Thursday, August 31, 2006
Science vs Religion
I am surprised to see this debate opened back up recently. I thought I settled it back in 1978 when I did my research paper for Mrs. Fitzgerald’s High School English class.
I am also reminded of the essay I wrote for my final exam in college physics. The subject was quantum physics. The question was whether you believed in the theory of quantum physics and to defend your answer.
After spending an entire semester learning quantum physics and how to use it to predict chemical reactions, I wrote that no I did not believe in the theory. I was the only one in the class to take this side of the argument.
My reasoning was, as shown in the experiments we had done, the intentions of the experimenter completely determined the outcome of the experiments. We had proven mathematically that the path of a subatomic particle could be controlled by the intentions of the observer. In fact we had proven that simply observing a quantum physical event influenced its outcome. Simple observation was a creative event.
My conclusion was that despite all the experimental evidence to the contrary, the theory of quantum physics could not be correct and that the nuclear reactor at Watts Bar was just a figment of our imagination because……
There had to be an intelligent design behind it for it all to work. There had to be an intention in the mind of someone in order for it to happen. And as all good scientists of the time were taught, these events are supposed to be random. Who taught those electrons which orbits to take. Did they go to electron high school to learn that?
The whole theory was based on the assumption that there was a specific intelligent design behind it. And all the experimental evidence from that semester pointed to a specific intelligent design as well. And since scientist all know there is no intelligent design the theory of quantum physics has to be flawed. Nuclear physics cannot occur as described and the all the nuclear reactions in Oak Ridge are just fantasy.
I got an A.
Bookmarkz
I am also reminded of the essay I wrote for my final exam in college physics. The subject was quantum physics. The question was whether you believed in the theory of quantum physics and to defend your answer.
After spending an entire semester learning quantum physics and how to use it to predict chemical reactions, I wrote that no I did not believe in the theory. I was the only one in the class to take this side of the argument.
My reasoning was, as shown in the experiments we had done, the intentions of the experimenter completely determined the outcome of the experiments. We had proven mathematically that the path of a subatomic particle could be controlled by the intentions of the observer. In fact we had proven that simply observing a quantum physical event influenced its outcome. Simple observation was a creative event.
My conclusion was that despite all the experimental evidence to the contrary, the theory of quantum physics could not be correct and that the nuclear reactor at Watts Bar was just a figment of our imagination because……
There had to be an intelligent design behind it for it all to work. There had to be an intention in the mind of someone in order for it to happen. And as all good scientists of the time were taught, these events are supposed to be random. Who taught those electrons which orbits to take. Did they go to electron high school to learn that?
The whole theory was based on the assumption that there was a specific intelligent design behind it. And all the experimental evidence from that semester pointed to a specific intelligent design as well. And since scientist all know there is no intelligent design the theory of quantum physics has to be flawed. Nuclear physics cannot occur as described and the all the nuclear reactions in Oak Ridge are just fantasy.
I got an A.
Bookmarkz
