The debate "Intelligent Design is not science." was started by
February 25, 2016, 6:18 pm.
27 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 38 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
PoliticsAsUsual posted 12 arguments, PsychDave posted 8 arguments, historybuff posted 9 arguments, RyanWakefield posted 3 arguments, Pictobug_1 posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
danielle posted 5 arguments, historybuff posted 8 arguments, Alex posted 23 arguments, NaggingNut posted 4 arguments, dalton7532 posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
PsychDave, healthywhealthy, fadi, PoliticsAsUsual, RyanWakefield, pajrc1234, Pictobug_1, Sosocratese, carlos1ja, lawyerlady, Nemiroff, Religion_is_unproven and 15 visitors agree.
WiseGirl, danielle, NaggingNut, shenanigans, ReadyToBegin, Alex, historybuff, barman, ArdieBarry, openparachute, thereal, blakelovesjesus, seekertruth, nellie11iah and 24 visitors disagree.
cause gravity distorts light and can create a rainbow much like a prism....
Why do people consider rainbow gravity science then?
if intelligence design is objectively proven then yes, it would be science... as of yet, it is not.
key work in your post. IF
oops iam afraid sosocrates isnt there anymore!!! :(
I challenge you Sosocrates!
Science is the gathering of knowledge and if that knowledge concludes intelligent design, this statement would be false.
then what causes morality?
I'm sorry but I'm going to be very blunt with you here as I've had to correct these same arguments of yours on multiple occasions.
It seems you are too stupid to comprehend the rules of logic and reasoning. You are once again making claims based on fallacies. You must actually back up your arguments. Simply stating that "morals come from God" isn't an argument. It's a position. You haven't ruled out the alternatives and thus can't make that statement. You have to rule out moral nihilism and subjective morality before yours is a valid statement....you must also eliminate the countless of other, mutually exclusive theistic moral codes and present one as true.
You also still try to use the colloquial definition of the term "theory". I know that you should know the technical definition of the term as we've had many debates where this issue has come up, and yet you keep reiterating the colloquial term in order to further your argument. This means your either disingenuous/dishonest or too stupid to remember a simple definition.
You also continue to make strawman arguments. Claiming science says "x" when it really doesn't. Science doesn't claim chemical reactions produce morality. That's a stupid statement and I don't know why you don't get called out for making such moronic statements more often.
morals predate God. other religions also provide morality through other gods, or without gods at all.
Buddhism is a religion based entirely on morallity, and yet they have absolutely no God at all. just a man who reached enlightenment through his experiences.
It's true God helped humans gain a moral compass. But that's one of the reasons humans created God in the first place. To spread good ethics and to create a civilised community. Nobody would simply listen to word of mouth. We had to concoct this imaginary entity to explain coincidences and things we couldn't explain back then. Thus it was easier for people to believe the idea of a supernatural omnipresent being, God.
of course I have. but I don't give my opinions as facts. you are saying repeatedly that God is source of all morals. we are putting forward evidence and examples of morals without religion and you repeat your opinion. you are debating facts with opinion. that doesn't work in a debate. if you can't back up your opinion with facts then why would we believe you?
so you've never given any opinion on this app?
you have yet to try to actually prove your unsupported opinion Alex. you have presented no evidence that God is the source of morals. if you can't then it is only your oppinon and we can simply dismiss it as such.
God is gives us all morals, we choose If we accept them. no God is no morals, so how would we choose something that doesn't exist?
Most people, even you Alex, have better morals than the God presented in the bible.
So, Alex, the only reason you don't kill people is that you don't want to go to hell??? Well, you're sane.
The vast majority of moral codes are based on what benefits society as a group. If we could just kill each other we would have trouble coexisting in a society. If we could just take each other's things, we wouldn't be able to get much done since we'd always have to be guarding our stuff.
God is completely unneeded to explain why morals exist and are important.
A study and experiment conducted by Stanley Miller confirms that organic compounds can be formed from inorganic compounds. Origin of life was a series of chemical reaction that just kept happening.
