yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Ugh....
Show me a single person who stated that the universe was formed by random chance. You either do not understand what that means, or you are deliberately misrepresenting a claim.
-
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!
Expelled
- Thread starter Hope
- Start date
Show me a single person who stated that the universe was formed by random chance. You either do not understand what that means, or you are deliberately misrepresenting a claim.
Nonsense! There's an old saying in Texas, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Creationists/IDers are more than infamous for their lies and distortions. Now you want to say, "Give 'em yet another chance". Well, that's just too bad. They've had all the chances they get from me.
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
Hope said:
The real test is to see how many of these Intelligent Design scientists are Deists. Because, if they are Deists, they have no agenda, but if they are Christians or Muslims it is likely that they are working first from their Holy Books and then looking at the Scientific evidence.
Does anybody know of a Deistic, creationist or ID? One name would be a start.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Hope:
Do you think I haven't given Creationism/ID a fair hearing and do you think that's the reason I think it isn't science and doesn't belong in a science classroom?
Do you think I haven't given Creationism/ID a fair hearing and do you think that's the reason I think it isn't science and doesn't belong in a science classroom?
tomspug
Absorbant
I have no problem with that view either, but Intelligent Design has a 'relationship' with Science. You should not treat them as separate entities. Intelligent Design, by nature, MUST interact with science. By refusing to allow it to, you refuse it growth as well as critique.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
True. But it doesn't have a scientific relationship to science. That's the problem.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Because the supernatural by definition is outside the scope of science, and any attempt to use science to try to prove the existence of a supernatural being or lack thereof is intrinsically flawed. Science is about the natural world, period. Even the question of whether the "evidence" points to a "higher intelligence" is outside of the scope of science. It may (I don't think so, but you're entitled to your opinion), but it's not a scientific question; it's a religious one.
Further, there may well be a God who has acted through evolution. Accepting the theory of evolution does not in any way entail the rejection of the existence of a higher intelligence. Science asks: how? Your question is about: why?
Hope
Princesinha
Maybe you could enlighten me, then. Perhaps I am merely confused. (If I am "misrepresenting a claim," I assure you it is out of ignorance, not out of deliberate intent.)
What other option is there, when the option of intelligent design, is excluded?
Hope
Princesinha
Thank you, tomspug, once again, for articulating so succinctly what I could not. (I wanted to frubal you, but couldn't.
)
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Neither would be science or scientific. Each would be entitled to their opinion, which could be defended, but neither could be defended as science. Science does not assert that there is no God. Science tells us how the natural world works. If you believe in God, then science tells you how He he moves, His wonders to perform. If you don't, then you think it's just how the world works. No Biology teacher teaches his class that there is no God. What they teach, which is both scientific and correct, is that the Theory of Evolution explains how we get a diversity of species on earth. If you believe in God, then you would conclude that is how God creates species.
Exactly. The difference is that scientists do not try to do this, in their role as scientists, while the ID movement does. That is why it is unscientific.
Chaos is actually a scientific idea which many scientists study. This growing field is called "chaos theory," and also has no bearing on the existence of God.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I haven't seen the movie, but there's a huge difference between having an opinion and asking for it to be taught to high school students as science.
Hope
Princesinha
It's only a religious question when one goes into more detail about what or who the deity/higher intelligence is.
I don't think anyone is trying to prove or disprove the existence of a god. That is indeed outside the realm of science. But if the natural world---which is what science studies----points to the possibility of something beyond it, then what is wrong with science at least admitting it points to this possibility? It doesn't mean science has to make a dogmatic assertion about the existence of this unknown entity, or study the entity itself----it simply means science has the freedom to say, hey, this could be a possibility.
No. My question is not about "why." It's about "how"----which, as you correctly pointed out, science asks. So, according to you, the question "How did the physical universe come into existence?" falls within the realm of scientific inquiry, and answering the question with "possibly due to a higher intelligence" also falls within the realm of scientific inquiry.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I have to disagree. To be science, it must make falsifiable predictions that can be tested. Because we have nothing to compare the universe to, this is impossible with regard to the question of whether it was created by a divinity. As I said, not only is the assertion that the universe was created by a God not science, so is the assertion that it was not.
btw, the Discovery Institute has been caught on several occasions admitting that their goal is purely religious, and that they seek to change the fundamental nature of science to make their enterprise possible. It's not accident that they were founded by a lawyer, not a scientist.
Because what is "beyond the natural world" is by definition supernatural, and therefore outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.
It could be a possibility, but not one that can be studied by science. Red flag: if it were science, it would lead to further study: what is the nature of this "unknown entity?" How did It create? By what mechanism? Etc. etc. As we saw in Dover, Penn., the ID movement does not posit and does not foresee ever exploring these questions. Dead giveaway that what they're doing is not science.
O.K., how did the higher intelligence create the physical universe? By what mechanism? When? Using what? These are the questions that science already explores. (although they are very challenging ones.) These are scientific questions.
Smoke
Done here.
It is not persecution to expect science teachers to teach science.
Smoke
Done here.
Well, you're the one who asked for opinions about it.
Ben Stein is an adamant Creationist, so it's not too hard to figure out the direction the movie is taking.
Smoke
Done here.
On the contrary, ID is the refusal to do science. It postulates that anything that can't be explained by our current knowledge is evidence of Intelligent Design. In practice, ID proponents usually go a step beyond that and claim that things cannot be explained which can, in fact, be explained.