If Science Did Prove Intelligent Design, Would It Make Any Difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
If Science Did Prove Intelligent Design, Would It Make Any Difference?

For some reason, when it comes to the question of what is true about reality, it is popular culture to take something seriously only when science has something to say about it. So lets assume that scientists have proven the theory of intelligent design.

I guess some would view this discovery as profoundly impactful. But what difference do you think we would see in society? Would it continue as it has always done? Would a new religion emerge? What would happen to ideas like materialism and naturalism, and how would atheists deal with such a discovery?
 
Last edited:
Most who choose to reject God and the faith when it doesnt, I imagine would continue to do so if it did, for some new false reasons. I think for a minority it would be majorly impactful though.
 
I assume the next battle would begin immediately over who or what the intelligent designer is. Is it a mind? Is it necessarily God? Who’s God? Is it just a designer God or also a creator God? Did it do anything else? How much did it directly design? Can we now blame it for all the crappy designs in nature and our bodies? Is a designing mind worthy of worship…especially with so much bad design in there!

Lots of new questions and, I’m sure, lots of unanswerable answers!
 
I suspect science has already come across evidence to support intelligent design but has simply tossed it in the bin as it does not conform to their hypothesis.
 
Pai_Nosso said:
I suspect science has already come across evidence to support intelligent design but has simply tossed it in the bin as it does not conform to their hypothesis.
Click to expand...
This is the conspiracy theory that some believe to be the true.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Could it really be anything else?
Click to expand...
It could be an advanced computer from a previous universe. It could be a mind that is mentally deranged. It could be a mindless force that just designs as a byproduct of something else. Is it being a rational benevolent mind some requirement?
IWantGod said:
Can i assume that you wouldn’t consider the designer worthy of worship?
Click to expand...
No. I see no need to worship a bad designer. I may pray for it to get better, however.
 
IWantGod said:
This is the conspiracy theory that some believe to be the true.
Click to expand...
It’s just the way theoretical science is conducted. They form a hypothesis and then look for evidence to support it. Anything else is disregarded.
 
Pai_Nosso said:
It’s just the way theoretical science is conducted. They form a hypothesis and then look for evidence to support it. Anything else is disregarded.
Click to expand...
No. Just no. Honest scientists follow the evidence where it leads. Yes, there are dishonest scientists that do try to make the evidence fit, but they are usually found out by the honest ones. That’s what the peer review part of the process is for.
 
Pattylt said:
It could be an advanced computer from a previous universe.
Click to expand...
Computers are designed.
Pattylt said:
It could be a mind that is mentally deranged.
Click to expand...
Could be but i doubt it. There are too many good things.
Pattylt said:
It could be a mindless force that just designs as a byproduct of something else.
Click to expand...
I find this to be meaningless as there cannot be design without some kind of mindfulness. But for the sake of the thread lets just assume it does have a mind.
Pattylt said:
No. I see no need to worship a bad designer. I may pray for it to get better, however.
Click to expand...
I understand. However i would find it difficult to be indifferent to such a being as it did create you, and whatever good you have it is because of what it did design. Maybe it’s a question of context, maybe the definition of bad or good design is dependent on the purpose of the design; and what you really mean when you say it is bad is simply that it is not what you want. But then again perhaps the designer is wiser than you, and one would think so considering that you were designed and not the designer.

So personally i would be seeking a reason for the design, the purpose, assuming this scenario was actually real.
 
Last edited:
Are you assuming this designer did not use evolution or do you allow the designer to have designed all the elements for evolution to progress? Our designs that are poor or bad only make sense in an evolutionary model, not from a design standpoint so if science discovered a designer, it would have to either be one that makes mistakes or one that allowed mistakes to be made from its initial design.
 
Pattylt said:
Are you assuming this designer did not use evolution or do you allow the designer to have designed all the elements for evolution to progress?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that if design was proven that it would be enough to disregard evolution in it’s entirety, because evolution is evident. So i’m looking for a more realistic scenario where science has proven design. I don’t know what that would look like but i’m thinking something that could not be viewed as merely an alien. Something more fundamental to physical reality itself. But i would not reject a computer simulation solution/ only some types of simulations.
Pattylt said:
it would have to either be one that makes mistakes or one that allowed mistakes to be made from its initial design.
Click to expand...
It could be either. I was just looking at your reasons for thinking that it is a poor designer, and suggesting that it could possibly be the case that there is some importance for it being the way it is.
 
whatistrue said:
No. Just no. Honest scientists follow the evidence where it leads. Yes, there are dishonest scientists that do try to make the evidence fit, but they are usually found out by the honest ones. That’s what the peer review part of the process is for.
Click to expand...
Yes unfortunately… Yes. Scientists should follow the evidence where it leads. And they do in the practical science fields. Not in theoretical science.

What happens when 95% of these scientists are atheists? We get theories like spontaneous generation that was taught as fact for centuries before it was disproved in the mid 19th century. This field of science has been intent on disproving God since the 17th century.

After spontaneous generation they were desperate to create another theory that didn’t involve God. A few years later they brought out the theory of evolution. A total lie which they teach at school as fact.
 
Last edited:
MasterHaster said:
Are you saying scientists are supressing evidence of “intelligent design”?
Click to expand...
They could be.
But most likely they are just searching for evidence of evolution and overlooking everything else.
 
Last edited:
Pai_Nosso said:
But most likely they are just searching for evidence of evolution and overlooking everything else.
Click to expand...
Why would anybody overlook the find of all history?

It’s seems your only support for such a belief is the idea that science is dominated by atheists. But that seems more like paranoia than actual good reason.
 
Last edited:
We’d need to know if the ID still existed as well. It may have created the conditions and then…left.
 
whatistrue said:
You have made the assertion. Now support it with actual evidence.
Click to expand...
Well i gave the example of the spontaneous generation lie which they taught for so long. Here are some frauds, hoaxes and lies used to propagate the theory of evolution: Piltdown man, Java man, Peking man, Taung child and many more.
IWantGod said:
Why would anybody overlook the find of all history?
Click to expand...
It’s not one piece of evidence but many small pieces then when overlooked individually is easy to overlook.
IWantGod said:
It’s seems your only support for such a belief is the idea that science is dominated by atheists. But that seems more like paranoia than actual good reason.
Click to expand...
It’s not my opinion, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the mainstream. Students in this field aren’t even allowed to use God to explain something. If you think science is open to the thought of God u really should look into that.
(
)

There are some scientists that make a very strong case for intelligent design. Check out Stephen Meyers, his my favourite
There are scientists that refute the theory of evolution, check out David Berlinski. But these guys aren’t given the air time. One only needs to look to see that there is a debate over the theory of evolution.

Ever heard of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris? Ever wondered why they talk so much against religion instead of science?
Dawkins calls religious people stupid that we believe in fairy tales but watch him in this interview admit to intelligent design?
(
)

Many people seem unaware of the anti-Christianity in society.
 
If the theory of Intelligent Design were somehow proven, it isn’t likely that science would embrace the idea of a supernatural Intelligent Designer. I’ve read a variety of possible scenarios to explain the appearance of design in creation. For example, evolution occurred on another planet, and the earth has somehow been “seeded” by an alien race. Or by molecules brought in by a meteorite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top