How does belief in god inspire a scientific paper? Couple that with the line you describe just under it, and it simply becomes absurd.
GCT | 12.22.06 - 3:55 pm | #

GCT,

I modestly submit that, as a believing scientist with a number of believing scientist friends, I have more data than you. In spite of the claim of some scientists that there are no presuppositions in science—there is certainly one: namely that science is not a fool's errand. We actually believe that we can make progress. Newton and Maxwell paved the way by showing that understandable, simple mathematical expressions could explain a broad range of phenomena. We had no real reason to expect that such powerful, predictive models (and many that followed) could even be formulated let alone comprehendible with the human mind. For believing scientists, this is strong evidence for an ordered, understandable universe created by God. Thus, as I stated, all their research is partially motivated by a belief in an intelligent designer—which is not to be confused with Intelligent Design, hence the two different curves. That's all I'll say on that-I have no interest in a protracted debate on a plot that is purely notional.
heddle | Homepage | 12.22.06 - 4:18 pm | #

Mr. Heddle,
I disagree that you necessarily have more data than I. You don't even know me. You may or may not.

"We had no real reason to expect that such powerful, predictive models (and many that followed) could even be formulated let alone comprehendible with the human mind."

Poppycock. With a god that can warp time/space/etc. at will, there is no reason to expect an ordered universe.

"For believing scientists, this is strong evidence for an ordered, understandable universe created by God. Thus, as I stated, all their research is partially motivated by a belief in an intelligent designer—which is not to be confused with Intelligent Design, hence the two different curves."

And, here you prove my point. You've got it completely backwards. The "evidence" informs their belief. Not the other way around.
GCT | 12.22.06 - 4:50 pm | #

Mr. Heddle,
Perhaps you could come up with an experiment that you've done that you could not have done had you not been a believer? Of course, if you could do that, then the ID people could get off the ground.
GCT | 12.22.06 - 4:52 pm | #

The gravitas and audience size afforded to militant atheists. Example: We are now in a situation where a blog that a) is about science only 20% of the time (based on a recent survey) b) never about the author's original science (how could it be?) c) commits unthinkable faux pas such as getting into protracted scientific debates with a cartoonist and misidentifying a Christian parody article as real (think of the Chinese government whining about an article from the Onion—and then realize that their mistake is, by comparison, understandable) d) denigrates accomplished scientists with orders-of-magnitude more scientific output solely because they aren't militant atheists—can be named the science blog of the year!

This characterization of Peezee and his blog is spot on.
Robert O'Brien | Homepage | 12.23.06 - 12:38 am | #

"The accompanying edifying comments included assertions that Jones was bought and paid for by the ACLU"

Haha, I loved that part. Cue X-files soundrack...

Atheists such as myself couldn't hope for a better set of opponents than Dembski, Luskin, West, Cordova, DaveScot, Richards, O'Leary, all those dumb UD commenters etc. Their behaviors bring out the full ridiculous flavor of ID.
choo-choo | 12.24.06 - 2:23 pm | #

"Political-Activist Intelligent Design (PAID)"

Perfect!
Angry Christian | 12.26.06 - 5:27 pm | #