Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

[buffalo]

anymore than history.

Studying past one time events is not science?

 

[niceatheist]

Generally history is not viewed as a scientific discipline. It certainly relies on science (like archaeology) but, then again that’s true of theology. But no, not a science.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But there is no-one anywhere in this entire forum that uses evolution to try to deny God’s existence.

Right, they don’t get very far here as it is a Catholic site. What about some atheist sites who routinely use science to disparage and mock God? I have been on them and the debate degenerates very quickly. I haven’t participated in a while now since they are not very well moderated.

We are not on another site. We are on this one. And I am pretty sure that if someone came here and suggested that evolution might be an indication that God didn’t exist, those views would be allowed.

So of the gazillion or so posts on THIS forum, see if you can find a single one that says evolution denies God. I’ll wait here while you go look.

 

[buffalo]

So of the gazillion or so posts on THIS forum, see if you can find a single one that says evolution denies God. I’ll wait here while you go look.

I am not worried about it and I did not make the claim. Other posters have claimed that evolution is used to discredit and mock God. That is true on many other sites and you should be honest enough to admit this and not play games.

 

[buffalo]

Generally history is not viewed as a scientific discipline. It certainly relies on science (like archaeology) but, then again that’s true of theology. But no, not a science.

Was evolution a one time past event?

 

[niceatheist]

No evolution is a biological process. Ain’t the same thing. That it looks at events from the past doesn’t make it history, and more than geology or cosmology.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So of the gazillion or so posts on THIS forum, see if you can find a single one that says evolution denies God. I’ll wait here while you go look.

I am not worried about it and I did not make the claim. Other posters have claimed that evolution is used to discredit and mock God. That is true on many other sites and you should be honest enough to admit this and not play games.

This is the forum on which conversations are ocurring. If you want to complain about someone else’s comments on some other forum, then join that forum and have a ball.

But to be honest, I wouldn’t do it if I were you. There may be some amusement value in the various comments from your side of the fence as regards evolution in this forum. But out there…you will be treated a lot differently.

I like to keep these little chats ticking over because I’d like as many people to see what you propose. It’s like shining a little light on fundamentalist beliefs. And again, I have no problem with those views and I support your right to hold them. But outside these particular forum walls, that gentle light would be a flame thrower.

Best to stick around with some of those who support your views. Take some advice - do not leave the safety of this forum.

 

[buffalo]

No evolution is a biological process. Ain’t the same thing. That it looks at events from the past doesn’t make it history, and more than geology or cosmology.

a great big hmmmmmmmmm

We agree then it is not empirical.

 

[niceatheist]

Of course it’s empirical. Good grief. I’ve laid out some of the processes, means of measuring. I honestly don’t want to be in a conversation where you try to win be cheap word games.

I’m going to sign off from this because I feel myself losing my cool. As a parting observation, I will say that I don’t think you really have the vaguest idea what evolution is. You have a considerable bias, but it’s empty, and when challenged you don’t try to actually critique me and others, but go into a sort of pointless word play.

I’ll finish up by saying evolution is science.

 

[edwest211]

Yes, of course. But regardless, the ongoing campaign to promote an atheist version here will continue. Evolution as science leaves out critical information about who human beings are. Evolution, as described here, is a mindless process that somehow produced man. I will not take that on faith.

 

[mhmtas63]

But people regard evolution as a process which has an intrinsic potency to form species without God’s power and will.

Gravity is a law not a theory. Evolution is not a proven law even not a theory and generally valid. We can observe effect of gravity but we can not say same for evolution.

All real sciences prove and point existence of God.

Angular momentum and gravity arrange circular movement of planets. What kind of force did locate and settle planets into their orbits?

 

[mhmtas63]

The only people who believe that are people who don’t believe in God in the first instance. But there is no-one anywhere in this entire forum that uses evolution to try to deny God’s existence. Including atheists and people with different religious beliefs. Anyone who says differently only has to produce a single comment by anyone to that effect to back up what they say otherwise you will know they are making untrue statements.

