Jump to content

Has Science Morphed Into A New Religion Unto Itself?


Recommended Posts

To answer that question, the first thing we have to do is understand what the definitions of science and religion are:
 
sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
noun: science
  1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
     
     
    re·li·gion
    rəˈlijən/
    noun
    noun: religion
    1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.#1
      "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
      synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
      sect, church, cult, denomination
      "the freedom to practice their own religion"
      • a particular system of faith and worship.#2
        plural noun: religions
        "the world's great religions"
      • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.#3
         
        In some other dictionaries, religion is defined as “any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) and character of God.” Also, “a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.” #4
         
        I think it's clear modern science very closely fits the criteria of #4 and in many ways fits the #2 and #3 criteria , and in a few ways #1
        Science DOES create a predictable and prescribed response to the assertions of co coreligionists, for instance creationism is dismissed out of hand because it relies on a a belief in a supreme being. In a way it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater because while it does seem unlikely that a God in the classic sense of the word exists, that does not preclude the existence of some organized consciousness we don't yet understand. (which I believe is in fact closer to the truth than atheism)
         
        Obviously most modern scientists ascribe a supreme importance to their ideas over those of (other) coreligionists, because when those other beliefs conflict their own BELIEFS they dismiss them out of hand without evidence, and even systematically censor those conflicting ideas from what their view of science is, that is to say belief or non belief in a supreme power or spirit is in fact a faith based idea, it neither can be proved or disproved so neither BELIEF has any place in SCIENCE (see definition above).
         
        Is intelligent design a invalid theory of science because it prescribes a belief in an intelligent arrangement of the universe? Probably not, because precluding it on that basis would require #4 and #3 be part of the definition of science, which would make it a religion instead and require BELIEF in faith based ideas in the absence of empirical  evidence and actual observations.
         
         It is also of particular interest when discussing this subject that many people like myself who do subscribe to the theory of an intelligent arrangement of the universe do not make any particular claims of the existence or non existence of a personal God or of any God, I in fact believe the classic religious view of what God is defies rationality and logic. As a adherent to the theory of intelligent design, I base that adherence to theory on reams of empirical evidence that supports it.
         
        I have been repeatedly censored on this board for espousing a belief in an intelligent arrangement of the universe and that meets criteria #4;  and #2 to some extent. I also think it is interesting that the idea that the way modern science dismisses out of hand that there is no intelligent arrangement is ignoring evidence and refusing to acknowledge the obvious, that complex forms and interactions, laws and  definite predictable responses to different input requires some intelligent design, for instance evolution allows organisms to adapt to environmental stresses and a complex system of interactions with very precise parameters allows the existence of life on this planet.
         
        "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world"- Is "behavior" an intelligent predictable response and does 'structure" require intelligent arrangment?
        The structure of a double helix strand of DNA with encoded information defines intelligent design. It transmits or preserves information so that the nucleus and mitochondria of a cell can interpret it in order to arrange a specific structure to itself,  and intelligence is the ability to interpret information.
         
        Therefore there can be no rational doubt whatsoever that DNA and evolution both fit the criteria for "intelligent design" through empirical evidence. Denying it in order to fit a predetermined belief or non belief in a God is irrational and has no real place in science.
         
        I think it is fair to mention that with a very few exceptions all noteworthy scientists of history believed in an intelligent arrangement of the universe. Here are just a few examples:
         
        quoting Albert Einstein:

        "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

        The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

        quoting Sir Issac Newton:

        "One principle in Philosophy is the being of a God or spirit infinite eternal omniscient, omnipotent, & the best argument for such a being is the frame of nature & chiefly the contrivance of the bodies of living creatures. All the great land animals have two eyes, in the forehead a nose between them a mouth under the nose, two ears on the sides of the head, two arms or two fore leggs or two wings on the sholders & two leggs behind & this symmetry in the several species could not proceed from chance, there being an equal chance for one eye or for three or four eyes as for two, & so of the other members. Nothing is more curious & difficult then the frame of the eyes for seeing & of the ears for hearing & yet no sort of creatures has these members to no purpose. What more difficult then to fly? & yet was it by chance that all creatures can fly which have wings? Certainly he that framed the eyes of all creatures understood the nature of light & vision, he that framed their ears understood the nature of sounds & hearing, he that framed their noses understood the nature of odours & smelling, he that framed the wings of flying creatures & the fins of fishes understood the force of air & water & what members were requisite to enable creatures to fly & swim: & therefore the first formation of every species of creatures must be ascribed to an intelligent being."

