Me, having seen Neil deGrasse Tyson's speech mentioning this, reply:Friend's status wrote: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being." --Sir Issac Newton, father of modern science (Principia, “General Scholium,” 1713)
At which point I get back:I wrote: Yeah, that's after he gave up on the perturbations of the planets. He said "I give up! The solar system would collapse without god!"
Who solved that problem? PS Laplace, using a new branch of mathematics that allows for perturbations. He did...n't invoke god, because he "had no need for that hypothesis."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY (Newton starts at 4:30, Leplace at 13:50)
In fact, the thing always worked, Newton just gave up and said God did it.
I'm not sure how to approach this. I mean, obviously CreationWiki is going to be some really biased source, and it surprises me that he would use this because I think this man is level-headed and I thought he was, well, legitimate in his search for understanding (he certainly encourages me to search).My friend wrote: David, some respect should be given to the father of modern science. What were his accomplishments again? How easy it is to throw the father of modern science under the bus when his beliefs ...disagree with your own and run counter to the p...oint you are trying to make. It's fine to share a counter point of view, but there's no need to sully the reputation of a brilliant man modern science and mathematics is indebted to.
Here's an interesting Issac Newton story I came across today on CreationWiki.org that gets to the point:
"In the book: The Truth: God or evolution? Marshall and Sandra Hall describe an often quoted exchange between Newton and an atheist friend.
Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system, which was to be put in a room in Newton's home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can imagine, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.
Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My, what an exquisite thing this is!" he exclaimed. "Who made it?" Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this." Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone, "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!" the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is!" Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer or maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"
But how would one explain the difference between a model of the solar system and the real solar system? On the surface it's a plausible argument, and I don't think that saying something about how the natural forces of the universe actually do form planetary systems (as we see elsewhere in the universe and in computational models) is going to sufficiently rebut this.