NationStates Jolt Archive

There seems to be a lot of reluctance about accepting I.D. into some Biological theory of life -- some rational, some not so. Fair enough. However, I wonder if the I.D.ers can attempt to sneak a God hypothesis into another area of science? So, I'll try. Incidentally, this has no political motivation; I merely want to understand if a God hypothesis can be acceptable within science without prejudice from non-scientific values.

The area in which the I.D.ers may have the best chance of creating some hypothesis about God creating, partly or fully, the universe is within theoretical physics -- i.e. theoretical cosmology. I think this area is the most promising because it is free(r) from the wants of business, special groups whom pay for labs and other influences such as governments and non-scientific values.

So, all I really want to claim is that someone (a physicist or a group of physicists) could, if they haven't already, come up with some cosmological theory (or model, whatever terminology you're comfortable with) of the universe that includes God (i.e. an intentional creator). Furthermore, it will be a theory that has the potential to be tested and, of course, falsified or confirmed.

To those against I.D. why couldn't such a model be created by some theoretical physicist (yes, most likely at a university)? That is, what principles and values of science would the creation of such a theory break?

Basically, all I'm looking for is for the non-I.D.ers to admit that such a model is feasible within the scientific (all be it at its earliest stages within the scientific method) framework that takes place within theoretical physics

It fails because, as with biology, it fails the test. You can't test God, there's no math or observation to back it up. You could write out an hypototheis that includes Him, but you could also do the same and get to a point and write "It's this way because I say so". There's no way to actually argue that within science.

Ok, I'll bite. No. God cannot be measured scientifically because there is no clear definition as to Who (What) God is.

science can conceive of no test to prove or disprove an entity that is all powerful and exists beyond the realm of scieintific laws.

You could not test for god because god in theory does not exist in this universe thus you could never gaurentee that any test to prove god's existance would in fact prove anything, as you have no way of knowing the test would work.

I can test if a rock floats by dropping it in water. I can test if wood burns by setting it on fire. I can not test for god because god exists beyond the realm of observable.

Thus it isn't science.

It fails because, as with biology, it fails the test. You can't test God, there's no math or observation to back it up. You could write out an hypototheis that includes Him, but you could also do the same and get to a point and write "It's this way because I say so". There's no way to actually argue that within science.

OK, you God, "Him". I'm not talking about God in the Judeo-Christian sense. I just mean a creator (this is problematic, because, if it isn't some super-natural being, then we face infinite regress problems; no matter for now). Also, we would include math. As to observation, String Theory has not much, if any, confirmning evidence yet. I mean, there are many non-intuitive models -- i.e. that the universe is a hologram (i.e. enfolded information), which great and contemporary theoretical physicists go on about. Admitedly, they are a consequence of some Math system, but how? It's Math incorporatyed into a model. All I'm saying is that such a model is possible with God also.

To say the same thing, but in another way, God is a metaphysical being, and therefore beyond physics, and the empirical methods to which it subscribes.
To quote Laplace, "Sir, I had no need of that hypothosis."

if, IF someone could come up with some mathematical model that is verifiable and would demonstrate the existence of a creator THEN I would accept it into the realm of scientific theory. If you can show me, mathematically, that the universe is IMPOSSIBLE to exist by chance and that math was tested and shown correct, ok.

But until then, no.

OK, you God, "Him". I'm not talking about God in the Judeo-Christian sense. I just mean a creator (this is problematic, because, if it isn't some super-natural being, then we face infinite regress problems; no matter for now). Also, we would include math. As to observation, String Theory has not much, if any, confirmning evidence yet. I mean, there are many non-intuitive models -- i.e. that the universe is a hologram (i.e. enfolded information), which great and contemporary theoretical physicists go on about. Admitedly, they are a consequence of some Math system, but how? It's Math incorporatyed into a model. All I'm saying is that such a model is possible with God also.
A "creator" would have to be somehow detectable. Not saying there isn't one, but how would you detect it?

To say the same thing, but in another way, God is a metaphysical being, and therefore beyond physics, and the empirical methods to which it subscribes.
To quote Laplace, "Sir, I had no need of that hypothosis."

Exactly. You can not test for an entity that exists in a reality different from the one in which you keep your instruments.

OK, you God, "Him". I'm not talking about God in the Judeo-Christian sense. I just mean a creator (this is problematic, because, if it isn't some super-natural being, then we face infinite regress problems; no matter for now). Also, we would include math. As to observation, String Theory has not much, if any, confirmning evidence yet. I mean, there are many non-intuitive models -- i.e. that the universe is a hologram (i.e. enfolded information), which great and contemporary theoretical physicists go on about. Admitedly, they are a consequence of some Math system, but how? It's Math incorporatyed into a model. All I'm saying is that such a model is possible with God also.
The issue is though, even with some of the crazier models, they are used to make predictions to test, or can be backed up with some evidence.

How do you do the same to God or a creator?

What basis do you use?

OK, let us forget God as the Judeo-Christian God for a moment. Al I mean is an "Intentional creator" -- could be another scientist, whatever, but an intelligence. Intelligence has nothing to do with all the omni's. If it did, I wouldn't be on here right now.

if, IF someone could come up with some mathematical model that is verifiable and would demonstrate the existence of a creator THEN I would accept it into the realm of scientific theory. If you can show me, mathematically, that the universe is IMPOSSIBLE to exist by chance and that math was tested and shown correct, ok.

But until then, no.
As someone with a math degree, I'd need some physics to go with that. I can say almost anything using math. It may have no correlation with the "real world."

OK, let us forget God as the Judeo-Christian God for a moment. Al I mean is an "Intentional creator" -- could be another scientist, whatever, but an intelligence. Intelligence has nothing to do with all the omni's. If it did, I wouldn't be on here right now.
We still need a viable creator detector.

Basically, all I'm looking for is for the non-I.D.ers to admit that such a model is feasible within the scientific (all be it at its earliest stages within the scientific method) framework that takes place within theoretical physics

ANOTHER FUNDY

Frankly I could care less about your fairy tale, but here's the thing IT'S WRONG FOR YOU TO TRY TO MAKE THE NEXT GENERATION BELIEVE IN YOUR CHRISTIANITY.

THE WALL OF SEPERATION DOES NOT ALLOW ID.

I'm lucky I was born in California!

Exactly. You can not test for an entity that exists in a reality different from the one in which you keep your instruments.

Arthais, you are so kind to everyone, even fundies!

OK, let us forget God as the Judeo-Christian God for a moment. Al I mean is an "Intentional creator" -- could be another scientist, whatever, but an intelligence. Intelligence has nothing to do with all the omni's. If it did, I wouldn't be on here right now.

For something to have the power to create all of existence you'd need omnipotence, or something pretty damn close to it.

Unless you're suggesting something not quite so dramatic, such as life on earth being seeded by aliens, or this really being the matrix controlled by machines. In such a hypothetical, that COULD possibly be tested, provided you came up with a proper test.

The issue is though, even with some of the crazier models, they are used to make predictions to test, or can be backed up with some evidence.

How do you do the same to God or a creator?

What basis do you use?

Yes, I agree this is problematic; I'm not sure what we would look for or what tests would work (i.e. meet scientific standards). Also, you are right about the prediction aspect as this is very important to theoretical physics and physics generally. However, I'm not claiming that I know how to solve these issues -- sadly, I'm not a Physicist. All I'm claiming, and this is the succinct version, a scientific model of the universe that includes an intelligent creator does not result in a contradiction. Furthermore, although we may not have the ability to measure and test such a model now, we may in the future, with more sophisticated techniques.

All I'm asking from the non-I.D.ers is to admit that such a model does not contradict scientifc values.

By the way, I have no ulterior motives myself -- i.e. theistic motives. I just, at this point, think that this is not irrational, even if you are an atheist.

The problem also in assuming a non "godlike" figure in a theory of Intelligent Design is based on the premise of Intelligent Design which states, roughly "life is too complex to be created by accident."

Presumably that theory would be applied to any other non godlike entity that created US. For if our life is too complex to be created by accident, theres is too, which thus negates the principle of Intelligent Design which states that life is too complicated to be an accident.

Now a theory that life was made by aliens, or this is the matrix, or whatever, again can be tested, but it is NOT intelligent design as it assumes that our non godlike creator was created by accident themselves, or it assumes god created THEM and they in turn created us, which runs right back into the problem of "prove god".

Yes, I agree this is problematic; I'm not sure what we would look for or what tests would work (i.e. meet scientific standards). Also, you are right about the prediction aspect as this is very important to theoretical physics and physics generally. However, I'm not claiming that I know how to solve these issues -- sadly, I'm not a Physicist. All I'm claiming, and this is the succinct version, a scientific model of the universe that includes an intelligent creator does not result in a contradiction. Furthermore, although we may not have the ability to measure and test such a model now, we may in the future, with more sophisticated techniques.

All I'm asking from the non-I.D.ers is to admit that such a model does not contradict scientifc values.

By the way, I have no ulterior motives myself -- i.e. theistic motives. I just, at this point, think that this is not irrational, even if you are an atheist.
It MAY be possible in the future yes, but currently we cannot test for it there fore it cannot be science. Science is dealing with what IS.

So, right now I cannot claim it will not contradict because it does. Now if we come up with a way to test it, then it will no longer do so, but that also is speculation that doesn't go anywhere.

For something to have the power to create all of existence you'd need omnipotence, or something pretty damn close to it.

Unless you're suggesting something not quite so dramatic, such as life on earth being seeded by aliens, or this really being the matrix controlled by machines. In such a hypothetical, that COULD possibly be tested, provided you came up with a proper test.

I don't particularly care what created us, as long as it is intenional. The properties of the creator are irrelvant at this point. All I want is the non-I.D.ers to admit that a God hypothesis within theoretical physics is possible.

a scientific model of the universe that includes an intelligent creator does not result in a contradiction.

No it does not. but since it is not testable or disprovable, it is not SCIENCE.

Furthermore, although we may not have the ability to measure and test such a model now, we may in the future, with more sophisticated techniques.

At which point we may test it and, assuming it fails, debunk it, and assuming it passes, accept it as theory. Until we can do that it's not science.

[QUOTE]All I'm asking from the non-I.D.ers is to admit that such a model does not contradict scientifc values.[/QUOTE[

Neither does unicorns, dragons, or the flying spaghetti monster. However since it can not be tested, can not be proven, and can not be observed, it is scientifically irrelevant, and not actually SCIENCE.

Einstein believed in a creator, that does not invalidate his accomplishments. It however also does not believe that it is a SCIENTIFIC belief.

Yes, I agree this is problematic; I'm not sure what we would look for or what tests would work (i.e. meet scientific standards). Also, you are right about the prediction aspect as this is very important to theoretical physics and physics generally. However, I'm not claiming that I know how to solve these issues -- sadly, I'm not a Physicist. All I'm claiming, and this is the succinct version, a scientific model of the universe that includes an intelligent creator does not result in a contradiction. Furthermore, although we may not have the ability to measure and test such a model now, we may in the future, with more sophisticated techniques.

All I'm asking from the non-I.D.ers is to admit that such a model does not contradict scientifc values.

By the way, I have no ulterior motives myself -- i.e. theistic motives. I just, at this point, think that this is not irrational, even if you are an atheist.

(my bold above)
The issue at this point is that there are no such models which conform to scientific values. Come up with one, and we can go from there ;)

All I want is the non-I.D.ers to admit that a God hypothesis within theoretical physics is possible.

Why do you want a hypothesis that is untestable?

It MAY be possible in the future yes, but currently we cannot test for it there fore it cannot be science. Science is dealing with what IS.

So, right now I cannot claim it will not contradict because it does. Now if we come up with a way to test it, then it will no longer do so, but that also is speculation that doesn't go anywhere.


Contradictions are independent of time. They are always contradictory in every place and time.

I don't particularly care what created us, as long as it is intenional. The properties of the creator are irrelvant at this point. All I want is the non-I.D.ers to admit that a God hypothesis within theoretical physics is possible.

The fundamental principle of intelligent design is that life is too complicated to exist by accident and thus requires a DIVINE creator (if the creator wasn't divine then how does IT exist?)

A god HYPOTHESIS is permissable. A god THEORY is not. And science should not entertain unprovable, untestable hypothesis.

No it does not. but since it is not testable or disprovable, it is not SCIENCE.



At which point we may test it and, assuming it fails, debunk it, and assuming it passes, accept it as theory. Until we can do that it's not science.