         

        quoting: James Clerk Maxwell

         

        "one of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural.

        On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent.

        Thus we have been led, along a strictly scientific path, very near to the point at which Science must stop, — not that Science is debarred from studying the internal mechanism of a molecule which she cannot take to pieces, any more than from investigating an organism which she cannot put together. But in tracing back the history of matter, Science is arrested when she assures herself, on the one hand, that the molecule has been made, and, on the other, that it has not been made by any of the processes we call natural."

         

        Here are a few more:

        Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

        George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

        Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

        Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

        Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

        John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

        George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

        Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

        Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

        Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

        Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

        Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

        Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

        Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

        Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book

        Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

        Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

        Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."

        Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."

        Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."

        Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

        Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."

        Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

        Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."

        Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

        Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."

         

         

         

         
         
         
         
Edited by Anonymous Participant
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Actually my goal is to force you the realization that what you think is science is in fact a new religion, and I abhor religious restraints being placed upon intellectual disciplines like science. We

To answer that question, the first thing we have to do is understand what the definitions of science and religion are:   sci·ence ˈsīəns/ noun noun: science

It's natural vs supernatural. Science isn't saying "no" to the supernatural, it's saying "Hey, not the right tool for the job." No religious beliefs needed, so science is not morphing into a new relig

It's natural vs supernatural. Science isn't saying "no" to the supernatural, it's saying "Hey, not the right tool for the job." No religious beliefs needed, so science is not morphing into a new religion.

What's morping is your definition of both science and religion. One is becoming so broad its meaningless, and the other is purposely narrow to drive your agenda in asking the question.

You generalize and assume far too much, and many mistakes you've made have been corrected by others yet ignored by you. Your arguments suffer from this. 

You'll probably have to leave soon since you can't seem to understand that we don't allow people to make assertions with no support the way you do. It's against our rules, because it's a really, really stupid way to discuss science. You don't get to claim things here without support, and you don't understand what support in science means, so you keep shitting on our forum and screaming when we try to clean it up. You are NOT worth the trouble you cause, and your ideas are baseless until you can support them rationally.

What is stopping you from backing up your ideas with more than wavy hands and screaming?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's natural vs supernatural. Science isn't saying "no" to the supernatural, it's saying "Hey, not the right tool for the job." No religious beliefs needed, so science is not morphing into a new religion.

What's morping is your definition of both science and religion. One is becoming so broad its meaningless, and the other is purposely narrow to drive your agenda in asking the question.

You generalize and assume far too much, and many things that have been corrected by others yet ignored by you. Your arguments suffer from this. 

You'll probably have to leave soon since you can't seem to understand that we don't allow people to make assertions with no support the way you do. It's against our rules, because it's a really, really stupid way to discuss science. You don't get to claim things here without support, and you don't understand what support in science means, so you keep shitting on our forum and screaming when we try to clean it up. You are NOT worth the trouble you cause, and your ideas are baseless until you can support them rationally.

What is stopping you from backing up your ideas with more than wavy hands and screaming?  

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing inherently "supernatural" about  intelligent design theory. That ssupposition is false and relies on faulty reasoning and logic. An intelligence inherent in the design of the universe can be empirically studied and supported with volumes of evidence, IT IS SCIENCE in it's purest form.

What assertions have I made without proof? Specifically? When have I actually been corrected? Be specific and show your evidence that I was indeed corrected.

What is stopping you from backing your ideas without censorship, hand waving and screaming over me?

Why can't intelligent design be rationally discussed in this forum and the evidence of it supported without emotional irrational responses? Because it is actually an atheist pseudoscience forum? Because what you believe is a religion and I am "crapping on it"?

