Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by jockeys

Intelligent Design requires a Designer. a Designer is, a priori, unknowable. you cannot use science, ever, to address the existence or non-existence of deities. all talk of a Designer belongs in a philosophy class, because there is no way to evaluate that idea with the scientific method.

to put it bluntly, Intelligent Design is inherently unscientific. it's a philosophy. and yes, scientists frequently ignore philosophers, but only because they are playing a different game. it'd be like convincing John MacEnroe to play basketball with Micheal Jordan.

But if intelligent design, and the hand behind intelligent design are true, wouldn't that make them scientific, and shouldn't science consider this?

Originally Posted by JMS

But if intelligent design, and the hand behind intelligent design are true, wouldn't that make them scientific, and shouldn't science consider this?

not really. true != scientific

"Science:
In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice which is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research."

I.D. is unrepeatable, unstudyable, and wholly unscientific. it may or may not be true, I don't know. but it can never be studied with science.

Originally Posted by jockeys

not really. true != scientific

"Science:
In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice which is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research."

I.D. is unrepeatable, unstudyable, and wholly unscientific. it may or may not be true, I don't know. but it can never be studied with science.

So the Big Bang, evolution as a means of creation, and all other impossible to replicate "scientific" theories are also philosophy. There is no way to apply the scientific method and there is no "systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice which is capable of resulting in a prediction or predicable type of outcome" to such theories, and therefore should be discounted and discarded by the scientific community.

Originally Posted by mhailey

So the Big Bang, evolution as a means of creation, and all other impossible to replicate "scientific" theories are also philosophy. There is no way to apply the scientific method and there is no "systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice which is capable of resulting in a prediction or predicable type of outcome" to such theories, and therefore should be discounted and discarded by the scientific community.

as far as the big bang goes, I agree, there's no proper way to study it scientifically... it's nothing more than wild speculation. kinda like I.D.

evolution can be studied, and parts of it can and have been replicated in laboratories, so I would say that it is a pretty scientific theory.

Originally Posted by jockeys

as far as the big bang goes, I agree, there's no proper way to study it scientifically... it's nothing more than wild speculation. kinda like I.D.

evolution can be studied, and parts of it can and have been replicated in laboratories, so I would say that it is a pretty scientific theory.

I did not say evolution. I said evolution as a means of creation.

Matt

Originally Posted by mhailey

I did not say evolution. I said evolution as a means of creation.

Matt

please clarify, I don't understand what you mean.

Evolution is the theory of an organism changing through the process of natural selection.

It is not a theory by which life was originally created. Science has only one unrefuted position on this, and it is that life does not, has not, and will not come from non-life. However, Science will always discount the position that we were created by something greater than us. That there is an intelligent design set forth by a higher power.

For some reason, this fact, that life does not come from non-life, is simply thrown out the window when it comes to the very first organism. "Science" resorts to an "it just happened" argument, rather than following the logical line that we, or at least the first single cell organism (which evolved into ever other life form on the planet from trees to humans if that's your thing) was created.

Evolution is not a means by which life came about.

Matt

Originally Posted by mhailey

Evolution is not a means by which life came about.
Matt

ah, I see what you're saying. yes, quite true. what you are referring to is abiogenesis. it was taught even as long ago as when I was in school, and has been experimented with and partially re-created in laboratories as well. it is a thoroughly scientific endeavor, with some very interesting experiments being done as far back as 50 years ago.

but I agree, it's not the same thing as evolution at all, those of us with a strong science background are, of course, aware of this distinction, but I'm afraid pop-culture and the media often say "evolution" when they should say "abiogenesis".

the idea that life can't come from non-life was abandoned decades ago when it was realized that the line between alive and not-alive isn't a line at all, but a very broad and ill-defined zone. the first lifeforms were, it is commonly thought, not single celled or even close to being that complex.

Great posts, and thank you for them. I don't believe I have seen abiogenisis described and explained so clearly and succinctly before.

Originally Posted by singlewedge

Myself, I look at it like this. I start my argument from a creationist standpoint. If, insert divine being here, created the world and man/women. If this being created 1 man and 1 women, to which many children were born, then in how many generations would it take before people started to die off from in breeding and genetic mutations?

Surely this cannot be the case.

How much more unlikely then is the idea that somehow, someway life sprung forth from the primordial ooze. And then that one newly formed life, formed by the slimmest of chances.....from that one, all life has thus proceeded?