Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Grignard wrote: I was once very motivated by that, but I have found that in the years of study in my field I have learned very little that brought me any comfort or certainty, and have learned things that can keep me up at night.

QFT.

As for intelligent design, and the theory of organic chemistry, that's a very nice anecdotal piece of evidence. It also doesn't really help us understand more about organic chemistry (or anything for that matter) to fall back on intelligent design. It's like turning on a light bulb and claiming it is "magic". Well that's all well and good, but what happens when you want to change the lightbulb, or build another one, or explain to your friend how to use it. Science tells us "how" and people turn to religion/faith to explain "why". These things should not be mutually exclusive. If you can believe that God created the universe out of nothing, how does that interfere with the big bang theory? What if God was the Big Bang, or started it all off with his divine power? Anyone, flameshield on, because I know that some of you will probably disagree, but that's how I see it. Science = how, Faith = why or everything else you might need.

And Doc Thunder, what type of scientists are you referring to that are biased, and for that matter, which clergymen?