What you are doing is no different than any other religious fanatic, supporting your BELIEFS with forced conformity

 

Edited by Anonymous Participant
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:
To answer that question, the first thing we have to do is understand what the definitions of science and religion are:
 
      •  
        I think it's clear modern science very closely fits the criteria of #4 and in many ways fits the #2 and #3 criteria , and in a few ways #1
        Science DOES create a predictable and prescribed response to the assertions of co coreligionists, for instance creationism is dismissed out of hand because it relies on a a belief in a supreme being. In a way it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater because while it does seem unlikely that a God in the classic sense of the word exists, that does not preclude the existence of some organized consciousness we don't yet understand. (which I believe is in fact closer to the truth than atheism)
         

What you erroneously assert, actually defies what is logically defined as religion or science.

Any God, and/or existence of some organized consciousness, (which are inherently and logically the same thing) or any belief in the supernatural, is unscientific by definition.            The scientific methodology prevails because it is the best system we have, and relies on empirical evidence and data.

Supernatural or paranormal beliefs are by definition unscientific and cannot be showed to be valid, one way or the other.

Quote

 Obviously most modern scientists ascribe a supreme importance to their ideas over those of (other) coreligionists, because when those other beliefs conflict their own BELIEFS they dismiss them out of hand without evidence, and even systematically censor those conflicting ideas from what their view of science is, that is to say belief or non belief in a supreme power or spirit is in fact a faith based idea, it neither can be proved or disproved so neither BELIEF has any place in SCIENCE (see definition above).

No, that's a total furphy, and simply evidence of the evangelistic approach that IDers and other god botherers push quite hypocritically as in essence, it applies to themselves. Obviously the impetus behind these evangelistic hypocritical crusades, stems from the fact that science has driven the myth of any creator, deity or ID, into near oblivion, based on empirical evidence.

Quote

Is intelligent design a invalid theory of science because it prescribes a belief in an intelligent arrangement of the universe? Probably not, because precluding it on that basis would require #4 and #3 be part of the definition of science, which would make it a religion instead and require BELIEF in faith based ideas in the absence of empirical  evidence and actual observations.

ID is not any theory to do with science period. It is a non scientific scenario by definition and is logically precluded at least up to t+10-43 seconds, and at best remains speculative beyond that...but a QGT may even remove that faint distant hope in the future.

Quote

I have been repeatedly censored on this board for espousing a belief in an intelligent arrangement of the universe 

So, now you are playing the victim card? This is afterall, first and foremost a science forum where the scientific methodology, logically  takes pride of place. Your censorship was attributed to you ignoring that fact. 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, beecee said:

What you erroneously assert, actually defies what is logically defined as religion or science.

Any God, and/or existence of some organized consciousness, (which are inherently and logically the same thing) or any belief in the supernatural, is unscientific by definition.            The scientific methodology prevails because it is the best system we have, and relies on empirical evidence and data.

Supernatural or paranormal beliefs are by definition unscientific and cannot be showed to be valid, one way or the other.

No, that's a total furphy, and simply evidence of the evangelistic approach that IDers and other god botherers push quite hypocritically as in essence, it applies to themselves. Obviously the impetus behind these evangelistic hypocritical crusades, stems from the fact that science has driven the myth of any creator, deity or ID, into near oblivion, based on empirical evidence.

ID is not any theory to do with science period. It is a non scientific scenario by definition and is logically precluded at least up to t+10-43 seconds, and at best remains ssspeculative beyond that...but a QGT may even remove that faint distant hope in the future.

So, now you are playing the victim card? This is afterall, first and foremost a science forum where the scientific methodology, logically  takes pride of place. Your censorship was attributed to you ignoring that fact. 

The belief in intelligent design is not inherently supernatural or a belief in a "God".  The existence of an intelligent arrangement is not necessarily supernatural, show your proof that it is.

Intelligent design is a valid theory because it has evidence to support it that does not rely on the belief or non belief in a God

Precluding it from being science on that basis is unscientific, and your religious agenda is self evident.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Because what you believe is a religion and I am "crapping on it"?

