Your thoughts on prayer 2

 No, John, I think it is your deliberate misunderstanding that is at fault here. I thought that the scientist who said: 

Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words … they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior.’¹⁸  has hit the nail on the head.

I remember another scientist saying " They cannot allow a divine foot in the door..."

I was very much impressed with the whole argument and could not pick out anything in particular. I don't need to read these articles to bolster my belief in God....but they certainly do bolster them.

I haven't time to look at your link yet. But will do so this afternoon.  But from where you are standing, it is impossible for you to understand what prayer really is and what it means. Some of your posts have shown this.

John, I'm not at all surprised at the rejection of Michael Behe by his own university. As I stated a long time ago in this thread, it is Darwinian Fundamentalism that is at work here. It is well known by now that those who don't tow the evolutionary line soon find themselves isolated. I believe some even have to keep any thoughts on the possibility of a God to themselves for fear of incurring the wrath of the majority of the science world. I don't call that searching for the truth at all.  Just arrogant tyranny.

I looked at your link, John, and read the review. It's very interesting but doesn't actually prove anything. I have seen some similar reviews that take Richard Dawkins' books apart.

As to my post earlier, even I can get the general gist of what is being said, by other scientists. I wonder why it is that only the 'no God' side seek to denounce any opposition to their view of the world...re your post above.

Darwinian Fundamentalism. Oh boy.

OK, Sue. I know when it's time to agree to disagree.

Here's a website you'll enjoy. It's even better than Answers in Genesis.

 http://darwinconspiracy.com/ 

Thanks, John, but I may have found this before you!  Darwinian Fundamentalism is not my own phrase......I did a copy and paste with those words writ large....you do remember, don't you?

It proves that there is always two sides to an argument, much as you may dislike the fact.

Well, have you an answer to the three fatal flaws?

Sue, I honestly don't know what to say here.

I gave you that link because the Darwinian Conspiracy website is so utterly stupid I thought it would make you laugh! It certainly had that effect on me.

The 'three flaws' are clearly the product of an idiot! 

If you want answers - not that they deserve answers - try this. 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_darwin_conspiracy.php 

You are obviously much cleverer than me, John, and I'm afraid I didn't see the joke. 

I see yet another website that questions the Theory of Evolution. OK, so it has the word conspiracy in the title, but so what. As I said earlier, many scientists have to keep their mouths shut about God or His just possible existence, if they want to keep in with the fashionable scientific world, and not be ostracised.  Sounds a bit conspiratorial  to me. What would you call this arrogant tyranny. Definitely not an open search for the truth.  

Sue, who are these religious scientists who have to keep quiet? Or should I say, how have you heard about them?

There are many conspiracy theories. (We never actually landed on the moon, it seems.)

Very few of them have any substance. 

I most definitely believe we landed on the moon. I've seen the conspiracy programmes and the ones that answer every question, such as why no stars appeared in any of the photos. It would be too horrible for words if the whole thing had been a hoax, thankfully that is not the case.

John, I cannot name actual scientists, because they do not reveal themselves, do they. But don't be denying that this is the actual situation. I have learned this when reading articles on creation v evolution. It seems perfectly plausible. Richard Dawkins wants creation teaching (along side evolution) to be banned in schools. How intolerant and arrogant is that. He is not content that evolution is taught anyway. He cannot bear to have to slightest dissent or opposite view aired, even though his pet theory is practically taught as if it were a fact. This is the prevailing attitude. You are a little the same, John. I don't mock and laugh at links that you provide. I may not think they say anything different to what I have already heard, but you are perfectly welcome to show them to me. Being a committed athiest seems to have that effect.