Moral code was something humans came up with as their brains developed.
no. chemical reactions made people. people made moral codes. it's a good deal more logical than an invisible man did it.
I love how science says chemical reactions created a moral code. so illogical
prove it. you can't prove God created man. you can't prove he created a moral code. so unless you can it remains just your opinion.
if one makes something they can program it. nothing programs itself. God put morals into us, exept we have free will whether or not to follow it.
ok I will. Morals is a set of rules about how life should be treated, that killing is wrong ect. God created man, so he also created the rules about how the man's life should be treated.
prove it. otherwise it is just your opinion, not a fact.
morality comes from God. God gives everyone certain morals, even atheists.
why? what evidence do you have to support that? I don't believe in God. I don't commit crimes. there a millions of atheists who are model citizens and millions of Catholics that are murders, paedophiles etc. how do you prove to me that morality comes from religion?
right, but you need God to have morals
I don't see your point. you are right there is a difference between no God existing and believing it. but you don't need to believe in God to have morals and follow the rule of law.
there is a difference between no God existing, and believing on no God.
there are laws without religion. the code of Hammurabi predates Christians by almost 2000 years. there is no reason to believe that you need religion for that. considering most modern states are secular, that would seem to prove that.
and with all the scandals the Catholic Church has been through, I wouldn't use them as a beacon of moral righteousness either.
why do you think that life has no value without religion? all modern societies value life. most of them are officially secular. there is no evidence supporting your claims.
my point is without God, there are no morals, and there is no punishment. there is value of life, since it's some random chemical reaction and there are billions just like it.
yeah I have to side with Dave. if the only thing stopping you from serial killing is the fear of hell, you're a sociopath. although that would explain some things about your opinions.
If the only thing keeping you from committing murder is your fear of he'll you are a horrible person. There is no point discussing this with someone who self-identifies as a sociopath since you won't understand how anyone could have morals without the fear of pain.
if God isn't real parents would yell lies, bit who cares if there is nothing after death. I will admit if God isn't real I problem would have killed or severely injured least 3 people, then covered it up nicely. because hell is real I don't kill people.
What happens if God isn't real? Parents tell a lie every Sunday.
that's like saying Santa proves Santa? how is that a valid argument?
something cannot be proved by itself, otherwise you could claim anything is true
God proves God, just as scientific evidence proves scientific claims
if God is higher than science, what proves God?
basically you're saying God exists because God exists
you have no evidence that existence is dependant on God. a child would say the same things about Santa. Christmas presents can't exist without Santa. that's just obvious. that is that kind of argument you are making.
God is real because he must be real. what happens if God is not real? nothing. literally nothing will exist.
what happens if santa isn't real? not much, parents tell a lie once a year about santa.
you have no more proof that God exists than children have that Santa exists. so saying my fictional character is real but of course that one is made up just sounds childish.
if santa was real, then yes. God is real so yes, he is over science
you said that religion is not science and doesn't need science to back it up. intelligent design is a religious explanation of the origin of mankind. ergo it is not science. I'm glad we agree.
that mumbo jumbo about God being higher than science I'm not going to bother addressing. but Santa is higher than science too. he's magic!
Science has science evidence to back it up. religion has religion evidence to back it up.
why should religion be proved by science, and why should science be proved by religion. they work within their own field. God is higher then science, so science can't draw any conclusions about God.
that argument made no sense Alex. you said imagine no God. as far as we can tell there is no God. so without God, all evidence says the world would be exactly as it is. just because you can't imagine a world without God is not evidence that God exists. nor is it an acceptable argument.
the earliest theories of gravity still had evidence. there was math supporting their theories. it took time to prove them, but there was always supporting scientific evidence. religion had never had any scientific evidence. nor will it ever. that is the whole point.
evidence does not mean proof. take gravity. people used to have evidence and think one thing about gravity, and now new proof comes along and people see old evidence as false.
"I appreciate religion gives people hope etc. but why do we need God to have hope? we don't need him to exist?"