:D:rolleyes: Crapping on it??? Oh come on, who do you believe you are fooling, other then yourself.  The general scientific methodology, the accepted scientific theories and models, still stand unchanged the last time I looked, despite your claims of "crapping on it".                 This is a science discussion forum, and simply put, you for the reasons I have already stated, see the fanatical need to conduct your obvious crusade against us evil bastards. Oh the shame of it all! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, locking threads because they break the rules we've developed over the last 15 years isn't censorship. Unless someone's being unnecessarily foul, we usually lock threads because of what people aren't saying.

In this case, it was because "just look around you" is not the kind of reply we want when we ask for evidence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the vast majority of confusion around whether Science is or isn't a religion stems entirely from the lack of scientific literacy in modern society and the inability for people to either access or understand scientific studies or receive an education within science. It's incredibly obvious to people like myself that science is clearly not a religion, it's a form of deriving the truth wherein we use the scientific method to differentiate the aforementioned truth from falsehoods. 

So when we take a look at things like Evolution, they can sound completely crazy and wild to people who lack a fundamentally basic understanding of animal Biology. For us, the concept of amino acids being deleted, inserted or replaced causing in changes to an organism's genetic makeup to then put it into the filter of natural selection for millions of years resulting in us eventually, is quite understandable. Whereas to someone who doesn't understand this process, it can sound magical and almost religious. 

This also applies to other methods of science but I don't particularly have the knowledge to comment on them. In essence I would recommend people to try and read through scientific literature without any biases and i think they'll understand how far science is from any kind of religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Phi for All said:

To be clear, locking threads because they break the rules we've developed over the last 15 years isn't censorship. Unless someone's being unnecessarily foul, we usually lock threads because of what people aren't saying.

In this case, it was because "just look around you" is not the kind of reply we want when we ask for evidence. 

So why was the specific evidence I referenced removed from those locked threads? Isn't that blatant censorship?

If you deny DNA and evolution are both evidence of intelligent design YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST, you are coreligionist atheist. DNA is information and it is information that is used to construct something through intelligent interpretation of that information

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

The belief in intelligent design is not inherently supernatural or a belief in a "God".  The existence of an intelligent arrangement is not necessarily supernatural, show your proof that it is.

Intelligent design is a valid theory because it has evidence to support it that does not rely on the belief or non belief in a God

Precluding it from being science on that basis is unscientific, and your religious agenda is self evident.

 

4 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

The belief in intelligent design is not inherently supernatural or a belief in a "God".  The existence of an intelligent arrangement is not necessarily supernatural, show your proof that it is.

Intelligent design is a valid theory because it has evidence to support it that does not rely on the belief or non belief in a God

Precluding it from being science on that basis is unscientific, and your religious agenda is self evident.

Any ID is unscientific and of course any scientific theory does not deal in "proof"' as god botherers are always apt to demand. And your useless, crusade continues. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

I think that the vast majority of confusion around whether Science is or isn't a religion stems entirely from the lack of scientific literacy in modern society and the inability for people to either access or understand scientific studies or receive an education within science. It's incredibly obvious to people like myself that science is clearly not a religion, it's a form of deriving the truth wherein we use the scientific method to differentiate the aforementioned truth from falsehoods. 

So when we take a look at things like Evolution, they can sound completely crazy and wild to people who lack a fundamentally basic understanding of animal Biology. For us, the concept of amino acids being deleted, inserted or replaced causing in changes to an organism's genetic makeup to then put it into the filter of natural selection for millions of years resulting in us eventually, is quite understandable. Whereas to someone who doesn't understand this process, it can sound magical and almost religious. 

This also applies to other methods of science but I don't particularly have the knowledge to comment on them. In essence I would recommend people to try and read through scientific literature without any biases and i think they'll understand how far science is from any kind of religion.