What you WILL find is that Christians with fundamentalist beliefs use ID to try to prove God. Well, they say ‘an intelligent designer’ but who are they kidding…

So atheists aren’t using science to disprove God. That’s impossible. But fundamentalists are using it to try to prove His existence. An equally impossible enterprise.

It is a very goodwill to say that " But there is no-one anywhere in this entire forum that evolution to try to deny God’s existence".

All sciences points God so it is very usual to use sciences for existence of God. Natural laws are manifestation of God’s power. God’s attributes become manifest orderly which we call “law”.

 

[edwest211]

The sciences cannot study the supernatural. That means the supernatural does not exist.

 

[rossum]

Gravity is a law not a theory. Evolution is not a proven law even not a theory and generally valid. We can observe effect of gravity but we can not say same for evolution.

Science uses its own vocabulary. You are confusing common English with the scientific meaning.

The word “Law” has no real meaning in science; basically it means “An old theory that can be reduced to simple equations”. The word “theory” means, “The best explanation we currently have for X”. Notice that “currently”. Any theory can in principle be replaced by a better theory.

The common meaning of “theory” is expressed in science as “hypothesis”, an idea which has not been fully tested and may, or may not, be correct.

Newton’s theory of gravity was the best we had for hundreds of years. Then Einstein came up with a new hypothesis: General Relativity. When experiments and observations showed that Einstein was more accurate than Newton, Newton’s theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. GR had been raised from hypothesis to theory because it had been tested and had passed all the tests.

No scientific theory is ever “proved”, they are all potentially capable of improvement. All theories can be replaced, as Newton’s was. We already know that Einstein’s theory has problems at the quantum scale, so scientists are working on a number of hypotheses for Quantum Gravity. As and when one of those hypotheses passes all the tests, then it will replace Einstein and become a theory of Quantum Gravity.

Gravity can be observed; so can evolution. Every hospital superbug is an example of evolution. We even have a video of bacteria evolving resistance to an antibiotic in massive overdoses: Evolution of Bacteria.

All real sciences prove and point existence of God.

So, do we need to attend a Mosque on Friday, a Synagogue on Saturday or a Church on Sunday? Or is it the Sikh God and we need to attend the nearest Gurdwara?

Oh yes, and your “real” there is a dead giveaway to a No True Scotsman logical fallacy. Any science you disagree with you will dismiss as not “real” science. The same way some Protestants dismiss Catholicism as not “real” Christianity (and some Catholics do the same to Protestants).

 

[rossum]

The sciences cannot study the supernatural.

But sciences can study claimed physical effects of the supernatural. The physical effects are well within the range of science. For example Benson et al (2006) which looked at the effects of prayer on cardiac bypass patients.

CONCLUSIONS:
Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

 

[edwest211]

Prayer, as defined by science, is just a neuro-chemical process which can be measured to some degree.

 

[rossum]

Prayer, as defined by science, is just a neuro-chemical process which can be measured to some degree.

It was a study of the effects of prayer on hospital patients; did they recover better, the same or worse depending on whether or not someone was praying for them?

 

[mhmtas63]

Gravity is a law not a theory. Evolution is not a proven law even not a theory and generally valid. We can observe effect of gravity but we can not say same for evolution.

There are so words above…

If theory do not be proven for all conditions it cannot be a law. And a theory can be rejected. Evolution is not a theory at all(for species forming).

Quantum gravity is a study to unify three other fundamental forces with gravity. Gravity is a valid law. Newton mekanic is for macro world and quantum is for micro world. Quantum could be simplified to classic.

Evolution is not going to an improvement.

Religion is not first but faith that believing in creator of universe.

 

[rossum]

You do not get to write your own definitions. If you want to talk about science then you have to use the standard scientific definitions.

 

[LateCatholic]

Bad design is still design, so no, it does not invalidate ID.

It certainly does invalidate “Intelligent Design”,
Perhaps you mean to say it does not invalidate “Unintelligent Design” or “Stupid Design”.