God created us. now imagine no God. now imagine no God and you. you can't because you need God.
I agree with that. For me it's not a case of which can be proved. it's a case of which has more evidence and there fore is more likely.
ie. science (millions and millions of pieces of evidence)
therefore science beats God. for me thats common sense!
we do not need God to explain the universe, and any problems that God solves for the universe can also be applied to God.
"someone had to create the universe, that is god," "OK then, who creates god"
"God just is, has always been, God was not created"
"the universe just is, has always been, the universe was not created."
just because something is not needed doesn't mean it's false, but I find the idea of a naturally developing universe more likely than a personal God.
also "God has proved himself to us"
if God wants us to believe In him and no other gods then why doesn't he just obviously show everyone?? he's all powerful isn't he?
"there are signs"
that doesn't prove anything
there are signs of other universes, there are signs of aliens, there are signs of dark matter....but that doesn't prove that all of these things exist.
"we need God to exist"
why? I appreciate religion gives people hope etc. but why do we need God to have hope? we don't need him to exist?
and I think the scientific community has agreed physics is higher then biology.
because God is real. there are signs, and God has proved himself to us. we don't need santa to exist, but we need God. of course santa isn't real, but I'd they were both real, that would be the different, if they were both fake, we would not he hear since we need God to live.
I agree! God is no different to Santa, or the tooth fairy.
it's okay to believe in father Christmas when your 10. But if you still believed in father Christmas when your 35 you'd be ridiculed. so why is it "okay" for adults to believe in something that is essentially the same??
nothing disproves God. it is logically impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. can you prove to me that faeries don't exist?
I'm not sure about what is higher. physics deals with more fundamental things, like the basic building blocks of reality. Biology deals with what those building blocks can do on a much more grander and intricate scale. I wouldn't label either as higher or lower. In the end all the fields are necessary to give us a complete explanation of reality.
as long as you don't say "evolution disproves God", I'm fine with people making theories of evolution.
and if evolution is proved false, it doesn't prove God either.
this is because in the knowledge of science it is.
biology, geology ect.
biology can't draw conclusions about physics, or God, since they are higher. (there is a way that biology can do that, but it's rare, and evolution doesn't work there)
but God can make us draw conclusions about biology, since he is higher. physics can also.
but this is what creationists do. they try to argue against evolution, and then prove ID by disproving evolution.
even if evolution is proven wrong, ID would have to prove itself, on its own, not relative to something else, in order to be considered science.
theory does not mean hypothesis.
a theory is an explanation of a fact.
gravity exists = fact
why does gravity exist, what causes it, how hard does it pull, how far does gravity affect is THE THEORY OF GRAVITY
evolution is real = undisputed scientific fact and the underlying principle that explains all biology.
how evolution works, what affects evolution, how fast it occurs etc = the theory of evolution
this is why I made the thread that far too many Americans don't understand what the technical definition of theory is.
a theory seeks to explain the details of a fact.
Because it is supported by all available evidence. Same reason we have taken the theory of gravity as a given for so long rather than jumping off buildings.
so why do you take the theory of evolution as 100% fact?
theology is a study of God.
ology means study, not science
science is a systemic method of gathering and reading information that tries to remove personal bias and preconceived notions from the study.
one can study something without invoking the methods and tools of science.
example, astrology. they study the stars, but all their conclusions are based on the preconceived notion that the stars dictate fate without ever exploring whether that is true to begin with
theology studies God based on the assumption that God exists.
science makes no assumptions and doesn't even trust it's own theories. 90% of science is challenging old understandings, not establishing new ones.
the difference is that theoretical physics doesn't claim it's theories are facts until they have been proven. unlike religion that states that it's unproven claims are undisputed facts.
In that you are opposed to those who advocate for intelligent design as well as the definition of intelligent. Intelligent design means there is a consciousness that designed everything. Forces are not intelligent, therefore they cannot have designs. Unless you believe an all powerful being called creation into existence, you do not believe in intelligent design. If you are simply calling the force that caused the big bang God, you have simply changed a definition, not the nature of the debate.