There is nothing supernatural about "natural selection", anyone who has lived in different neighborhoods can attest that survival of the fittest is a reality,

LMAO!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I would like to take this opportunity to state categorically that none of the evidence I have presented supporting intelligent design has been refuted, No attempt has been made to do so, just the same old worn out tactic of denial

You have not supplied one iota of scientific evidence to be refuted, other then the usual hand waving and empty rhetoric, no matter how often you chose to deny that fact.                   Perhaps since tomorrow is Sunday, you may be believed and accepted in your local church.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Why? Show me proof intelligent design is unscientific. Be specific.

Scientific theories do not deal in proof, for the second time, and so far scientific theory has explained the evolution of spacetime the universe from t+10-43 seconds, and has reasonable speculation as to how the universe arose from nothing. 

Now please support your claims...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, beecee said:

You have not supplied one iota of scientific evidence to be refuted, other then the usual hand waving and empty rhetoric, no matter how often you chose to deny that fact.                   Perhaps since tomorrow is Sunday, you may be believed and accepted in your local church.

DNA and Evolution, lets start with those. When you prove you can't refute it I will move on to more examples. thus far you've only denied I presented proof. It is impossible to deny information is intelligence and DNA preserves and transmits and allows an organism to construct itself accordingly. There is no doubt that evolution is an INTELLIGENT response to environmental factors through modification of that DNA.

There is no need to believe in a "God" (or disbelieve in one) to see that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anonymous Participant said:

So why was the specific evidence I referenced removed from those locked threads? Isn't that blatant censorship?

If you deny DNA and evolution are both evidence of intelligent design YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST, you are coreligionist atheist. DNA is information and it is information that is used to construct something through intelligent interpretation of that information

The last time I checked, DNA is far from evidence for intelligent design. All it takes is for a bacterial cell to form once in the millions of galaxies in our solar system for there to be the possibility of evolution to cause them to form complicated life forms after a few million years.

By the way, I'd like to share this letter to you from Albert Einstein on the subject of god, he wasn't quite as "Pro-intelligent design" as you seem to be suggesting.

 

289C65CA00000578-0-image-m-18_1431542628

The scientists you quote are clearly not referencing the same kind of intelligent design I think that you are. Most of them viewed God as just simply, the natural laws of the universe and by that extent, the universe itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beecee said:

Scientific theories do not deal in proof, for the second time, and so far scientific theory has explained the evolution of spacetime the universe from t+10-43 seconds, and has reasonable speculation as to how the universe arose from nothing. 

Now please support your claims...

I see. i have to show evidence and proof and you do not. That's religion

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Anonymous Participant said:

DNA and Evolution, lets start with those. When you prove you can't refute it I will move on to more examples. thus far you've only denied I presented proof. It is impossible to deny information is intelligence and DNA preserves and transmits and allows an organism to construct itself accordingly. There is no doubt that evolution is an INTELLIGENT response to environmental factors through modification of that DNA.

There is no need to believe in a "God" (or disbelieve in one) to see that.

Evolution is a fact. The methodology of how life first arose is not yet known, but evidence does support that the contents that we are made of are simply created in the belly of stars. Life? Abiogenisis although not yet evidenced seems quite likely. Chemical reaction my friend. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

The last time I checked, DNA is far from evidence for intelligent design. All it takes is for a bacterial cell to form once in the millions of galaxies in our solar system for there to be the possibility of evolution to cause them to form complicated life forms after a few million years.

By the way, I'd like to share this letter to you from Albert Einstein on the subject of god, he wasn't quite as "Pro-intelligent design" as you seem to be suggesting.

 

289C65CA00000578-0-image-m-18_1431542628

The scientists you quote are clearly not referencing the same kind of intelligent design I think that you are. Most of them viewed God as just simply, the natural laws of the universe and by that extent, the universe itself.

You might need to read my words a little more carefully, while ignoring the claims made about what i said. I believe essentially the identical same thing that Albert did. I believe intelligence is inherent in the arrangement of the universe, period. I do not believe in any classical rendition of a personal God, I believe that such belief is mainly based on fear of death and an inability to deal with that eventuality..