[QUOTE]All I'm asking from the non-I.D.ers is to admit that such a model does not contradict scientifc values.[/QUOTE[

Neither does unicorns, dragons, or the flying spaghetti monster. However since it can not be tested, can not be proven, and can not be observed, it is scientifically irrelevant, and not actually SCIENCE.

Einstein believed in a creator, that does not invalidate his accomplishments. It however also does not believe that it is a SCIENTIFIC belief.

What he said ;)

Contradictions are independent of time. They are always contradictory in every place and time.
Then you have answered your own question.

I don't particularly care what created us, as long as it is intenional. The properties of the creator are irrelvant at this point. All I want is the non-I.D.ers to admit that a God hypothesis within theoretical physics is possible.

Arthais seems to sometimes be a Republican, he thinks like one anyway. He probably would have been one, but luckily progressives have long controlled the free education providfed to people. This allows the government to steadily improve the next generation, even if their parents are racist and cling on to "traditional" notions of morality and God, because it allows the government to advance the citizenry and then the citizery respond by assigning the government even more duties!

Another world is possible! Vote for Jon Tester and Jim Webb and Amy Klobuchar!

Why do you want a hypothesis that is untestable?

I don't, obviously. Such a test may be available in the future. I mean, String Theory has been untestable because the methods aren't available. Yet, they teach classes on it at universities, etc. -- much to the empiricists disdain. So, I say the same for a God hypothesis.

Contradictions are independent of time. They are always contradictory in every place and time.
Now, you are no longer making sense.

Arthais seems to sometimes be a Republican, he thinks like one anyway. He probably would have been one, but luckily progressives have long controlled the free education providfed to people. This allows the government to steadily improve the next generation, even if their parents are racist and cling on to "traditional" notions of morality and God, because it allows the government to advance the citizenry and then the citizery respond by assigning the government even more duties!

Another world is possible! Vote for Jon Tester and Jim Webb and Amy Klobuchar!

Oh please.

I don't, obviously. Such a test may be available in the future. I mean, String Theory has been untestable because the methods aren't available. Yet, they teach classes on it at universities, etc. -- much to the empiricists disdain. So, I say the same for a God hypothesis.


When no one is looking, I think my nipples turn blue. I hope some day to test that theory also.

I don't, obviously. Such a test may be available in the future. I mean, String Theory has been untestable because the methods aren't available. Yet, they teach classes on it at universities, etc. -- much to the empiricists disdain. So, I say the same for a God hypothesis.

String theory may not be directly testable, but it is supported by theoretical mathematics.

Come up with some mathematics that indicate and support the existance of god (such as mathematically demonstrating that the possibility of the universe existing as it currently does is 0) then I will accept it as theory.

Until then it's not.

Oh please.

Seconded.

Seconded.
Seconded, but aimed at The Don ;)

However since it can not be tested, can not be proven, and can not be observed, it is scientifically irrelevant, and not actually SCIENCE.

Yet, many models are created within theoretical physics that aren't testable as of now. So, you claim these are not science? Ok, I'd be happy with I.D. being given this status, because it would be like string theory. So, we would be justified in teaching it at universities just string theory is.

Seconded, but aimed at The Don ;)

I think he's just confused because he believes that if string theory can not be observably tested it is invalid.

It is based on a mathematical construct. Such a construct can be tested, the math can be played with and, if proven wrong, invalidated.

Seconded, but aimed at The Don ;)

don't be mean.

Yet, many models are created within theoretical physics that aren't testable as of now. So, you claim these are not science? Ok, I'd be happy with I.D. being given this status, because it would be like string theory. So, we would be justified in teaching it at universities just string theory is.

String theory can be tested mathematically. You can play with the math, see if it's valid, see if it's permissable, or see if there are errors.

A theory is valid if it explains reality, is not inconsistant with any observation, and based on some scientific principle which can be disproven.

God can not be disproven. String theory can, potentially, be shown to be in mathematical error.

I think he's just confused because he believes that if string theory can not be observably tested it is invalid.

It is based on a mathematical construct. Such a construct can be tested, the math can be played with and, if proven wrong, invalidated.

You are right, the mathematics has been worked prior to any testing. Yet, even if String theory is disconfirmed, the Math is not false. The Math is still true, because it is a closed system.

String theory can be tested mathematically. You can play with the math, see if it's valid, see if it's permissable, or see if there are errors.

A theory is valid if it explains reality, is not inconsistant with any observation, and based on some scientific principle which can be disproven.

God can not be disproven. String theory can, potentially, be shown to be in mathematical error.

Arthais, I know you want to be a politician and you think by "leaving open the option of God" will get you fundy votes. But why don't you support your principles?

String theory, the Big Bang and Evolution have also disproven God and any kind of "moral" law!

don't be mean.
You're the one doing all the wishful thinking. We've continiously pointed out that, scientifically, there are no viable theories of God. You repeatedly ask your wishful thinking to be given credibility. I say, "Oh, please."

Yet, many models are created within theoretical physics that aren't testable as of now. So, you claim these are not science? Ok, I'd be happy with I.D. being given this status, because it would be like string theory. So, we would be justified in teaching it at universities just string theory is.
What science can be applied toward ID that is even close to the amount of science that can be provided by string theory?

"Finally, the math behind string theory is extremely sophisticated and beautiful, and the equations have survived every mathematical challenge. People who have worked on string theory often walk away with a powerful, if unquantifiable, feeling that it smells like truth.

But any theory, no matter how grand, must be reproducible, and that is where testing string theory gets a little crazy. Each of the theory’s solutions represents an entire universe, so to test the theory fully, one would have to create a baby universe in a laboratory. State-of-the-art technology barely lets us escape the planet, never mind re-create another cosmos. So skeptics, who often admit the loveliness of the math, have long dismissed string theory as an untestable fantasy.

That could change soon. An array of new devices—including new atom smashers, gravity detectors, spaceborne satellites, and buried detectors—could provide significant evidence that would support string theory. The rub is that all this new evidence, no matter how compelling, will still provide only indirect proof."
http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-05/cover/

Create a God Smasher, smash a God and then show some beautiful math to go along with it. Then you can call it a theory.

String theory will either fall apart or it will stand up to the tests under which it is currently being subjected. You cannot do a thing about a God that is anywhere near comparable.

Arthais, I know you want to be a politician and you think by "leaving open the option of God" will get you fundy votes. But why don't you support your principles?

String theory, the Big Bang and Evolution have also disproven God and any kind of "moral" law!

I have no intention of being a politician and if I did so it would not be as a Republican, HOWEVER string theory, the big bang, and evolution neither prove, nor disprove god.

They (or at least the last two) disprove CREATIONISM, but not the existance of god.

God can not be disproven. String theory can, potentially, be shown to be in mathematical error.

"The universe exhibits design". That is an empirical statement. How do we test it? Of course, we can argue about it, but how do we test it? May be we can't now, but we may be able to.

"The universe exhibits design". That is an empirical statement. How do we test it? Of course, we can argue about it, but how do we test it? May be we can't now, but we may be able to.

And when we can, or create solid mathematics that support such a statement, I will admit it as theory.

Not until.

I'm not saying that one day we WON'T be able to mathematically indicate or observationally test for the existance of god.

I'm saying we can't NOW. When we can we can, and we can accept it as theory. Until then we can't.

I have no intention of being a politician and if I did so it would not be as a Republican, HOWEVER string theory, the big bang, and evolution neither prove, nor disprove god.

They (or at least the last two) disprove CREATIONISM, but not the existance of god.

Good enough for me. If Christianity is destroyed, which we all want, at least normal Democratic Americans (Republicans pander for fundy votes), finally we can move beyond Christians oppressive notions of morality and "right" and wrong.

Good enough for me. If Christianity is destroyed, which we all want

Speak for yourself. I don't buy into Christianity, I don't believe in its tenants, and I don't believe those tenants should influence legislation. But people certainly have the right to believe in it.

Speak for yourself. I don't buy into Christianity, I don't believe in its tenants, and I don't believe those tenants should influence legislation. But people certainly have the right to believe in it.
I agree. It does no good to disrespect Christianity and then expect Christians to respect science.

Non-I.D.ers. Please tell me how a a God hypothesis within theoretical physics results in an explicit contradiction? If you claim that non-testability results in a contradiction, then I point to String theory as a counter-example (look, I don't care how beautiful it is, that's beside the point. The point is, that the scientific community has accepted -- not the empricists, though -- something that, as of now, cannot be tested. So, why not allow I.D. to have such a status? I'm not saying that it is the same as string theory. All I'm saying is that it can have a place within science, which I've stated, without contradicting any scientific principles -- i.e. those at the theeoretical level.

Non-I.D.ers. Please tell me how a a God hypothesis within theoretical physics results in an explicit contradiction? If you claim that non-testability results in a contradiction, then I point to String theory as a counter-example (look, I don't care how beautiful it is, that's beside the point. The point is, that the scientific community has accepted -- not the empricists, though -- something that, as of now, cannot be tested. So, why not allow I.D. to have such a status? I'm not saying that it is the same as string theory. All I'm saying is that it can have a place within science, which I've stated, without contradicting any scientific principles -- i.e. those at the theeoretical level.
Show the math which involves God. Any math.

And when we can, or create solid mathematics that support such a statement, I will admit it as theory.

Not until.

I'm not saying that one day we WON'T be able to mathematically indicate or observationally test for the existance of god.

I'm saying we can't NOW. When we can we can, and we can accept it as theory. Until then we can't.

So, you will admit that the I.D. theory has some potential and, at least -- because it has been neglected -- can be part of some theoretical physicists study. That it is a potential model, that doesn't contradict anything other than the fact the Math has not been worked out?

Show the math which involves God. Any math.

A fundy would say "God created math" LOL.

Evolution requires a ton of math. Another proof, besides even if God did exist, it couldn't be taught as true fact because of that "pesky" 1st Amendment the Republicans don't want to have around anymore.

Show the math which involves God. Any math.

Yes, but, presumably, Physicists have been working on incomplete mathematical systems for various theories. Yet, they were employed in universities and they were funded to investigate their theories, even though their theories had no Math yet. However, you deny that their theories were part of the scientific process. Thus, part of science. Why can't I.D. be part of science in this way. Let's just begin investigating.

A fundy would say "God created math" LOL.

The omni-type God wouldn't create Math because S/he would already know all the consequences of the axioms.

So, you will admit that the I.D. theory has some potential and, at least -- because it has been neglected -- can be part of some theoretical physicists study. That it is a potential model, that doesn't contradict anything other than the fact the Math has not been worked out?

If someone wants to go and try to prove the existence of god then go right ahead.

I dont know one way or another whether we can EVER test for god, either observationally or mathematically. But if someone wants to try, let him try.

Yes, but, presumably, Physicists have been working on incomplete mathematical systems for various theories. Yet, they were employed in universities and they were funded to investigate their theories, even though their theories had no Math yet. However, you deny that their theories were part of the scientific process. Thus, part of science. Why can't I.D. be part of science in this way. Let's just begin investigating.
A short history of String Theory:
http://www.superstringtheory.com/history/history4.html

...
All I'm claiming, and this is the succinct version, a scientific model of the universe that includes an intelligent creator does not result in a contradiction.
...
There might be a contradiction there. I can't quite pin it down, but I offer this: a scientific model of the universe is incomplete as long as it contains a creator.

Grant that the universe exists as it appears to.
"It was created" is no more than a trivial assumption, and has no explanatory power.

You also have to wonder what sort of havoc a scientific theory can do to something as abstract as faith.

If someone wants to go and try to prove the existence of god then go right ahead.

I dont know one way or another whether we can EVER test for god, either observationally or mathematically. But if someone wants to try, let him try.

Sorry, wanted to reply quicker, but crappy connection.

So, you will admit there is a place for I.D. within Science, albeit a very restricted area of Science or, at least, you'll admit that there is a place for I.D. within the scientific process, albeit the part of the process -- that is at the beginnings or the budding aspect of the scientific process. Thus, we can also admit, since Science is concerened with the empirical, that the question, does God (as creator of the universe, no matter its properties) exist, is an empirical question, with the potential to be investigated by science. So, there is a place for I.D. within science.

I've got to get ready for work, so I'll check back when I'm on my break.

If someone wants to go and try to prove the existence of god then go right ahead.

I dont know one way or another whether we can EVER test for god, either observationally or mathematically. But if someone wants to try, let him try.

Sorry, wanted to reply quicker, but crappy connection.