Yes Einstein's theory was proved almost a 100 years after he had formulated it. That doesn't mean he had come up with the theory just out of the blue, he most definitely had calculated and estimated the possibility of his theory. So despite the lack of proof he had at the time of derivation of the theory, it didn't make his work any less scientific.
So intelligent design can be explained by science. It may just be a hypothesis now, but it can be proved some day in the future.
As for God being the creator of everything, I think God would have to be an entity or power or force that was the source of the universe. Not one with a conscience to forgive sins and bless you with happiness and good fortune.
So I'm going back to define "God" as a scientific force and not one that we confess our sins to and who we can ask for forgiveness etc. Not something that can be limited to doing favours to us and waste their time looking over us.
God is an energy that cannot be comprehended. A science.
I read about that gravity wave thing over at GA Tech. pretty cool stuff.
A scientific hypothesis must make testable predictions. That is why intelligent design cannot be considered scientific. It starts from the assumption that God made everything and works backwards to find evidence and ignores inconvenient proof. It starts based on an untestable assumption.
Einstein predicted gravitational waves. At the time, there was no way to test this prediction, but it was testable. Just recently instruments became precise enough and, sure enough, they were detected. That is scientific.
Intelligent design starts with the assumption that God exists outside space and time and is not bound by natural laws. How do we test that? It then goes on to say that God created everything, either a few thousand years ago or billions of years ago depending on who you ask. Both of these groups can easily ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs since God could create the earth containing fossils that look like whatever he wanted. Any contradictory evidence is just God making things look older or different than they really are. That is unscientific since while they make claims they have built in an excuse for any discrepancy.
I don't know you if you guys have ever studied physics but half of the theorems are hypotheses. That means there is no evidence to the theory, but it doesn't make it any less of a science.
that's weird. I'm sure I had it right.
Historybuff, you may want to adjust your vote.
except by definition it is not science. it is theology. if it does not require evidence, it is not science. period.
theology is the science of God.
I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with this. whether or not it turns out to be true it is not, by definition, science.
about half disagree with the post, but few actually comment.
I'm not saying intelligent design is not true, I'm saying it is an untestable, unverifiable hypothesis. it is in no way science.
it is equally valid to any other GUESSES as to how everything came to be, including the Greek story that mother earth had children with father sky, those children were the gods who made man and beast out of clay and breathed life into their bodies.
Also, my previous post was in regard to the possibility of an intelligent designer. An intelligent designer is most definitely possible, but possibility is not how science works. certainty (or as close as we can get) is how science works.
Your claim about a designer is simply a hypothesis. The next step is to test the hypothesis, and this hypothesis is not testable at this time. Therefore, not science.
Science was not created. Science is simply a collection of discoveries. It is not anything physical. I believe you are talking about the laws of nature.
"the intelligent designer would have either created (laws of nature), or the rules already existed and he had to follow"
well if your starting with the assumption that the designer exists, obviously those 2 are the only options. But if you can consider the idea that the laws of nature already existed and are simply a fact, then why need a creator at all? These forces are all you need for the creation of everything.
Also, if the laws were created by will, it is likely that there would be exceptions. A creator would be able to do anything with his creation, like a programmer with his code. Of course a creator could choose to make the laws uniform and universal, but he wouldn't have to, whereas if they are simply a fact of nature, the uniformity we see would be expected.
I disagree because if we are the result of intelligent design. Not God but some ultimate designer then they would have had to create science. It is literally fact that plants photosynthesise, that a rainbow is caused by light being bent by raindrops, that volcanos are the result of the earths tectonic plates moving, that our bodies keep our blood glucose steady via positive and negative feedback loops. The intelligent designer would have either creates science and the had to follow the rules or the rules already exist that he had to follow.
either way creating the planet as we know it would have taken a hell of a lot of understanding about all sciences. it couldn't have been done without it!
Science requires empirical evidence through observation and experimentation. Intelligent Design has no definitive proof through either of those methods.