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I see. i have to show evidence and proof and you do not. That's religion

I'm stating accepted scientific evidence that can easily be found on any reputable link. You have SFA, other then your desire to convert us evil Atheists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Evolution is a fact. The methodology of how life first arose is not yet known, but evidence does support that the contents that we are made of are simply created in the belly of stars. Life? Abiogenisis although not yet evidenced seems quite likely. Chemical reaction my friend. 

You have a reading comprehension problem.

 

14 minutes ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

I think that the vast majority of confusion around whether Science is or isn't a religion stems entirely from the lack of scientific literacy in modern society and the inability for people to either access or understand scientific studies or receive an education within science. It's incredibly obvious to people like myself that science is clearly not a religion, it's a form of deriving the truth wherein we use the scientific method to differentiate the aforementioned truth from falsehoods. 

So when we take a look at things like Evolution, they can sound completely crazy and wild to people who lack a fundamentally basic understanding of animal Biology. For us, the concept of amino acids being deleted, inserted or replaced causing in changes to an organism's genetic makeup to then put it into the filter of natural selection for millions of years resulting in us eventually, is quite understandable. Whereas to someone who doesn't understand this process, it can sound magical and almost religious. 

This also applies to other methods of science but I don't particularly have the knowledge to comment on them. In essence I would recommend people to try and read through scientific literature without any biases and i think they'll understand how far science is from any kind of religion.

 

1 minute ago, beecee said:

I'm stating accepted scientific evidence that can easily be found on any reputable link. You have SFA, other then your desire to convert us evil Atheists.

I have no desire to convert you, I just want to see your religious convictions and beliefs removed from science as a limitation, because it has no place in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

There is nothing supernatural about "natural selection", anyone who has lived in different neighborhoods can attest that survival of the fittest is a reality,

LMAO!

You do realise I'm talking about massive amounts of natural selection compiled with mutations causing evolution to the extent of a chimp-like creature becoming human. (E,g common ancestor between humans and apes) not just simply "he who survives breeds" logic that you're pointing out.

Edited by DeoxyRiboRobert
Grammar,
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing inherently "supernatural" about  intelligent design theory.

Any hypothesis predicting an intelligence behind the universe needs to show how natural explanations for various unintelligent phenomena fail, or are more complicated than an unseen intelligence.

15 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

What assertions have I made without proof? Specifically?

 

1 hour ago, Anonymous Participant said:
Obviously most modern scientists ascribe a supreme importance to their ideas over those of (other) coreligionists, because when those other beliefs conflict their own BELIEFS they dismiss them out of hand without evidence, and even systematically censor those conflicting ideas from what their view of science is, that is to say belief or non belief in a supreme power or spirit is in fact a faith based idea, it neither can be proved or disproved so neither BELIEF has any place in SCIENCE (see definition above)

This is just the first one I found in this thread. You make the claim that you've been dismissed out of hand without evidence, when JUST ABOUT EVERYONE has asked you for supportive evidence. If they've dismissed you, it's because you NEVER GAVE US ANYTHING BUT YOUR INSISTENCE. 

Please think about this. How can we dismiss you without evidence when we were the ones asking for it?

21 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

What is stopping you from backing your ideas without censorship, hand waving and screaming over me?

My ideas aren't the topic of the thread. You are losing focus. And didn't you read the part about this NOT being censorship? We're disagreeing with you, not stifling your ideas. You need to learn the difference.

23 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Why can't intelligent design be rationally discussed in this forum and the evidence of it supported without emotional irrational responses? Because it is actually an atheist pseudoscience forum? Because what you believe is a religion and I am "crapping on it"?

You have not shown a single scrap of evidence for an intelligence behind the universe. You're not alone, nobody can. Every single phenomena we know about doesn't require an intelligence, so science is pretty adamant that introducing one is superfluous UNLESS YOU'VE GOT SOME COMPELLING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. 

If we defend the scientific method, we do it because it produces the most trustworthy explanations, not because it's ancient, or holy, or seems right, or even because it makes sense. It's as far from a religion as possible. 

ID attempts to assume there's an intelligence and then explain the universe from there. It's an intellectually devoid assumption that reeks of superstition and fear. Did I mention it's not necessary? The null hypothesis makes much more sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.