So, you will admit there is a place for I.D. within Science, albeit a very restricted area of Science or, at least, you'll admit that there is a place for I.D. within the scientific process, albeit the part of the process -- that is at the beginnings or the budding aspect of the scientific process. Thus, we can also admit, since Science is concerened with the empirical, that the question, does God (as creator of the universe, no matter its properties) exist, is an empirical question, with the potential to be investigated by science.
I've got to get ready for work, so I'll check back when I'm on my break.

A short history of String Theory:
http://www.superstringtheory.com/history/history4.html

Your point here is what? That the person that created String theory wasn't a scientist? I mean, I saw the Nova show like evreyone else. I am using String theory as an example; I'm sure there are other examples. Yet, if that is your main objection -- that is, against the example, I suppose, I'm ok.

Lets flip the tables. Science cannot disprove that the spark of creation was caused by an intelligent designer (GOD). IN fact, many of the laws of science are illogical or backwards on the subject. For example "energy cannot be created or destroyed", ( where did it come from then??)

Bottom line: Science cannot disprove the existance of God.
Intelligent design cannot disprove science.

[[B]so why not teach the controversy???

Sorry, wanted to reply quicker, but crappy connection.

So, you will admit there is a place for I.D. within Science, albeit a very restricted area of Science or, at least, you'll admit that there is a place for I.D. within the scientific process, albeit the part of the process -- that is at the beginnings or the budding aspect of the scientific process. Thus, we can also admit, since Science is concerened with the empirical, that the question, does God (as creator of the universe, no matter its properties) exist, is an empirical question, with the potential to be investigated by science. So, there is a place for I.D. within science.

I've got to get ready for work, so I'll check back when I'm on my break.

Science is the search for truth. NO question is beyond science, ANYTHING is a valid source of inquiry and experimentation. It is the job of science to seek the truth of the universe, and as such any question, no matter how absurd, should be barred from examination.

However nothing should be taught as theory until it meets the standards of scientific theory, which ID has not.

It does not mean that it is wrong to try and design an experiment to test god, science should try to test everything. But until those tests, either observational or mathematical, have reached some valid level as a theory, it should not be taught as such.

Science is the search for truth. NO question is beyond science, ANYTHING is a valid source of inquiry and experimentation. It is the job of science to seek the truth of the universe, and as such any question, no matter how absurd, should be barred from examination.

However nothing should be taught as theory until it meets the standards of scientific theory, which ID has not.

It does not mean that it is wrong to try and design an experiment to test god, science should try to test everything. But until those tests, either observational or mathematical, have reached some valid level as a theory, it should not be taught as such.

If you find a car in a desert do you need science to tell you that it was designed intelligently? If you see sentient souls in a universe of vastness is it not logical to assume that they were created as opposed to formed at random?

so why not teach the controversy???

Go ahead and teach the controversy. In a religious studies class.

Keep it out of science however since it's not science. Unless of course it's ok for a math class to run discources in Nazi germany or an art class to focus the year on calculus (leave fractile art out of it for now...)

Science belongs in science class. A discussion on ID has its place, in a fair and balanced class on religious studies.

Your point here is what? That the person that created String theory wasn't a scientist? I mean, I saw the Nova show like evreyone else. I am using String theory as an example; I'm sure there are other examples. Yet, if that is your main objection -- that is, against the example, I suppose, I'm ok.
You do realize that there was math involved here... from the very beginning? It's nice that you watch tv, though.

If you find a car in a desert do you need science to tell you that it was designed intelligently? If you see sentient souls in a universe of vastness is it not logical to assume that they were created as opposed to formed at random?

I have seen an assembly line. I have seen people build cars. Likewise I have seen nature to compare it to, and can tell through comparison that a car does not fit into "nature" as I can point to several features of a car that do not exist in nature.

I have neither seen anyone create a universe, nor have I seen a universe that I can prove was not created by a diety to compare to this one and draw from that parallels and differences.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that science has specific standards that must be met until anything is considered legitimate theory. Intelligent design has not met that, thus it is not theory, and thus should be kept out of science class.

If you find a car in a desert do you need science to tell you that it was designed intelligently? If you see sentient souls in a universe of vastness is it not logical to assume that they were created as opposed to formed at random?
An interesting philosophical debate.

Go ahead and teach the controversy. In a religious studies class.

Keep it out of science however since it's not science. Unless of course it's ok for a math class to run discources in Nazi germany .

But that is a terrible comparison. 61% of Americans do not believe that Nazism is the origin of math. IN fact, nobody does...so your analogy is just plain bad. Many legitimate scientists believe in God as a creator,as I recall from a few years ago the man who introduced me to my church was a doctor of the science of biology. So, many scientists believe in God, 90% of Americans do, and we should ignore that. Science has never disproven creationism, most people believe in it, yet you want it to be silenced along with the nazis in math. That smacks of censorship.

But that is a terrible comparison. 61% of Americans do not believe that Nazism is the origin of math. IN fact, nobody does...so your analogy is just plain bad. Many legitimate scientists believe in God as a creator,as I recall from a few years ago the man who introduced me to my church was a doctor of the science of biology. So, many scientists believe in God, 90% of Americans do, and we should ignore that. Science has never disproven creationism, most people believe in it, yet you want it to be silenced along with the nazis in math. That smacks of censorship.
I think you are confused about what science is and what science is capable of doing....

But that is a terrible comparison. 61% of Americans do not believe that Nazism is the origin of math. IN fact, nobody does...so your analogy is just plain bad. Many legitimate scientists believe in God as a creator,

And how many of those scientists who believe in God can come up with a conclusive experiment to test for the existence of god, let alone PROVE god?

By and large, the answer, as you so put it, is nobody.

Science has standard. Intelligent design does not meet those standards. Ergo, it is not scientific theory. It is faith. And faith no more has its place in science as history in math, or math in art.

I think you are confused about what science is and what science is capable of doing....

nope, I am sure of it, science cannot disprove the theory of intelligent design. So it stands. A majority of people believe it. Yet you want it silenced. This is terrible censorship that is motivated by politics. It is why if I ever have kids they will be going to a private school.

Science has never disproven creationism

Any belief that claims all evidence to the contrary of a 6000 year old earth is either the work of the devil, or a trick placed there by god to seperate the faithful from the non believers can never be "disproven" as assertion of the power of miracle can never be disproven.

Under all rational definitions of proof, creationism has been debunked in more ways than can easily be counted


most people believe in it,

What people believe is faith. What can be tested and observed is science. As long as you insist on not understanding that simple distinction you will remain ignorant as to why faith does not belong in science classes.

And how many of those scientists who believe in God can come up with a conclusive experiment to test for the existence of god, let alone PROVE god?

By and large, the answer, as you so put it, is nobody.

Science has standard. Intelligent design does not meet those standards. Ergo, it is not scientific theory. It is faith. And faith no more has its place in science as history in math, or math in art.

But thats the point, you cant prove God, and you cannot disprove him either. So why choose one side over the other? The scientific method does not stand for that. Both ideas are theories, yet you are for silencing the one that you oppose ( unlike me). I think that as a country we are a tiny part of the world, and the world is a tiny part of the solar system, and the solar sytem is a speck in our galaxy, and our galaxy is one of endless billions in the infinate vastness of the universe. Yet in all of that, there is only one of each of us, with a soul. Think about how special that is. How unique and great. And you are telling me that it all happened at random? Pop, bang, fiz....No, I am sorry, I lack the faith the accept that.

Any belief that claims all evidence to the contrary of a 6000 year old earth ....
.


Um.....I never associated myself with that. I was talking about intelligent design ( Earth was created by God) not the new earth theory ( the earth is...not that old).

Both ideas are theories

Theory has a specific criteria. ID does not meet that criteria. Therefore it's not a theory. So stop calling it one.

And until it meets those standards it has no place in science

How unique and great. And you are telling me that it all happened at random? Pop, bang, fiz....No, I am sorry, I lack the faith the accept that.

Which is your right. Science however cares not one damn what your faith is, or anyone elses. Science cares about what can be tested, and god can not be tested.

Let religion be discussed in a religious studies class.

nope, I am sure of it, science cannot disprove the theory of intelligent design. So it stands. A majority of people believe it. Yet you want it silenced. This is terrible censorship that is motivated by politics. It is why if I ever have kids they will be going to a private school.
Science continues to disprove ID as it moves forward with evolution. What was it... the eye that ID proponents thought couldn't possibly be evolved? Surely, you've argued enough that you've seen that facet of ID theory disproved. What use is a theory that doesn't grow but actually gets eroded over time as it is systematically disproved?

But thats the point, you cant prove God, and you cannot disprove him either. So why choose one side over the other? The scientific method does not stand for that. Both ideas are theories, yet you are for silencing the one that you oppose ( unlike me). I think that as a country we are a tiny part of the world, and the world is a tiny part of the solar system, and the solar sytem is a speck in our galaxy, and our galaxy is one of endless billions in the infinate vastness of the universe. Yet in all of that, there is only one of each of us, with a soul. Think about how special that is. How unique and great. And you are telling me that it all happened at random? Pop, bang, fiz....No, I am sorry, I lack the faith the accept that.
Prove we have souls.

Theory has a specific criteria. ID does not meet that criteria. Therefore it's not a theory. So stop calling it one.

And until it meets those standards it has no place in science



Which is your right. Science however cares not one damn what your faith is, or anyone elses. Science cares about what can be tested, and god can not be tested.

.

What criteria can the theory of intelligent design not meet that the theory of random creation can?

Do you admit, then, that science cannot explain everything?

Um.....I never associated myself with that. I was talking about intelligent design ( Earth was created by God) not the new earth theory ( the earth is...not that old).

Actually you said "creationism" not "intelligent design"

Creationism is the belief in the biblical creation of earth (IE 6000 year old earth).

If your statement is ID has never been disproven, then I can admit to that.

However science has never proven that unicorns don't exist. Moreover under biology a unicorn could quite CERTAINLY exist (plenty of mammals have horns).

Should we teach that unicorns exist in biology? After all I can find a lot of books that mention them.

Surely, you've argued enough that you've seen that facet of ID theory disproved.?

Can you explain how it was disproven that God created the Earth and people? I would love to hear what methods the scientists used.

But thats the point, you cant prove God, and you cannot disprove him either. So why choose one side over the other?

Science doesn't choose. Science just leaves God out of the equation for precisely the reason you stated. To see why, please explain clearly what added value "God for whom we cannot test did it in ways we cannot comprehend" has over the much simpler "we do not know".

Prove we have souls.

People are the only fully sentient beings known in the Universe.

Actually you said "creationism" not "intelligent design"

Creationism is the belief in the biblical creation of earth (IE 6000 year old earth).

If your statement is ID has never been disproven, then I can admit to that.

.

creationsim: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

only again you try to link the idiotic young earth theory with creationism. They are two seperate ideas. Linking them in not very honest. I think I already mentioned this at least once.

What criteria can the theory of intelligent design not meet that the theory of random creation can?

Do you admit, then, that science cannot explain everything?

1) Big Bang Theory asserts certain things, such as that matter in the universe is moving apart from each other, and that there would be observable background radiation. Both have been shown to be true. Thus the logical conclusions of that theory are shown to be true (IE if X is true, Y must be true, and Y is true). ID has no logical assumptions. It simply said "god did it"

2) Big bang theory can be disproved. If X then Y, and not Y, then not X. If we realize that certain things MUST be true in order for the big bang theory to be true, and those things are NOT true, then the theory is disproven. You can not disprove god. You can not test god. You can not design any experiment that would indirectly validate the existence of god

3) Big bang theory is not circular logic, ID is. The universe is so ordered that it must be created by god, and to show evidence of god we observe the order of the universe. A theory can not presume something, and then use that presumption to prove itself

There, that's 3 big reasons.

As for whether science can't explain everything? Of course it can't. And those things science can not explain are best left to areas OUTSIDE of science, as science has nothing to do with them.

Science doesn't choose. Science just leaves God out of the equation for precisely the reason you stated. To see why, please explain clearly what added value "God for whom we cannot test did it in ways we cannot comprehend" has over the much simpler "we do not know".

If you "do not know" why on Earth would you choose to ignore and censor the way that most people believe it happened?

People are the only fully sentient beings known in the Universe.

1) prove that we are the only fully sentient beings in the universe

2) prove sentients either requires, or creates, a soul.

Can you explain how it was disproven that God created the Earth and people? I would love to hear what methods the scientists used.
"The Big Bang theory begins with an original, immense explosion (the 'bang') some 15-20 billion years ago. Material, from this explosion was flung everywhere and the heat was so intense that it is postulated that in the first fifteen minutes it was too hot for anything to exist. The energy from this explosion caused the material to move out from the center in a non-uniform manner.




