[lbo-talk] Neo-Lamarckianism???? Come on!

[John Thornton]

Miles Jackson wrote:
> John Thornton wrote:
>   
>> The fact that one can work in a science field and believe in a god 
>> doesn't change the fact that the two are incompatible. People believe 
>> contradictory things all the time. This is just one more example. In 
>> most instances the contradiction will never manifest itself so no 
>> problem will arise.
>>
>> John Thornton
>> ___________________________________
>>   
>>     
> I'm not seeing the essential incompatibility of doing science and 
> believing in a god.  Now, if you're thinking of fundamentalist 
> Christians who believe the world is 6000 years old, then sure, it would 
> be hard for members of that group to be geologists or astronomers.  
> However, many Christians disagree with the "literalist" reading of the 
> Bible, and for those theists, there's no meaningful contradiction 
> between science and their theological beliefs.
>
> Miles

Believing that an omniscient omnipotent being who can create the 
universe is integrated into which branch of science?
Believing that some unmeasurable consciousness pervades the entire 
cosmos violates everything I know about physics.
I'm not a physicist but one physicist I do know extremely well says the 
exact same thing so I'll assume I'm on pretty firm footing.
While I know there are physicists who believe in a god they do not 
position this deity in the same space as you and I.
Some do some rather odd mental gymnastics to avoid the conflict I 
mentioned earlier or else just fall back on the unknown as an 
explanation and ignore the physical violations.
Science hasn't disproved the existence of a god but nothing we know is 
compatible with such a belief and much of what we know is incompatible.
What in science do you have in mind supports the idea of a non-physical 
consciousness that can bring matter into existence?
Or do you define god on some much more limited term and if so how does 
that allow the use of the term god?

John Thornton