• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A matter of opinion?

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If a scientist comes to the conclusion that there seems to be design in nature, or seems to hint at a 'mind' behind their findings, will they automatically be regarded as bad scientists by the rest of the scientific community? Or must they strictly stick to 'naturalistic' explanations?

Your question reveals a perception many have, that the scientific establishment defends the ToE with what appears to be religious fervor, and displays animosity toward any who dare challenge this unproven theory. This has been discussed in this forum.
I believe the evidence supports this animosity and censorship by evolutionists, evidence also discussed in this forum.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Your question reveals a perception many have, that the scientific establishment defends the ToE with what appears to be religious fervor, and displays animosity toward any who dare challenge this unproven theory. This has been discussed in this forum.
I believe the evidence supports this animosity and censorship by evolutionists, evidence also discussed in this forum.


Mythology is suppressed over science.

Nothing more and nothing less.


One deals with observable facts, one more time FACTS regarding evolution.

Not ancient mans mythology and allegory.
 

RedJamaX

Active Member
If a scientist comes to the conclusion that there seems to be design in nature, or seems to hint at a 'mind' behind their findings, will they automatically be regarded as bad scientists by the rest of the scientific community? Or must they strictly stick to 'naturalistic' explanations?

The problems is that Intelligent Design supporters are not "hinting" at a "mind".. they are outright claiming that there most definitely "IS" design. That contradicts the entire idea of Science. Science is a quest for discovery to answer the question "HOW?". Once you get to a point and make the claim, from this point here, God did it"... then you are no longer conducting Science... Unless you have some physical, substantial evidence that (first) there IS actually a God... AND that this God most definitely did in fact "Design" life, or the universe... the you are making a bad argument that is no longer scientific in nature.

That's why Intelligent Design is dismissed. Not ONLY does it go against the very idea of discovery... but the logic is backwards... For I.D. to work, you have to assume a God... not to mention all the abilities of said God...
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Mythology is suppressed over science.

Nothing more and nothing less.


One deals with observable facts, one more time FACTS regarding evolution.

Not ancient mans mythology and allegory.

A fact is the earth revolves around the sun. The ToE is not a fact, but an unproven theory.
 

jonman122

Active Member
Making assertions is not proof.

Then why do you keep asserting that evolution isn't proven? Do the research, just google the theory of evolution, and you'll see all the proof. The amount of evidence for it would fill up several forums, and would take much too long for someone to explain to you in its depth.
 
Top