Periodic Table of the Elements.
Matter began forming after some 300,000 years with the first forms being what we call 'particles.' These particles are the protons (+), neutrons (o), and electrons (-) we have discovered that make up our atoms. As the explosion material and particles slowed down a bit, from the original explosion, they began to coalesce to form aggregations. Electromagnetic forces caused protons, neutrons and electrons to form atoms with protons and neutrons in a nucleus and electrons in orbits around nucleus. Most early atoms were hydrogen (1 proton and 1 electron), the simplest of our atoms. We define atoms with different numbers of protons and electrons as different 'elements,' each element having a defined number of nuclear protons with the same number of electrons. The elements are arranged in what we call the 'Periodic Table' to show the relationships between the atoms (hydrogen, with one proton is first; helium, with two protons is second; and so on). Each element has its own chemical properties.

Gravitational forces caused atoms to be attracted to each other into masses. Physicists can prove that all masses have gravitational forces. Closer masses have more attraction to each other and larger masses have more attraction. The early masses were clouds of hydrogen, the closer the hydrogen atoms got to each other, the greater the attraction and the denser these clouds became. After a time the cloud would become sufficiently dense so that hydrogen atoms would fuse together and become helium. This began the 'ignition of a star.' "
http://www.biosbcc.net/ocean/marinesci/01intro/beorig.htm

I'm sorry, what was your theory again? God did it?

People are the only fully sentient beings known in the Universe.

That is not an answer to the question. And of course, the universe is pretty big, and we are only in some backwater spiral arm of one out-of-the-way galaxy.

If you "do not know" why on Earth would you choose to ignore and censor the way that most people believe it happened?

Say it with me, I'll go slowly so hopefully you'll get it THIS time.

Because the theory does not meet scientific standards to be considered a theory, therefore it should not be taught as one. If they wish to make it part of a fair and balanced class on religion, then that's fine.

But it's not science because it fails to meet the standards of scientific theory.

You haven't answered my question as to whether we should take time to discuss unicorns in biology.

If you "do not know" why on Earth would you choose to ignore and censor the way that most people believe it happened?
Science can't censor faith but faith is not allowed as theory. Why would you want to harm faith in such a way?

creationsim: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

only again you try to link the idiotic young earth theory with creationism. They are two seperate ideas. Linking them in not very honest. I think I already mentioned this at least once.

The bible states that the earth was created in 6 days. The bible also states the series of "begats", up to the proported birth of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Averaging the begats leads to roughly 4000 years, making the literal interpretation of the bible suggesting that the earth was created in 6 days, 6000ish years ago.

1) Big Bang Theory asserts certain things, such as that matter in the universe is moving apart from each other, and that there would be observable background radiation. Both have been shown to be true. Thus the logical conclusions of that theory are shown to be true (IE if X is true, Y must be true, and Y is true). ID has no logical assumptions. It simply said "god did it"

that does not disprove I.D.

2) Big bang theory can be disproved. If X then Y, and not Y, then not X. If we realize that certain things MUST be true in order for the big bang theory to be true, and those things are NOT true, then the theory is disproven. You can not disprove god. You can not test god. You can not design any experiment that would indirectly validate the existence of god

that does not disprove I.D.

3) Big bang theory is not circular logic, ID is. The universe is so ordered that it must be created by god, and to show evidence of god we observe the order of the universe. A theory can not presume something, and then use that presumption to prove itself

not relavent[B]

There, that's 3 big reasons.

As for whether science can't explain everything? Of course it can't. And those things science can not explain are best left to areas OUTSIDE of science, as science has nothing to do with them.

[B]my point is that science is so limited that it cannot even explain where we came from, and it certainly cannot disprove religion. Religion cannot disprove science. Your logic says that anything that falls outside of science must be ignored yet the very basic concept of why science exists falls outside of science.

If you "do not know" why on Earth would you choose to ignore and censor the way that most people believe it happened?

Because their beliefs do not qualify to be considered scientific ? That does not mean that they are *wrong* you know. But as far as science is concerned the biblical story of creation is just as likely as the idea that we are all the result of the manipulations of a flying ball of spaghetti. Or created by timetravellers. Or inside the matrix.

Do you seriously believe we should teach those "theories" too ? If so, I can easily find a 1000 more.

String theory can be tested mathematically. You can play with the math, see if it's valid, see if it's permissable, or see if there are errors.

A theory is valid if it explains reality, is not inconsistant with any observation, and based on some scientific principle which can be disproven.

God can not be disproven. String theory can, potentially, be shown to be in mathematical error.

I'm not taking either side here, I'd just like to suggest that if string theory is correct and continues to develop for a few decades, ways to test it by observation will be found.

Isn't quantum entanglement unexplainable without strings? Before we looked, entanglement was assumed to be impossible (implies faster-than-light information) and was even used in thought-experiments to question quantum mechanics.

Say it with me, I'll go slowly so hopefully you'll get it THIS time.

Because the theory does not meet scientific standards to be considered a theory, therefore it should not be taught as one. If they wish to make it part of a fair and balanced class on religion, then that's fine.

But it's not science because it fails to meet the standards of scientific theory.

You haven't answered my question as to whether we should take time to discuss unicorns in biology.

I am ignoring your new bad analogy about unicorns because it is insultingly absurd. 90% of Americans do not believe in Unicorns. How does I.D. not meet the qualifacations of a theory? The big bang was mentioned, but what started the big bang?

Science can't censor faith but faith is not allowed as theory. Why would you want to harm faith in such a way?

My ( and 90% of American's) belief in an intelligent creator as silenced by censorship in classrooms across America every day. That is what hurts me.

[B]my point is that science is so limited that it cannot even explain where we came from, and it certainly cannot disprove religion. Religion cannot disprove science. Your logic says that anything that falls outside of science must be ignored yet the very basic concept of why science exists falls outside of science.
Lets say we did allow ID into the Science Classroom. Then somehow, we won't say how (cause I can't imagine how this would occur), we completely, utterly, entirely disprove that there is any type of Intelligent Designer. Where would your faith be, then? What would you believe?

Note this is hypothetical and please don't try to explain how science can't disprove religion and religion can't disprove science.

The bible states that the earth was created in 6 days. The bible also states the series of "begats", up to the proported birth of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Averaging the begats leads to roughly 4000 years, making the literal interpretation of the bible suggesting that the earth was created in 6 days, 6000ish years ago.


You make the mistake of assuming the life expectancy of the people who were involved. This is a biblical theory that was abandoned by many around 1900. Many opponents believe that this mistake somehow disproves the existance of God. That does not sound very scientific.

My ( and 90% of American's) belief in an intelligent creator as silenced by censorship in classrooms across America every day. That is what hurts me.
One type of classroom. Look, my art teacher said that what I was doing was NOT art. This hurt me. But later on, as I grew older, I learned he was right. That was not art and I probably should have been arrested for it.

I am ignoring your new bad analogy about unicorns because it is insultingly absurd. 90% of Americans do not believe in Unicorns.

Puttting your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala does not make the analogy any less valid.

Because their beliefs do not qualify to be considered scientific ? That does not mean that they are *wrong* you know. But as far as science is concerned the biblical story of creation is just as likely as the idea that we are all the result of the manipulations of a flying ball of spaghetti. Or created by timetravellers. Or inside the matrix.

Do you seriously believe we should teach those "theories" too ? If so, I can easily find a 1000 more.

Once again the bad analogies. None of your other ideas is shared by 9/10 of America and a majority of the World. Stop with the terrible comparisons. The idea that God created the Earth has been a scientic theory (or fact) for hundreds or thousands of years. Ask Newton or Einstein.

my point is that science is so limited that it cannot even explain where we came from, and it certainly cannot disprove religion. Religion cannot disprove science. Your logic says that anything that falls outside of science must be ignored yet the very basic concept of why science exists falls outside of science.

Ignored? not at all.

Just kept out of science class.

As you said, science can not explain it, therefore it falls outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Thus it is not science.

So don't teach it in science class.

You already conceided your argument by admitting science can not answer it.

Lets say we did allow ID into the Science Classroom. Then somehow, we won't say how (cause I can't imagine how this would occur), we completely, utterly, entirely disprove that there is any type of Intelligent Designer. Where would your faith be, then? What would you believe?

.

What? I don't get it.

Once again the bad analogies. None of your other ideas is shared by 9/10 of America and a majority of the World. Stop with the terrible comparisons. The idea that God created the Earth has been a scientic theory (or fact) for hundreds or thousands of years. Ask Newton or Einstein.
The world was flat when 9/10's of the world believed so?

What? I don't get it.
Would you still have faith in God?

Once again the bad analogies. None of your other ideas is shared by 9/10 of America and a majority of the World.

Faith has nothing to do with science.

Stop with the terrible comparisons. The idea that God created the Earth has been a scientic theory (or fact) for hundreds or thousands of years. Ask Newton or Einstein.

It has never been scientific theory. Neither Newton nor Einstein ever admitted to being able to prove god, nor even devise an experiment that could test for god.

The believed in it as faith, that doesn't make it science.

One type of classroom. Look, my art teacher said that what I was doing was NOT art. This hurt me. But later on, as I grew older, I learned he was right. That was not art and I probably should have been arrested for it.

I don't know, you would be surprised what people will consider art. I should roll around in paint naked on a canvas and sell it to the met for ten grand. Or put up orange triangles all over central park. I am sure your "art" could be sold to some person....hehe, theres a fool born every minute:D

How does I.D. not meet the qualifacations of a theory?

Simple: it makes no case for itself. ID sofar has *nothing* to show. No irreducible complexity was found, and the whole concept has been shown to be flawed logic. The same goes for design inference.
And.. that was it. ID did not have anything else.

I don't know, you would be surprised what people will consider art. I should roll around in paint naked on a canvas and sell it to the met for ten grand. Or put up orange triangles all over central park. I am sure your "art" could be sold to some person....hehe, theres a fool born every minute:D
No. It was decidedly a felony.

Puttting your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala does not make the analogy any less valid.


No, your analogy substituted somthing that 90% of us believe for somthing that 0% of us do. It was like changing "big business has too much power and influence in Washington DC" (90% think that) with " Washington D.C. is a giant hologram of a hotdog" which 0% believe.....

My ( and 90% of American's) belief in an intelligent creator as silenced by censorship in classrooms across America every day. That is what hurts me.
What part of science does not invlove taking a strawpoll on the opinions of the general public are you failing to understand and comprehend?

Ignored? not at all.

Just kept out of science class.

As you said, science can not explain it, therefore it falls outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Thus it is not science.

So don't teach it in science class.

You already conceided your argument by admitting science can not answer it.

Science cannot explain it. So why not say, "students, science cannot explain how the Earth was created but 90% of Americans believe that it was God that did it."

No, your analogy substituted somthing that 90% of us believe

The scientific process cares not whether something is believed in or not.

What? I don't get it.

The question was: suppose the methods of ID were found to be valid, used in the classroom and in research - and the end conclusion of said research would be that we were not designed conform the Bible.

What then ?

The world was flat when 9/10's of the world believed so?

Can you source that statistic?

Can you source that statistic?
WHAT???

Would you still have faith in God?

If God was disproven I would not have faith in God.

Science cannot explain it. So why not say, "students, science cannot explain how the Earth was created but 90% of Americans believe that it was God that did it."
Because science is not a popularity contest.

Would you state that 90% of Americans think that summer is hotter because the earth is closer to the sun then?

Science is dealing with what IS, not what YOU want it to be!

Faith has nothing to do with science.



It has never been scientific theory. Neither Newton nor Einstein ever admitted to being able to prove god, nor even devise an experiment that could test for god.

The believed in it as faith, that doesn't make it science.

So to be a theory is must be proven with no doubt? That does not make any sense.

"A place within science for I.D.?"

Uh ... no.

God is based on faith. Science is based on the scientific method. Never the twain shalll meet.

Science cannot explain it. So why not say, "students, science cannot explain how the Earth was created but 90% of Americans believe that it was God that did it."

Science can quite easily explain how earth was created. There are many theories involving it, namely the formation of hydrogen collapsed to form stars, which in the fusion process developed heavy elements, which were expelled by those stars and set orbit around them, which due to gravitational pressures gathered together and condensed, forming a chain reaction which gathered further solid elements together in giant balls of dirt, one of which we call earth.

Science can not fully explain what created the formation of the universe, and what existed before existence is outside the realm of science. And what is outside the realm of science should not be included in science class. No matter how many people believe in it.

