Thus my choice of quotations. With Einstein, it was a dislike of
probability, or perhaps just a love of cause and effect that made him
disparage Heisenberg. That, and the term "God" were the reason I used
the
quote. Sorry you missed it. Thought it was appropriate.

Understood. And thank you for the opportunity to elaborate further.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that Einstein
published his famous remark in a paper in a peer-reviewd journal.
Nor, I daresay did Einstein oppose the publication of papers in
Quantum Physics. Absent his own contributions to Quantum Physics
he almost certainly would not have received the Nobel Prize.

Keep in mind that the Nobel Committee just about had to give him the prize
based on his 1905 papers, but the one they cited was the explanation of the
photoelectric effect, the least revolutionary of the bunch. See
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/.

I am quite confident that, if called upon to review a paper
invoking as a natural mechanism or drawing a conclusions as
to divine intervention he would have recommended against
publication.

No one is arguing that scientists should not believe in God or
even be outspoken or religous issues even as they relate, in
a philosophic sense, to their work. The argument is that
a scientist should not intermingle religious explanations
with natural law itself. Religion and science are close
philosophic neighbors. Good fences make good neighbors.

Einstein never proposed "God does not play dice" as a natural
law.

--

FF

Editors of scientific journals would love to publish something as
revolutionary as ID, if the work would withstand peer review of its science.
So far, ID hasn't done so, and IMHO won't. What will happen is that
continued investigations will add more and more data that support evolution
by survival of the fittest.

The statement of the Steve's List of the National Center for Public
Education says:


Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological
sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea
that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are
legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is
no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural
selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically
inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience,
including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the
science curricula of our nation's public schools.

I am Steve #564

See
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp