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

[whatistrue]

spontaneous generation lie

Not actually a lie. To be a lie the people who taught it would have to know it was false. The originators did not know and also did not have the tools to see such things as fly eggs, so the idea that maggots just appeared out of rotting meat was feasible until we were able to see the process. That is how science works.

Piltdown man, Java man, Peking man, Taung child

Of that list, only Piltdown Man has been shown to be a fraud, and it was not to prove evolution but to make money.

intelligent design is not considered to be science by the mainstream

Possibly because there is insufficient evidence to support it in its current form.

If you think science is open to the thought of God

Science does not and should not speak to God. Science is the study of natural processes; God is outside the field of study.

 

[IWantGod]

intelligent design is not considered to be science by the mainstream.

It’s not considered a valid theory, and there is yet to be a valid hypothesis for design.

 

[IWantGod]

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.

These guys use to be my favourite too, until i realised that intelligent design is not a valid theory.

 

[IWantGod]

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?

I wouldn’t mistake their war against religion as being scientific, but rather philosophical in nature. Richards support of evolution against design is valid in my opinion.

 

[IWantGod]

Many people seem unaware of the anti-Christianity in society.

I am brutally aware of it, but it doesn’t help when we support error.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I doubt it. As with all things metaphysical, the proofs are not scientific. Science has nothing to say about them.

I honestly don’t see how anyone can look at evolution, the massive number of things that have to go just right, for even a single positive mutation…
the insane unlikeliness of it all, and say that it’s all random chance. That alone is enough evidence of an external guiding factor that people simply ignore because it would force them to change their life.

So, if something did happen to somehow “prove” it more than it is already self-evident, I don’t expect much would change. The people who ignore the obvious now would go right on ignoring it.

 

[niceatheist]

MasterHaster:

Are you saying scientists are supressing evidence of “intelligent design”?

They could be.
But most likely they are just searching for evidence of evolution and overlooking everything else.

And what is this “everything else”? No biologist discounts the possibility of a designer, but being science, and not metaphysics, scientists can only concern themselves with observation. All the evidence gathered since Darwin’s day indicates life on earth evolved from earlier populations. Heck, it’s pretty much inferred in Linnaeus’s system of taxonomy.

It really depends on what you even mean by “intelligent design”. If you mean God guided evolution, well, that’s not a scientific position, but it certainly isn’t incompatible with the evidence. If you’re referring to some variant of Special creation, well, that was long ago debunked. And really, the Church has backed away from any statement on what it is that exactly God did, and when He did it. The Church does not advocate a Sola Scriptura position, and furthermore, in the Augustinian tradition, views nature as just another form of revelation that compliments scripture.

 

[The27thPsalm]

Better would depend on what your intent is in designing it in the first place.

 

[lelinator]

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

It probably wouldn’t make much of a difference at all. People tend to see what they’re predisposed to see. And there are any number of reasons other than God, as to why reality might appear to be designed.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Science does not and should not speak to God. Science is the study of natural processes; God is outside the field of study.

That’s exactly my point, natural processes only. Science cannot and will not prove God even if the evidence presented itself. So all God theories are deemed invalid by science.

How then can a Catholic believe in the theory of evolution? Don’t u believe scripture?

 

[Pattylt]

Well i gave the example of the spontaneous generation lie which they taught for so long.

A bit of a correction here. The scientists (all religious to varying degrees) believed in spontaneous generation because they thought it proved God was still creating! Many were quite upset that the germ theory overrode their creation God theory. These people weren’t atheists.

 

[Dan_Defender]

It would make no difference. They would put a twist on it.
Take physics: everything we know about gravity points to a slowing in the expansion of the universe, and yet it keeps expanding at an accelerated pace. So what did scientists do? introduce new theoretical concepts: dark matter and dark energy, which of course are unexplained, they are ‘mysteries’. I say God is ultimately a mystery.

 

[Freddy]

… and say that it’s all random chance.

I always wonder how one can denigrate a theory when one doesn’t understand the theory in the first place.

Evolution isn’t random. If it was and you were right then I’d be agreeing with you. But it isn’t and you’re not. So I don’t.

 

[whatistrue]

Science cannot and will not prove God even if the evidence presented itself.

But the real point is that you cannot prove or disprove God or describe Him using science. It is not that evidence would be ignored, it is that science is about Creation and cannot be used to study the Creator, who is outside the bounds of what science can do.

How then can a Catholic believe in the theory of evolution? Don’t u believe scripture?

Evolution and Scripture are NOT mutually exclusive.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I always wonder how one can denigrate a theory when one doesn’t understand the theory in the first place.

Evolution isn’t random. If it was and you were right then I’d be agreeing with you. But it isn’t and you’re not. So I don’t.

I am quite familiar with the theory, and I fully believe that it is the process by which species develop. I just think that God is the one guiding it, not nature.

Without an external designer, it really is random. If the mutations are unguided then the entire process is up to random chance. This mutation may be beneficial, it may not, it may do nothing or it may cause debilitating genetic malfunction and death (by far the most common outcome of mutations to a stable genetic sequence). There may be a mutation or there may not. This mutation may still allow the creature to procreate, it may not. There are those micro-evolutionary changes like, say, a neck getting longer, which aren’t apt to cause problems. But there are others, like hollow-bones, for instance, which would represent a dramatic alteration of genetic code, and therefore be prone to problems.

I’m not talking about the genetic inheritance of traits, the passing on those mutations which are beneficial because they increase the likelihood of survival and procreation. I’m talking about the actual mutations themselves which are, per the theory of purely-natural, unguided evolution, random chance.

 

[lelinator]

But the real point is that you cannot prove or disprove God or describe Him using science.

Absolutely, positively not true. In fact, finding “God” is exactly what science is all about.

 

[whatistrue]

No. Science is about discovering the ways in which God made the Universe. God Himself is outside the Universe He created. You can’t use Theology to predict the weather and you can’t use science to describe God.

 

[lelinator]

Without an external designer, it really is random.

Nope, that’s not correct. Perhaps you missed the word “selection” in the phrase “Natural Selection”.

 

[lelinator]

God Himself is outside the Universe He created.

It doesn’t matter whether God is “outside” the Universe or not. If something has any causal relationship to the universe, then it lies within the purview of science, because science is about finding the causes of things. I.E the universe.

 

[whatistrue]

Again, no. Ultimately science can only deal with what can be measured and described. Good luck measuring God. Science is the wrong tool, like trying to build an aircraft carrier using only a 50-piece mechanic’s tool set from Sears.