If God was disproven I would not have faith in God.
But what if God was like, "HA!" in the afterlife. You failed! You don't think God has the power to contort scientic proofs so that He remains hidden? How powerful is the God that you believe in?

So to be a theory is must be proven with no doubt? That does not make any sense.
No, but a theory must meet the criteria to BE a theory, which ID fails to do.

Science cannot explain it. So why not say, "students, science cannot explain how the Earth was created but 90% of Americans believe that it was God that did it."

You forgot:
"Of course, since we do not know how that still does not explain anything"

By the way: science has no problem with explaining how the earth came into being. How the universe and life on this planet did so however is indeed still open.

So to be a theory is must be proven with no doubt? That does not make any sense.

no, to be science it must be:

a) supported by observation

b) testable

c) disprovable

ID is none of those things. Ergo it's not science.

Simple: it makes no case for itself. ID sofar has *nothing* to show. No irreducible complexity was found, and the whole concept has been shown to be flawed logic. The same goes for design inference.
And.. that was it. ID did not have anything else.

Think about it. If you were an athiest native in a distant land..and If you found a Corvette in the desert and you had never seen anything like a Corvette before. Could you prove that it had been manufactured? Or would you, in ignorance believe that it was a natural formation?

What part of science does not invlove taking a strawpoll on the opinions of the general public are you failing to understand and comprehend?

I understand that public opinion does not create science but when 90% of people believe in God, and science cannot prove that we were formed randomly ...it is sort of illogical to ignore the concept of God, right?

Think about it. If you were an athiest native in a distant land..and If you found a Corvette in the desert and you had never seen anything like a Corvette before. Could you prove that it had been manufactured? Or would you, in ignorance believe that it was a natural formation?
Well, I'd find the tag with the letters, D.E.T.R.O.I.T. Years later, I'd find a map in my wanderings with the same letters. I'd travel to this place. Behold: an assembly line.

So to be a theory is must be proven with no doubt? That does not make any sense.

Being that that isn't what was said, it's good that it doesn't make sense. A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by the prepoderance of evidence. The evidence supports the TOE, the BB, and Abiogenesis. To dismiss these theories and elevate your hypothesis, you need to show evidence supporting it, not just "Well this other theory doesn't answer absolutely every question so god did it".

What evidence do you have?

Because science is not a popularity contest.

Would you state that 90% of Americans think that summer is hotter because the earth is closer to the sun then?

Science is dealing with what IS, not what YOU want it to be!

I would state that if I had evidence that they thought that, which you don't.

Science fails to explain creation, so when students ask a teacher is supposed to ignore what 90% of people believe? You created like the 10,000th bad analogy so far on this thread with your summer/sun comment. Science can prove that warmer temps. come from inclination of the Earth. Good grief. Enough with the terrible comparisons everyone!!

what is outside the realm of science should not be included in science class. No matter how many people believe in it.


Why fear teaching the contraversy? Seems like other motivations are in play here...

But what if God was like, "HA!" in the afterlife. You failed! You don't think God has the power to contort scientic proofs so that He remains hidden? How powerful is the God that you believe in?

I don't get it. "what if"'s always make me nervous though.

I would state that if I had evidence that they thought that, which you don't.

Science fails to explain creation, so when students ask a teacher is supposed to ignore what 90% of people believe? You created like the 10,000th bad analogy so far on this thread with your summer/sun comment. Science can prove that warmer temps. come from inclination of the Earth. Good grief. Enough with the terrible comparisons everyone!!

So because you don't like the evidence that is presented, you'll go w/ "God did it". Since not every one of those 90% believe in the Judeo-Christian god, would you accept the teaching of every single creation belief in the US, the world?

No, but a theory must meet the criteria to BE a theory, which ID fails to do.

I.D. has been a theory for a millenia longer than any other one.

I would state that if I had evidence that they thought that, which you don't.

Science fails to explain creation, so when students ask a teacher is supposed to ignore what 90% of people believe? You created like the 10,000th bad analogy so far on this thread with your summer/sun comment. Science can prove that warmer temps. come from inclination of the Earth. Good grief. Enough with the terrible comparisons everyone!!
Mine was good. There wasn't any surveys that far back but I'd say 9/10 is a pretty good representation of the amount of people who believed this. Just look at the horizon. It seemed to make perfect sense.

Especially, since the Bible states that the Earth is flat.

Science fails to explain creation, so when students ask a teacher is supposed to ignore what 90% of people believe?

The only proper scientific answer to that question is "nobody knows, we have no scientific theory that adequatly addresses that question".

And, depending on how much smoke one wishes to blow up his/her students asses "maybe one of you will become a great scientist and figure that out one day"

What people believe, without proper scientific support not only should, but MUST be ignored by science.

I.D. has been a theory for a millenia longer than any other one.

Not a scientific one.

Why fear teaching the contraversy? Seems like other motivations are in play here...

The only ones creating "controversy" are those who understand so little of science that they would dumb it down so that it could include astrology and phrenology to include thier own personal beliefs as "science".

How the universe and life on this planet did so however is indeed still open.


And so in your view a teacher should plead the fifth when asked about it and say we don't know, we don't know, when most people say they do...they believe in the oldest theory, the theory of intelligent design.

I.D. has been a religious belief for a millenia longer than any other one.

Fixed.

Why fear teaching the contraversy? Seems like other motivations are in play here...

There is no fear at all. I no more support the teaching of faith in science as I do science in art, or art in math.

Those subjects have nothing to do with one another. Keep the discussions of faith into areas that have to do with faith, and science to those that have to do with science.

And so in your view a teacher should plead the fifth when asked about it and say we don't know, we don't know, when most people say they do...they believe in the oldest theory, the theory of intelligent design.
This is not backing you up. Flat earth is also a very, very old theory.

no, to be science it must be:

a) supported by observation

b) testable

c) disprovable

ID is none of those things. Ergo it's not science.

The theory that people came into being at random is none of those things either. Random creation is not a theory either then in your view.

Well, I'd find the tag with the letters, D.E.T.R.O.I.T. Years later, I'd find a map in my wanderings with the same letters. I'd travel to this place. Behold: an assembly line.

You would not doubt get a job and then have it stolen by a mexican or outsourced to China.

And so in your view a teacher should plead the fifth when asked about it and say we don't know,

According to SCIENCE, we do NOT know. Thus "we don't know" is not only a scientifically acceptable answer, it is the ONLY scientifically acceptable one.

And so in your view a teacher should plead the fifth when asked about it and say we don't know, we don't know, when most people say they do...they believe in the oldest theory, the theory of intelligent design.
Actually, science teachers are pretty human. If asked directly about it, most of them will say, "That is what some people believe." Then they move on to the science.

And so in your view a teacher should plead the fifth when asked about it and say we don't know, we don't know, when most people say they do...they believe in the oldest belief, the belief of intelligent design.

Fixed again.

A science teacher answering honestly instead of including unsupported belief systems into their curriculum would be a good thing.

Where is your evidence for ID?

According to SCIENCE, we do NOT know. Thus "we don't know" is not only a scientifically acceptable answer, it is the ONLY scientifically acceptable one.
I'd discover a whole world of injustice. But God wouldn't cross my mind because I was an athiest.

The theory that people came into being at random is none of those things either. Random creation is not a theory either then in your view.

What existed before existence, and why we exist can not be answered by science. "it just did" is no more a valid scientific answer than "god did it".

I'd discover a whole world of injustice. But God wouldn't cross my mind because I was an athiest.

Not sure I follow.

The theory that people came into being at random is none of those things either. Random creation is not a theory either then in your view.

1)Experiments have created simple protiens. That is evidence.

2) This has been done by repeated testing.

3) The hypothesis is disprovable.


At least you admit ID isn's science.

What evidence do you have?

We have never seen the random formation of life in nature.
Pasteur's theory of biogenesis. Look it up. Life only comes from other life.

Especially, since the Bible states that the Earth is flat.

Where?

We have never seen the random formation of life in nature.

Demonstrate that an ordered universe requires a creator


Pasteur's theory of biogenesis. Look it up. Life only comes from other life.

Disproven.

Where?

Desparate Measures is exactly right. The Bible teaches the Earth is flat. We know that's wrong, therefore the Bible is garbage.

I admit I am so dumb in science, but I'm smart in activism. I know enough about science to know that all the Bible tries to do is get people to act a ceratin way to "avoid hell." The truth is we all die, so we might as well have fun and Make a New World based on the principles of cooperative economics.

Demonstrate that an ordered universe requires a creator

Disproven.

Arthais, you are my favorite on our side. You are even nice to fundies. I'm surprised you won't say where you come from or your grade. You are very intelligent and insightful. And you get the fundies so good with one liners.

We have never seen the random formation of life in nature.
Pasteur's theory of biogenesis. Look it up. Life only comes from other life.

Then you're claiming that ID is a creation of life from a life? What created the original life? Have you ever seen "Intelligent Design" by god?

Do you deny the experiments done that have created protiens?

Where?
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth.

Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Desparate Measures is exactly right. The Bible teaches the Earth is flat. We know that's wrong, therefore the Bible is garbage.

I admit I am so dumb in science, but I'm smart in activism. I know enough about science to know that all the Bible tries to do is get people to act a ceratin way to "avoid hell." The truth is we all die, so we might as well have fun and Make a New World based on the principles of cooperative economics.
Please stop helping.

Desparate Measures is exactly right. The Bible teaches the Earth is flat. We know that's wrong, therefore the Bible is garbage.

I admit I am so dumb in science, but I'm smart in activism. I know enough about science to know that all the Bible tries to do is get people to act a ceratin way to "avoid hell." The truth is we all die, so we might as well have fun and Make a New World based on the principles of cooperative economics.

I hate to quote myself, but if anyone is interested in true facts on science from a political point of view, the Union of Concerned Scientists represents the views of the scientists of the whole USA.

Their views should be taken seriously in most matters. I'd rather have scientists, and not Republicans, making policies. I DONT CARE HOW THE VOTES COME OUT BECAUSE FUNDIES ARE CASTING VOTES AND THE GREEDY BUSINESSMEN VOTE WITH THEM TO KILL THE EARTH. Thank Common Ancestor, that we have the Supreme Court looking out for people who are very smart and know the latest theories that stupid ordinary people don't understand!!!

Please stop helping.

Seconded....

You do realize that there was math involved here... from the very beginning? It's nice that you watch tv, though.
Yes, of course I know this. So what? Nice insult, though.

Yes, of course I know this. So what? Nice insult, though.
So use some math with ID theory. Failing that, I'd like to know what predictions could be made using ID theory. What problems can be solved with ID theory? What can be created using ID theory?

Yes, of course I know this. So what? Nice insult, though.

So what "math",of any kind, supports ID?

So what "math",of any kind, supports ID?
Fuzzy math?

Here we go, this is from http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html:

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."



That should clear everything up nicely. There are no repeated tests to prove anything with ID so it is not a theory and not science and should be in the religious classroom, tada.

Fuzzy math?
Please don't insult a genuine mathematical tool that way ;)

I understand that public opinion does not create science but when 90% of people believe in God, and science cannot prove that we were formed randomly ...it is sort of illogical to ignore the concept of God, right?
You have a strange idea of what is illogical then.

Science has a working theory with evolution, it does not need God to work, not does it disprove God as a why it happened, so God has nothing to do with it.

It IS illogical to keep bringing up 90% of Americans as if it would somehow validate your religious beliefs in the face of what is actually science.

Please don't insult a genuine mathematical tool that way ;)
I'm sorry.

I.D. has been a theory for a millenia longer than any other one.
Bull, ID is rather new, as the current notion goes (ID is NOT a theory and stop calling it. Calling a cow a horse does not make it so).

Creationism is rather old, but you said you're not a creationist.

Bull, ID is rather new, as the current notion goes (ID is NOT a theory and stop calling it. Calling a cow a horse does not make it so).

Creationism is rather old, but you said you're not a creationist.
Damn, I missed that...

I think this kind of wins the argument.

I would state that if I had evidence that they thought that, which you don't.

Science fails to explain creation, so when students ask a teacher is supposed to ignore what 90% of people believe?
Science does not care what 90% of the people believe!!! Get that through your head man!

And my anaology is perfectly sound as MOST Americans DO think it's warmer in the Summer due to the Earth being closer.

Science does not care what 90% of the people believe!!! Get that through your head man!

And my anaology is perfectly sound as MOST Americans DO think it's warmer in the Summer due to the Earth being closer.

Don't bother. BG's gone. The tough questions made him go away. Ten cookies says if he comes back, he'll ignore every one of them and start over,

Don't bother. BG's gone. The tough questions made him go away. Ten cookies says if he comes back, he'll ignore every one of them and start over,
No doubt, but I'll keep pounding him.

Don't bother. BG's gone. The tough questions made him go away. Ten cookies says if he comes back, he'll ignore every one of them and start over,
A conservative tactic. Talk fiercely. Dissolve into shadows when attacked. Repeat fierce talk more fiercely. Dissolve once more into the shadows.

A conservative tactic. Talk fiercely. Dissolve into shadows when attacked. Repeat fierce talk more fiercely. Dissolve once more into the shadows.

I would disagree w/ "conservative". I get the same tactic used in the various gun threads by "liberals".

Would this be like guerrilla posting?

I would disagree w/ "conservative". I get the same tactic used in the various gun threads by "liberals".

Would this be like guerrilla posting?
Yes. And thats true. It's just that I usually don't argue with liberals so I get the conservative attack and runs.

There seems to be a lot of reluctance about accepting I.D. into some Biological theory of life -- some rational, some not so. Fair enough. However, I wonder if the I.D.ers can attempt to sneak a God hypothesis into another area of science? So, I'll try. Incidentally, this has no political motivation; I merely want to understand if a God hypothesis can be acceptable within science without prejudice from non-scientific values.

The area in which the I.D.ers may have the best chance of creating some hypothesis about God creating, partly or fully, the universe is within theoretical physics -- i.e. theoretical cosmology. I think this area is the most promising because it is free(r) from the wants of business, special groups whom pay for labs and other influences such as governments and non-scientific values.

So, all I really want to claim is that someone (a physicist or a group of physicists) could, if they haven't already, come up with some cosmological theory (or model, whatever terminology you're comfortable with) of the universe that includes God (i.e. an intentional creator). Furthermore, it will be a theory that has the potential to be tested and, of course, falsified or confirmed.

To those against I.D. why couldn't such a model be created by some theoretical physicist (yes, most likely at a university)? That is, what principles and values of science would the creation of such a theory break?

Basically, all I'm looking for is for the non-I.D.ers to admit that such a model is feasible within the scientific (all be it at its earliest stages within the scientific method) framework that takes place within theoretical physics
Any God could alter scientific results as he/she wishes, so there is no way to prove nor to disprove God's existence. God quite obviously has not provided provable, scientific evidence of his/her/their existence.

ID is not science, not at all. Science does not necessarily exclude the possibility of the divine; it cannot speak to that issue.

Science would exclude the possibility of divine intervention because it screws up core scientific values like say everything must be consistent and repeatable and no super natural stuff (includes divine intervention) can be involved lest everything that humanity does not understood be explained by saying God did it.

So, there have been two objections, which are irrelevant to this debate.

First, you ask, "show me the math". However, the claim is not that an I.D. model is up and running now. The claim is that an I.D. cosmology has the potential to be made into a scientific model.

Second, "it's not a theory". Yes, if you define theory as an hypothesis that has been tested many times and has much and potentially much more confirming evidence -- like Darwinism. However, if you read the original thread, I equated theory with a model. So, call it a model.

OK, the first objection is more interesting. You nedd to understand that we are talking about possibility here: that it is possible for I.D. to be formulated into a cosmological model. So, you need to understand that any objection you make here has to show that this statement results in an EXPLICIT contradtiction (i.e. P & ~P) and not simply an implicit contradiction. This is very difficult to do.

I think the best Non-I.D.er stratergy would be to create an argument that accepts what I have said, but shows that what you would have do to create such a theory and test it would be difficult for any reasonable person to accept. Peter Van Innwagen had similar stratergy in a different area: he argued that within a Physicalist paradigm, for someone to believe that they would live on after this life, then they would have to believe that God, after you died, is able to take each atom from your brain as your body decays and reconfigure it in the exact same way in heaven. Difficult to believe.

Such an approach would concede one point: I.D. is potentially empirically tesatable.

So, there have been two objections, which are irrelevant to this debate.

First, you ask, "show me the math". However, the claim is not that an I.D. model is up and running now. The claim is that an I.D. cosmology has the potential to be made into a scientific model.

Second, "it's not a theory". Yes, if you define theory as an hypothesis that has been tested many times and has much and potentially much more confirming evidence -- like Darwinism. However, if you read the original thread, I equated theory with a model. So, call it a model.

OK, the first objection is more interesting. You nedd to understand that we are talking about possibility here: that it is possible for I.D. to be formulated into a cosmological model. So, you need to understand that any objection you make here has to show that this statement results in an EXPLICIT contradtiction (i.e. P & ~P) and not simply an implicit contradiction. This is very difficult to do.

I think the best Non-I.D.er stratergy would be to create an argument that accepts what I have said, but shows that what you would have do to create such a theory and test it would be difficult for any reasonable person to accept. Peter Van Innwagen had similar stratergy in a different area: he argued that within a Physicalist paradigm, for someone to believe that they would live on after this life, then they would have to believe that God, after you died, is able to take each atom from your brain as your body decays and reconfigure it in the exact same way in heaven. Difficult to believe.

Such an approach would concede one point: I.D. is potentially empirically tesatable.


Your entire case collapses at the end. God/Intelligent Designer/whatever is not testable. It "assumes" there is an "Intelligent Designer". Until that can be made empirically testable, ID has no basis in science.

Mathematically: Science :testable (P) and Designer: not testable (~P)

"Intelligent Design" belongs in religion classrooms. It has nothing to do in science classrooms.

Your entire case collapses at the end. God/Intelligent Designer/whatever is not testable. It "assumes" there is an "Intelligent Designer". Until that can be made empirically testable, ID has no basis in science.

Mathematically: Science :testable (P) and Designer: not testable (~P)

No, you need more premises that merely asserting that "an I.D. is not testable". Remember anything follows from a contradiction. We are not assuming a designer exists (this type of assumption is an argumentative one, we want something empirical, not an argument). Anyway, a contraction would be, let P= science is testable, "Science is testable" "and" "It is not-the -case that Science is testable". You've merely put forward what you think is an implicit contradiction.

No, you need more premises that merely asserting that "an I.D. is not testable". Remember anything follows from a contradiction. We are not assuming a designer exists (this type of assumption is an argumentative one, we want something empirical, not an argument). Anyway, a contraction would be, let P= science is testable, "Science" is testable "and" "It is not-the -case that Science is testable". You've merely put forward what you think is an implicit contradiction.

"Intelligent Design" doesn't assume a designer exists? What? That is the whole premise of it. I'm not the one making the arguement that ID is potentially scientific. That would be you. The burden of proof to provide testable premises/hypothesis is on you. So far... nothing.

"Intelligent Design" doesn't assume a designer exists? What? That is the whole premise of it. I'm not the one making the arguement that ID is potentially scientific. That would be you. The burden of proof to provide testable premises/hypothesis is on you. So far... nothing.

No, I'm saying that the sort of "assumption" you are talking about is one that has do with argument. You assume some proposition and draw conclusions from it. I don't think science does this. We want to test the claim, "a creator created the universe" or some such thing. At this point, we don't know what type of statement this is. We merely want to test it.

No, I'm saying that the sort of "assumption" you are talking about is one that has do with argument. You assume some proposition and draw conclusions from it. I don't think science does this. We want to test the claim, "a creator created the universe" or some such thing. At this point, we don't know what type of statement this is. We merely want to test it.
This would be like trying to solve a murder mystery beginning at the unknown murderer's birth.

No, I'm saying that the sort of "assumption" you are talking about is one that has do with argument. You assume some proposition and draw conclusions from it. I don't think science does this.

You're right. Science presents a hypothesis, tests it, then presents it for repeatable results and analysis.


We want to test the claim, "a creator created the universe" or some such thing. At this point, we don't know what type of statement this is. We merely want to test it.

It only works if you believe a "creator" is testable and disprovable. If you believe that a "creator" IS there (which is what ID does) and assume it into your hypothesis, it fails.

To test your claim, you'ld first have to find evidence of a "creator" and then evidence that it created the universe.

ID says" There is a "creator" and we're going to find evidence of its design.

This would be like trying to solve a murder mystery beginning at the unknown murderer's birth.

I'm not completely clear with what you mean. Anyway, if the scope of a murder investigation needs to abduct back to a murderer's birth, then it will to solve the case.

Intelligent Design is a philosophy. It has nothing to do with science, nor does science have anything to do with it. There is no possible science behind intelligent design, and the intelligent design hypothesis, if thought of as such, leads nowhere.

I'm not completely clear with what you mean. Anyway, if the scope of a murder investigation needs to abduct back to a murderer's birth, then it will to solve the case.
I don't know what I meant either. It made sense for me at the time...

You're right. Science presents a hypothesis, tests it, then presents it for repeatable results and analysis.




It only works if you believe a "creator" is testable and disprovable. If you believe that a "creator" IS there (which is what ID does) and assume it into your hypothesis, it fails.

To test your claim, you'ld first have to find evidence of a "creator" and then evidence that it created the universe.

ID says" There is a "creator" and we're going to find evidence of its design.

Who cares about belief at this point, that is your personal affair. We've asked a question, "Was the universe created by a creator?" Now what? No assumption, no belief, just the desire to test.

May be I.D. shouldn't make such claims. May be a weaker version will be a better approach.

Because of the definition of the word "creator", we would need to find evidence (whatever that may look like) of a creator only -- this is an inductive search.

Who cares about belief at this point, that is your personal affair. We've asked a question, "Was the universe created by a creator?" Now what? No assumption, no belief, just the desire to test.

Test for what now? What kind of tests would you perform? The only way for the concept of a 'creator" to be tested would be to accept that it would have to be falsifieable. Get any ID proponent to accept that.

May be I.D. shouldn't make such claims. May be a weaker version will be a better approach.

You're right, it shouldn't. But look at who the originators and major proponents of ID are.

Because of the definition of the word "creator", we would need to find evidence (whatever that may look like) of a creator only -- this is an inductive search.

Only if one recognizes that the "creator" could be disproved.

Who cares about belief at this point, that is your personal affair. We've asked a question, "Was the universe created by a creator?" Now what? No assumption, no belief, just the desire to test.

May be I.D. shouldn't make such claims. May be a weaker version will be a better approach.

Because of the definition of the word "creator", we would need to find evidence (whatever that may look like) of a creator only -- this is an inductive search.
But doesn't the science of the whole thing end at that very point? I mean, how do you proceed?

I think the definitive answer is:

For "ID" to find a place in science, science must first find a place in "ID."

Faith mean beliefs with out fact, God exists by faith, thus if he/she/it exists he can not be proven and if he is proven he does not exist. Thus he can never be determined to exist or not exist till you prove he/she/it does exist at what time he/she/it will go away and no longer exist.

This is coming from the same logic as Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy

It fails because, as with biology, it fails the test. You can't test God, there's no math or observation to back it up. You could write out an hypototheis that includes Him, but you could also do the same and get to a point and write "It's this way because I say so". There's no way to actually argue that within science.

No "scientific" only (meterialistic) theory can neither explain the highly ordered structure of the universe...

No "scientific" only (meterialistic) theory can neither explain the highly ordered structure of the universe...
That is a fine thing to believe outside a scientific setting.

No "scientific" only (meterialistic) theory can neither explain the highly ordered structure of the universe...

Which is why the only proper answer to the question of "why is the universe ordered" is "we do not know."

Although another proper response may be "how do you define order without something to compare it to?"

No "scientific" only (meterialistic) theory can neither explain the highly ordered structure of the universe...
YET! We've made a lot of headroad to understanding the universe.

The issue is, with science the answers to things we do not know is, we do not know. In science we cannot go outside the observable universe for a reason be it God, some kid, or flying ramen.

The other problem is that proponets of ID continually confuse why with how. Science NEVER answers why questions*. Why questions are beyond the scope and meaning of science. Science only answers how questions. It describes HOW gravity works, not WHY it decided to work in the first place. It descibes HOW we have changed over time, not WHY we did it. ID is an attempt to shoehorn a why into a field that it strictly how.

*The apparent contradiction of no why questions when you can ask why is the sky blue is due to English grammar structures and not how science works so please don't attempt to point this out.

YET! We've made a lot of headroad to understanding the universe.

The issue is, with science the answers to things we do not know is, we do not know.

Exactly. As I've said before, the only proper answer to the question is "I do not know, science has not come up with a testable hypothesis."

I believe that God and human souls are discussed as philosophical theories, but not as scientific ones.

ID has no place in science class.

But doesn't the science of the whole thing end at that very point? I mean, how do you proceed?

