National Academy of Sciences says there is evidence for Creation by God

The following is a quoted statement from the National Academy of Sciences.
It was used by NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) in their FAQ section.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html



That is the official position being maintained by the National Academy of Sciences. Furthermore....

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

Those statements appear in a booklet published by the National Academy of Sciences, which is still available today.
Therefore, that position by the NAS, still stands.

Quotes from: 1999 report "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition" which is available online from the National Academy Press: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024




From that official statement - the National Academy of Sciences is actually, officially DECLARING that there are evidences for a God-created universe in numerous areas of science.

 

If there are evidences - take note that plural form - to support creation by God, then we come to the inevitable conclusion that therefore,
God must exist.


The official position given by the National Academy of Sciences poses quite a dilemma for those who insists that God does not exists.

If your atheistic belief contradicts science......where do you base your argument that God does not exist?

 

Before we go any further, let's be clear as to who, or what, exactly is the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/mission/


These are not exactly your run-of-the-mill scientists.

 

From the article...

"... Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

 

What you cited doesn't back up your claim.

 

If God = Nature, then God is consistent with science.

 

I didn't see where they say there is "evidence" of a God, just that many scientists believe that the universe started with God who created the laws of the physical and biological world. My belief in God entails the same things that are described in the article, or as it was termed "theistic evolution. I wish I could have described it so articulately.

It is a beautiful statement, and good topic for a thread.

 

This is totally off topic, but since it is early where I am, and most people are still sleeping, I will venture off the beaten path and say that I absolutely adore your avatar.

 

Science does not deal with the supernatural. It can only deal with the natural (physical)....that's why it stated precisely about the PHYSICAL universe.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html


Science cannot come out to conclude that God exists - it can't. Science can deal only with the physical (natural).

That's where LOGIC comes in.

If there is evidence that the magnificent cake was baked by a baker.....what do we logically conclude from that?
Of course, we can conclude that the baker who baked that cake, must exists!

 

Ok good !! It's all settled so let's move on. OOOOPS !!! Lets move forward. OOOOPS Lets get on with life.

 

Heh heh, thanks.

I used to have an avatar of a little kitty who passed out over its bowl of food. I thought it said something profound, though I was never quite able to put my finger on it.



But with so many of my opponents having avatars of things like fiery demons and fierce looking eagles and machine guns and the like, I figured I needed something a little more bad-ass looking to have credibility with that crowd.

: )

 

It is indeed a beautiful statement. I believe that science was created for a reason.
Perhaps, it was created that it may eventually reveal, and glorify God.

- - - Updated - - -

Not good enough a rebuttal. Expand. Why?

 

LOL! It's a good enough rebuttal for you lie that "National Academy of Sciences says there is evidence for Creation by God"

Nothing that you cited backs that up.

Why lie?

 

From that simple and clearly-stated NAS statement......where did you get "God = nature?"

- - - Updated - - -

If you can't explain and back up your opinion, I guess you and I are done here.

 

Try this. It is the conclusion of the NAS at the end of the book.

Conclusion

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.
The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.
No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modem life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.

 

Balderdash! You can glean whatever you will from that statement. For me, and I'm sure for others, I don't think it speaks for every scientist who is a member of the NAS. To further that point where within any of the statement does it state 'all scientists'? I take the statement by the NAS simply to say that it recognizes that there are scientists that hold religious beliefs and not that that particularly acknowledges and existence of any God or other deity with regard to creation or evolution.

 

Great picture of the kitty in the food dish. Animals are sometimes the only things that can make me smile.

 

"If" God = Nature ...

That's basically what I hear them saying. "Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth."

Scientific endeavor has discovered the natural processes that resulted in the creation of galaxies, planets, life on Earth and man. If you define God as being consistent with these natural processes, then God is consistent with science.

 

Kitties are cute. I grew up in Washington. Ancestors came in a covered wagon on the Oregon Trail. I grew up in Edmonds and Lynnwood outside of Seattle, but my family left for sunnier places in 1973. Things have changed a lot there since then.

 

I just did explain it. You claim is not supported by what you posted. Full stop.

Again: why be so dishonest? What do you get out of it?

 

Let me show you:

'theistic evolution,' (the belief that God created the universe and the process...etc), is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed (which also translate to in fact),

it (theistic evolution) reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe

revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."



REVEALED, is the key word for evidence. It means, "shown," or "to make known." That's EMPIRICAL evidence.

Furthermore, the NAS named some specific areas of science that revealed these evidences: cosmology, paleontology,
molecular biology.

 

I live and grew up around the Olympic Peninsula. I love it here. I have lived in Berkeley, Anchorage, Easter Oregon, Minnesota, but there is no place like home.

My father was first generation Irish. He hailed from Chicago, but I've never been there. My mother's family has live around here for generations.

You see, our opinions of Trumpf may not be the same (I like Rand) but we can still find common ground.

 

It's cute how religious people only care what scientists say when it supports their narrative.

What the OP doesn't realize, however, is that the National Academy of Sciences is always trying to find the path of least resistance. Most scientists are atheists, but they also know that it's best to deal calmly with religious nuts so that we can fight global warming without "Jebus saying there ain't no global warming."

 

Huh. Maybe another angle would help.

Is English your first language? Do you understand the word 'evidence'?

 

Maybe Zeus created everything.