I would argue the inflection point for this theory was when the eclipse test confirmed Einsteins model. Do you think this type of inflection point exists for Darwin’s inference of universal common descent?
NY Times 2017
Few eclipses have had more impact on modern history than the one that occurred on May 29, 1919, more than six minutes of darkness sweeping across South America and across the Atlantic to Africa. It was during that eclipse that the British astronomer Arthur Eddington ascertained that the light rays from distant stars had been wrenched off their paths by the gravitational field of the sun.
That affirmed the prediction of Einstein’s theory of general relativity, ascribing gravity to a warp in the geometry of space-time, that gravity could bend light beams. “Lights All Askew in the Heavens,” read a headline in this newspaper.
Very poor example Bill. I’ve never seen any religious Fundamentalists protesting against General Relativity because of their literal Genesis beliefs. Have you?
What do you mean “both answers”? There are SIX answers listed in that thread and more than one of them answers yes. Why are you only acknowledging the ones that make them distinct and ignoring the others?
You can also go to the Wiki page on “Theism”, here:
When you go under the section “types of theism”, can you guess what pops up? Deism.
If you want to argue that these two positions should be kept strictly separate, that is fine, I don’t really care about word classifications. I’m just letting you know that deism is categorized as both a subset of theism or distinct from theism dependent on the author, and typically because of whatever their focus is (are we just talking about people who believe in a God? Or about whether or not God cares about humans? Or whether or not God has revealed himself through revelation [most, but not all, deists answer “no”, here]? Etc.)
Here is another page like Quora, full of disagreement, where some argue for classification as a subset, while others argue for separation:
That’s all you’re gonna get from me on this, because these kinds of definition debates are pointless and boring to me. Ciao!
The question does come to the topic of the OP. It’s an interesting case study that so many major scientific theories are unopposed: not just in physics, but in chemistry as well. I don’t think there are anti-quark protests, although I have heard from people who considered relativity and quantum to be plots to undermine a sense of reality…
But it tends to be things and theories in biology, relating to life, that are opposed. Perhaps that’s unsurprising in that life strikes so ‘close to home’, but case studies of opposition that is not grounded in and motivated by religious beliefs seem to be hard to come by.
ID is a movement that is defined in opposition to evolutionary theory. That much has been clarified for me by discussion in this thread and on this site. It has the negative program of challenging evolutionary theory, and no positive program.
It seems plausible that the underlying motivation is most often religious. In the cases of a few individuals it may be based in political conservatism not related to their personal religious convictions, but that conservatism harks back to a past that was explicitly Christian.
In none of the posts so far has anyone presented a motivation for ID that is not religion-influenced.
In terms of someone arguing against GR based on their interpretation of Genesis, is there a reason why Jason Lisle doesn’t count, who argues that the speed of light isn’t constant in all directions?
It’s an interesting point. I had a long discussion a few years ago with someone who believed he had discovered and whole new physics where the age of the universe was 6000 years. With the best will in the world, I suggested that he go and study physics beyond the high school level he currently had, and he enrolled, but then he talked to someone else who convinced him that a marketing degree would be more useful in spreading his ideas than a physics degree… and I haven’t heard from him since.
And yep, it’s Biblically-motivated… but he seems to be exploiting relativity, rather than opposing it. He’s championing a non-standard model, but not the scheme as a whole, in fact he relies on it.
Sorry. My default browser hid all but the top two. The dominant opinion still appears to be in the negative:
No, deism is not a type of theism. ... However Deism has more in common with Atheism than with any theistic religion. ... Yes. No. Maybe. ... Technically as the words are defined, no. ... Yes. ... Depends on if you take note of whether they do anything.
Three unambiguously negative responses, one unambiguously positive, two maybes.
With a subtle grin on my face as I read, I thought sure that your anecdote would formulaically culminate with: “And the name of that young man with an idea in his heart was Ken Ham. And the rest is history!”
If it were a segment on Christian radio, it would be followed by another narrator’s voiceover: “Thank you for joining us again today for another episode of Great Moments in Young Earth Creationism.”
) do indeed resonate with the public maybe more emphasis on population genetics will bear fruit.