I think you're right here. I don't know how it would get anywhere. Yet, that it can seen as empirical and potentially testable at some point, which may be in the far distant future, if at all, is enough for me. That may not be enough for a staunch I.D.er, but at least we can see the challenge that they are facing.

I think the definitive answer is:

For "ID" to find a place in science, science must first find a place in "ID."
That doesn't actually mean anything. Nice rhetoric, though.

I think the definitive answer is:

For "ID" to find a place in science, science must first find a place in "ID."
Why on Earth would science want to find a place in a sloppy fairy tale that is fit for nothing more than entertaining kindergarteners?

Science would rather go out to the pub with her mates, thank you very much. :)

I think you're right here. I don't know how it would get anywhere. Yet, that it can seen as empirical and potentially testable at some point, which may be in the far distant future, if at all, is enough for me. That may not be enough for a staunch I.D.er, but at least we can see the challenge that they are facing.
Oh.

So, what? We've come to an agreement now?


That was a bit anticlimatic...

Why on Earth would science want to find a place in a sloppy fairy tale that is fit for nothing more than entertaining kindergarteners?

Science would rather go out to the pub with her mates, thank you very much. :)
Wait up for me!

I've got a question for ID advocates: how would research into ID be conducted without jeopardising the scientific search for knowledge.

The way I see it is that an ID focused researcher would look at, for example, a heart and immediately say "Oh my! That's really complex! I'm sure that couldn't have evolved by chance!" before giving up and going onto a new project.

Now, if there is a naturalistic explanation for the evolution of the heart then this ID focused researcher certainly isn't going to find it are they? They're going to give up as soon as it gets tricky rather than persevering and trying to find an explanation.

An excellent example of this occurred at the Dover trial. Behe declared that the bacteria flagellum was irreducibly complex and couldn't have evolved through mutation and natural selection alone. In other words, as soon as it started to look complicated HE STOPPED LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER!

The real scientists responded by presenting Behe with a lengthy report which had been completed just a few days previously, detailing how the flagellum had evolved and wasn't irreducibly complex. Sure, they thought it looked complex but they kept digging, kept researching, kept trying to find an explanation and in the end they found one.

Isn't it obvious that any great scientific breakthroughs will be made by the persevering evolutionary biologists rather than the easily deterred IDiots?

I've got a question for ID advocates: how would research into ID be conducted without jeopardising the scientific search for knowledge.

The way I see it is that an ID focused researcher would look at, for example, a heart and immediately say "Oh my! That's really complex! I'm sure that couldn't have evolved by chance!" before giving up and going onto a new project.

Now, if there is a naturalistic explanation for the evolution of the heart then this ID focused researcher certainly isn't going to find it are they? They're going to give up as soon as it gets tricky rather than persevering and trying to find an explanation.

An excellent example of this occurred at the Dover trial. Behe declared that the bacteria flagellum was irreducibly complex and couldn't have evolved through mutation and natural selection alone. In other words, as soon as it started to look complicated HE STOPPED LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER!

The real scientists responded by presenting Behe with a lengthy report which had been completed just a few days previously, detailing how the flagellum had evolved and wasn't irreducibly complex. Sure, they thought it looked complex but they kept digging, kept researching, kept trying to find an explanation and in the end they found one.

Isn't it obvious that any great scientific breakthroughs will be made by the persevering evolutionary biologists rather than the easily deterred IDiots?
Quite right. ID does tend to stifle research in exactly that fashion. What happens when Science continues its research and discovers more about the "irreducibly complex" phenomena is that the role of the "Designer" (or "God," to use a shorter word) shrinks. You end up with the God of the Gaps, who presides over only those things we haven't figured out yet, and whose domain gets progressively smaller and smaller. Not a particularly nice way to treat your God ... I mean, the Designer.

Quite right. ID does tend to stifle research in exactly that fashion. What happens when Science continues its research and discovers more about the "irreducibly complex" phenomena is that the role of the "Designer" (or "God," to use a shorter word) shrinks. You end up with the God of the Gaps, who presides over only those things we haven't figured out yet, and whose domain gets progressively smaller and smaller. Not a particularly nice way to treat your God ... I mean, the Designer.
God of the Gaps? The Designer? You mean the one who designs Gap clothing

Oh.

So, what? We've come to an agreement now?


That was a bit anticlimatic...

OK, you want to draw further consequences from what you've agreed to? Fine, give me a little while and I'll post them -- I don't think you'll like them.

OK, you want to draw further consequences from what you've agreed to? Fine, give me a little while and I'll post them -- I don't think you'll like them.
Oh, good! I thought that seemed too easy.

Oh, good! I thought that seemed too easy.

Here goes. We have agreed that the question, "did a creator create the universe?" is an empirical question. Since the best way to deal with empirical questions is the scientific method and as this question is empirical, then science should confront and deal with this question. In order for science to proceed, it needs funding -- either governmentally or privately. Whether a creator created the universe is one of the most important questions since understanding how the universe was created can have far reaching consequences throughout all science. Therefore, science should heavily fund I.D. orientated scientists in order to answer the question, "did a creator create the universe?" Furthermore, we would want the younger generations to begin thinking about this question so that they could either solve the question or, at least, contrubite to the methods that might be used to find the answer. Hence, I.D. ought to be taught in schools.

Bring it on Humeans.

Arthais seems to sometimes be a Republican, he thinks like one anyway. He probably would have been one, but luckily progressives have long controlled the free education providfed to people. This allows the government to steadily improve the next generation, even if their parents are racist and cling on to "traditional" notions of morality and God, because it allows the government to advance the citizenry and then the citizery respond by assigning the government even more duties!

Another world is possible! Vote for Jon Tester and Jim Webb and Amy Klobuchar!

thank you man. i live in montana (where jon tester is running) and i hope to non-existant god that he wins. he wont, but i can dream cant i?

Here goes. We have agreed that the question, "did a creator create the universe?" is an empirical question. Since the best way to deal with empirical questions is the scientific method and as this question is empirical, then science should confront and deal with this question. In order for science to proceed, it needs funding -- either governmentally or privately. Whether a creator created the universe is one of the most important questions since understanding how the universe was created can have far reaching consequences throughout all science. Therefore, science should heavily fund I.D. orientated scientists in order to answer the question, "did a creator create the universe?" Furthermore, we would want the younger generations to begin thinking about this question so that they could either solve the question or, at least, contrubite to the methods that might be used to find the answer. Hence, I.D. ought to be taught in schools.

Bring it on Humeans.

Not even close. For ID to receive governmental funding, let it procede as all other requests for funding. Let the scientists develop potential experiments, let them create ideas of what they hope those experiments to yield, let them figure out what they plan on doing.

In other words, a thought does not get funding. a proposal gets funding. And until some IDer comes up with with an actual proposal on how to procede testing for a creator, either observationally or mathematically, it deserves not one cent of public funds.

Then the rest of your argument falls flat.

In other words, if ID wants to be treated like science, let it act like science. Until it can do that, it doesn't deserve to be.

Not even close. For ID to receive governmental funding, let it procede as all other requests for funding. Let the scientists develop potential experiments, let them create ideas of what they hope those experiments to yield, let them figure out what they plan on doing.

In other words, a thought does not get funding. a proposal gets funding. And until some IDer comes up with with an actual proposal on how to procede testing for a creator, either observationally or mathematically, it deserves not one cent of public funds.

Then the rest of your argument falls flat.

In other words, if ID wants to be treated like science, let it act like science. Until it can do that, it doesn't deserve to be.

Where do we go now then? Non-I.D.ers on this thread have admitted that the question, "did a creator create the universe?" is an empirical question. Empirical questions are best answered by science. So what next?

Where do we go now then? Non-I.D.ers on this thread have admitted that the question, "did a creator create the universe?" is an empirical question. Empirical questions are best answered by science. So what next?
Well, there's empirical questions and empirical questions. Since right now there isn't even a idea of HOW we could test it, it seems that this question is best left with the "Are their unicorns?" question.

Not even close. For ID to receive governmental funding, let it procede as all other requests for funding. Let the scientists develop potential experiments, let them create ideas of what they hope those experiments to yield, let them figure out what they plan on doing.

In other words, a thought does not get funding. a proposal gets funding. And until some IDer comes up with with an actual proposal on how to procede testing for a creator, either observationally or mathematically, it deserves not one cent of public funds.

Then the rest of your argument falls flat.

In other words, if ID wants to be treated like science, let it act like science. Until it can do that, it doesn't deserve to be.

OK, so the universities will hire Prof.'s that will study I.D. they submit proposals and the universities will pay them. Fine by me.

Where do we go now then? Non-I.D.ers on this thread have admitted that the question, "did a creator create the universe?" is an empirical question. Empirical questions are best answered by science. So what next?

Come up with a way to empirically test that. Then explain that method in a request for funding.

Like ALL OTHER sciences do.

If you fail to do so, we are either incapable of answering that question now, in which case funding it would be pointless, or we will NEVER be capable of answering it, in which case funding it will be pointless.

What's next? We wait until someone can come up with a way to test it, then we fund it, examine the results, and see which way we point. And until then, we do not treat ID as science as it is incapable of acting like science.

OK, so the universities will hire Prof.'s that will study I.D. they submit proposals and the universities will pay them. Fine by me.

Very well, we shall both await the day someone proposes a practical way to test for a creator then, won't we?

Incidentally, that you let any I.D.er into a university department and let them work on an I.D.er hypothesis is hugely and massively significant.

Incidentally, that you let any I.D.er into a university department and let them work on an I.D.er hypothesis is hugely and massively significant.
There's a few already, they are usually trotted out by the ID community to show that ID is as valid as science.

Then it comes to the point that said people admit that to let ID be a science, the deffinition of science would have to be such to let astrology be a science.

Incidentally, that you let any I.D.er into a university department and let them work on an I.D.er hypothesis is hugely and massively significant.

A university can fund whatever the hell they want to. They're private entities

Unless you mean public schools, in which case I return to my original statement, no scientific study should receive one cent of public funds until they can come up with a rational proposal on how to conduct their experiments.

Well, there's empirical questions and empirical questions. Since right now there isn't even a idea of HOW we could test it, it seems that this question is best left with the "Are their unicorns?" question.

I'm not sure what your point is. Nevertheless, yes there are different stages that an empirical question will go through. May be you should read the orginal thread unicorn boy -- i.e. don't annoy me with unicorn comparisions.

I'm not sure what your point is. Nevertheless, yes there are different stages that an empirical question will go through. May be you should read the orginal thread unicorn boy -- i.e. don't annoy me with unicorn comparisions.

Answer me this one question, in order to receive public funds, any scientific study must include a proposal on how to go about their research, and what experiments they plan on conducting.

What would such a proposal look like from an ID perspective?

I'm not sure what your point is. Nevertheless, yes there are different stages that an empirical question will go through. May be you should read the orginal thread unicorn boy -- i.e. don't annoy me with unicorn comparisions.
Perhaps you should re-read yourself, I was the first one to reply to you and have kept up with this. In any case, the point being that we don't have the slightest idea of how to answer said question right now. Until we do, it goes in with the are their unicorns? because we don't know how to answer that one either.

Perhaps you should re-read yourself, I was the first one to reply to you and have kept up with this. In any case, the point being that we don't have the slightest idea of how to answer said question right now. Until we do, it goes in with the are their unicorns? because we don't know how to answer that one either.

Sorry, I get what you are saying. OK, you want to say, an empirical test that attempts to look for unicorns is equivalent to an empirical quest for God. However, one major difference, an empirical search and a confirmation of that search would yield much more than if we discovered that unicorns existed. I mean, if a creator existed and we understood the creators rules, how much better off we will would be? Sorry again, I was a little too quick there, you have the right objection.

I have asked but you have not answered. Give me a sample proposal from an IDer for governmental funding.

I have asked but you have not answered. Give me a sample proposal from an IDer for governmental funding.

You've asked, and, if you have paid attention to this thread as you've claimed you have, then you would know that I haven't claimed to be able to provide such a proposal. Indeed, the purpose of this thread, and most of the non-I.D.ers on this thread will acknowlege this, is...

I can answer this, can you Arthais? What is this thread about?

Incidentally, that you let any I.D.er into a university department and let them work on an I.D.er hypothesis is hugely and massively significant.

Why ? I personally am all in favour of letting the ID movement actually define their positions, explain what they mean when they use words like "complexity" and generally stop dodging and start doing serious work.

I just object to their idea that they should be considered equals of those who already have.

You've asked, and, if you have paid attention to this thread as you've claimed you have, then you would know that I haven't claimed to be able to provide such a proposal. Indeed, the purpose of this thread, and most of the non-I.D.ers on this thread will acknowlege this, is...

I can answer this, can you Arthais? What is this thread about?

The purpose of this thread seems to be you saying "but the question of whether there is a creator is an important one, so we should treat it as such, support it, fund it, and talk about it in schools."

However by your own admission you have absolutly no idea HOW to go about answering that question. Nor do I. Nor does anyone.

And until we do, it deserves neither the funding, or the recognition, of legitimate science.

When and if it does i shall reevaluate my position. Until then it deserves nothing, as it can accomplish nothing.

And until then I believe it should receive not one cent of governmental funding, as I am quite against any policy of burning money.

The purpose of this thread seems to be you saying "but the question of whether there is a creator is an important one, so we should treat it as such, support it, fund it, and talk about it in schools."

However by your own admission you have absolutly no idea HOW to go about answering that question. Nor do I. Nor does anyone.

And until we do, it deserves neither the funding, or the recognition, of legitimate science.

When and if it does i shall reevaluate my position. Until then it deserves nothing, as it can accomplish nothing.
And that is an important question--it's just not, as I imagine you agree, one for a science class to answer. It's better left to a comparative religion class, or a philosophy class, or even a metaphysics class. But it ain't science, not by a longshot.

Why ? I personally am all in favour of letting the ID movement actually define their positions, explain what they mean when they use words like "complexity" and generally stop dodging and start doing serious work.

I just object to their idea that they should be considered equals of those who already have.

Yeah, I'm not really in favor of a staunch I.D.er position. Religion has tried to answer the question, is there a creator? And, for the most part, they just assume "yes". Philosophy has tired to answer the question with various arguments. Well, I think, may be it is time for science, which as the most relaible methods empirically speaking, to have a go. I mean, I've read and been told that a creator and science are incompatible, but no one ever says why -- including Prof's and PhD students that I've spoken to.
I agree with you that this is not an equal enterprise. Yet, the reason being is that science has not found it necessary to include this idea and investigate it. This is mainly due to an Occams Razor attitude, but not truth. So, I say, let's try it.

And that is an important question--it's just not, as I imagine you agree, one for a science class to answer. It's better left to a comparative religion class, or a philosophy class, or even a metaphysics class. But it ain't science, not by a longshot.

I would fully support it being in a science class, once the ID crowd conceives of possible experiments, conducts them, and allows us to examine the results of those experiments.

THAT is science.

pure speculation is not. It is as you (and I myself, multiple times in this thread) say, appropriate for a religion or philosophy class. But for ID to be accepted as science, it must first start ACTING like science, and conform to the rigors and requirements of science.

Yet, the reason being is that science has not found it necessary to include this idea and investigate it. This is mainly due to an Occams Razor attitude, but not truth. So, I say, let's try it.

no. The reason is as I've said on page 1 of this thread.

You can not test for the existance of an entity that resides in a reality different from the one in which you keep your instruments.

Science has not attempted to answer the question because any legitimate scientist will conceide it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to answer that question at this stage of human development, and NO scientist has come up with a method to yet.

I would fully support it being in a science class, once the ID crowd conceives of possible experiments, conducts them, and allows us to examine the results of those experiments.

THAT is science.

pure speculation is not. It is as you (and I myself, multiple times in this thread) say, appropriate for a religion or philosophy class. But for ID to be accepted as science, it must first start ACTING like science, and conform to the rigors and requirements of science.I have little doubt that there are people out there who honestly believe there is a debate about this, and that ID ought to be considered as a potential alternative scientific explanation to evolution, but those people, for all their honesty, don't have a clue as to the science of the discussion. If they did, they'd see how ludicrous the current state of ID is.

But the despicable ones, in my book, are the ones who have pimped ID for all its worth, because they know that ID is nothing more than dressed-up creationism, and yet they've managed to sucker a lot of people into believing ID is something else. The history of the movement is clear for anyone who wants to look at it--ID has inextricable links to creationism, and those who claim differently are either stupid or liars. It's that simple.

The purpose of this thread seems to be you saying "but the question of whether there is a creator is an important one, so we should treat it as such, support it, fund it, and talk about it in schools."

However by your own admission you have absolutly no idea HOW to go about answering that question. Nor do I. Nor does anyone.

And until we do, it deserves neither the funding, or the recognition, of legitimate science.


When and if it does i shall reevaluate my position. Until then it deserves nothing, as it can accomplish nothing.

And until then I believe it should receive not one cent of governmental funding, as I am quite against any policy of burning money.

Heretofore, the majority of this thread has attempted to get the non-I.D.ers to admit that the question, "Did a creator create the universe", is an empirical question. They have admitted that. Since science has the best method to deal with empirical questions, then Science should investigate this question. As you and your cohorts admit, the methods for such an enterprise have not been developed. So, if science is going to attempt to investigate in to such a question, then surely lots of funds and resources should go into it because it is, possibly, the most important question. Look, I don't think you understand how funding for science works. It has nothing to do with truth or accuracy, it, more often than not, has to do with private companies and corporations or governmental/business interests or specialist group interests. These are the people who direct where funding goes, not truth. What I'm proposing would belongs to a pure science, which, unfortunatley, does not exist at the moment.

I have little doubt that there are people out there who honestly believe there is a debate about this, and that ID ought to be considered as a potential alternative scientific explanation to evolution, but those people, for all their honesty, don't have a clue as to the science of the discussion. If they did, they'd see how ludicrous the current state of ID is.

But the despicable ones, in my book, are the ones who have pimped ID for all its worth, because they know that ID is nothing more than dressed-up creationism, and yet they've managed to sucker a lot of people into believing ID is something else. The history of the movement is clear for anyone who wants to look at it--ID has inextricable links to creationism, and those who claim differently are either stupid or liars. It's that simple.

Yes, there are generally two sides. Those who just don't know any better, and get sucked into the dogma of "evolution is just a theory, shouldn't we accept other theories?" line.

Then there are those who know what ID is full well, a way of trying to slip their faith into public schools, by any means necessary.

Heretofore, the majority of this thread has attempted to get the non-I.D.ers to admit that the question, "Did a creator create the universe", is an empirical question. They have admitted that. Since science has the best method to deal with empirical questions, then Science should investigate this question. As you and your cohorts admit, the methods for such an enterprise have not been developed. So, if science is going to attempt to investigate in to such a question, then surely lots of funds and resources should go into it because it is, possibly, the most important question. Look, I don't think you understand how funding for science works. It has nothing to do with truth or accuracy, it, more often than not, has to do with private companies and corporations or governmental/business interests or specialist group interests. These are the people who direct where funding goes, not truth. What I'm proposing would belongs to a pure science, which, unfortunatley, does not exist at the moment.
Well, I don't know who these other non-IDers are, but "Did a creator create the universe?" is most decidedly not an empirical question.

I mean, I've read and been told that a creator and science are incompatible, but no one ever says why -- including Prof's and PhD students that I've spoken to.

A creator would not need to conform to the laws and rules that we are subject to. Basicly, he/she/it would be able to "cheat" at tests, making them unreliable.
That is why the ID movement decided that one should not test for the existence of a designer, but for evidence of design. They devised the concepts of irreducible complexity and design inference to be able to determine a "design likelihood" of things. Unfortunately those concepts have turned out to be logically flawed and inconclusive. In addition, seeking for evidence in favour of an hypothesis is contrary to the scientific method which relies on finding flaws in ideas.

Nevertheless, their angle was already slightly more original. Maybe they can devise something that would actually work.

no. The reason is as I've said on page 1 of this thread.

You can not test for the existance of an entity that resides in a reality different from the one in which you keep your instruments.

Science has not attempted to answer the question because any legitimate scientist will conceide it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to answer that question at this stage of human development, and NO scientist has come up with a method to yet.

"Not possible" is a very strong cliam.
How do you know that God exists outside of this reality?

Well, I don't know who these other non-IDers are, but "Did a creator create the universe?" is most decidedly not an empirical question.

Look through all the posts. Sorry, but I'm not going through this argument again.

Heretofore, the majority of this thread has attempted to get the non-I.D.ers to admit that the question, "Did a creator create the universe", is an empirical question. They have admitted that. Since science has the best method to deal with empirical questions,

This does not mean science can answer every question. The airplane is fastest method of transportation available to your average person. Doesn't mean it can fly you to the moon.

then Science should investigate this question.

Science should restrict itself to questions it has a chance in hell of actually answering

As you and your cohorts admit, the methods for such an enterprise have not been developed.

You're on to something here.


So, if science is going to attempt to investigate in to such a question, then surely lots of funds and resources should go into it because it is, possibly, the most important question.

To fund the answering of a question when no possible method of answering it has been proffered is akin to shoveling money into the fire. As I stated, I am against any governmental policy of burning money. The process dictates that you conceive of some method of testing FIRST, THEN you get funding for it. Not get money first and figure out what to do with it after.

Look, I don't think you understand how funding for science works. It has nothing to do with truth or accuracy, it, more often than not, has to do with private companies and corporations or governmental/business interests or specialist group interests. These are the people who direct where funding goes, not truth.

So because the system is screwed up and funds things that maybe it shouldn't, we should make it worse?

What I'm proposing would belongs to a pure science, which, unfortunatley, does not exist at the moment.

No, what you are proposing belongs to pure fancy, which is exactly what funding something that doesn't exist is.

Look through all the posts. Sorry, but I'm not going through this argument again.
You can argue till you're blue in the face--the question of the existence of a creator of the universe cannot be an empirical question, because there's no way to test for it. Period, end of discussion. Whatever argument you came up with is nothing but mental masturbation.

Heretofore, the majority of this thread has attempted to get the non-I.D.ers to admit that the question, "Did a creator create the universe", is an empirical question. They have admitted that. Since science has the best method to deal with empirical questions, then Science should investigate this question. As you and your cohorts admit, the methods for such an enterprise have not been developed. So, if science is going to attempt to investigate in to such a question, then surely lots of funds and resources should go into it because it is, possibly, the most important question. Look, I don't think you understand how funding for science works. It has nothing to do with truth or accuracy, it, more often than not, has to do with private companies and corporations or governmental/business interests or specialist group interests. These are the people who direct where funding goes, not truth. What I'm proposing would belongs to a pure science, which, unfortunatley, does not exist at the moment.
But, again, the issue at hand is we have no way of finding out, not even a little glimmer. We're stopped by the fact that any creator has to exist outside the universe and we can't get to that point. We're kinda stuck inside it.

It may be an improtant question, but every other question like this that gets funding shows at least a promise of how to go about answering it, that the answer is actually obtainable. With the creator question, right now it's impossible to do so unless we can figure out a way to go beyond creation itself.

Or learn to create universes.

But both are in the realm of pure speculation and not actual science.

"Not possible" is a very strong cliam.
How do you know that God exists outside of this reality?

The fundamental theory of intelligent design dictates that the natural order of the universe can not be a product of randomness and must be a product of a creator.

If the creator is part of this universe than it abides by the same rules of this universe. Ergo it exists within that natural order, which according to ID must have been caused by a creator.

In other words, under ID the creator can not exist within this universe as the creator would necessitate a creator.

For the fundamental idea of ID to work, it must assume that the creator is not bound by the rules of this universe (IE natural order must be a product of creation).

A creator would not need to conform to the laws and rules that we are subject to. Basicly, he/she/it would be able to "cheat" at tests, making them unreliable.
That is why the ID movement decided that one should not test for the existence of a designer, but for evidence of design. They devised the concepts of irreducible complexity and design inference to be able to determine a "design likelihood" of things. Unfortunately those concepts have turned out to be logically flawed and inconclusive. In addition, seeking for evidence in favour of an hypothesis is contrary to the scientific method which relies on finding flaws in ideas.

Nevertheless, their angle was already slightly more original. Maybe they can devise something that would actually work.

I'm sorry, I don't know what a designer would or would not be able to do. I have said, time and time again, I'm not calling for the Judeo-Christain omni-omnii-God. This creator could create the universe and not understand the totality of what it has done.

Tell me why "design liklihood" as a probalility is flawed. You know it is not just flawed for I.D.ers it is flawed no matter what you input. It is a form of statistics that is flawed.

I'm sorry, I don't know what a designer would or would not be able to do. I have said, time and time again, I'm not calling for the Judeo-Christain omni-omnii-God. This creator could create the universe and not understand the totality of what it has done.


If you can't even define what you'll look for, how in hell do you expect to define how to look for it?

You just proved my point.