I agree, there is no way of knowing whether there is a God or anything else really that can't be proven. Scientists should be allowed to do experiments to prove a God or whatever if that is what they want to do. Its all pretty ambiguous anyway.
intelligent design/ doc 2006-07-01 20:49:43
(1).Why the conflict: Darwin made no assertions concering the oigins of life. His book is entitled "The Origin of the SPECIES..." (my capitals), not "...of Life."
(2) What experiments would help science students understand ID? I have one: (a) weigh a pot of dirt; (b) wait until the Designer has an organism step (crawl, ooze,....) forth; (c) weigh organism and remaining dirt.
Should equal original dirt, proving conservation of mass.
(3) Why only ID? In my world literature and my mythology classes, I have taught ID, as well as the Mud People, the Coyote, the Turtle, and many other cosmological explanations for the origins of life. Any cosmological belief is as worthy of respect as is ID.
(4) By definition, the origin of life cannot be replicated - but science, not to mention our way of life, requires replication. The phone will have a dial tone. Of the 100's of explantions of the origins of the world and of us, ID may very well be THE true one.But it ain't, can't, and shouldn't be, science.
/ isaac 2006-06-23 17:19:08
Genius! They say the universe was designed for a purpose but they can't see the purpose... it's obvious that it's just to look simply divine!... gawd is gay lol!
Consistancy/ Just wondering 2006-06-20 10:14:39
Ok, let me get this straight. Because the designer is not subject to scientific study, he can not exist, and to propose otherwise is unscientific, right?
Well, then I guess the Big Bang is also unscientific, and has taken us back to the Dark Ages. After all, can we scientifically study the cause of the big bang? Can we know what existed prior to the big bang? If the universe was created by a big bang, that had a cause that is not dependant on time in space, that implies some sort of reality outside our universe. But that can not be studied, so it can not be true.
Or maybe, science can accept that something unknown exists beyond the detectable universe, but it is a scientific fact that, even though we have no way of knowing, nothing that exists beyond our universe can possibly be intelligent. Because something intellegent and powerfull beyond our universe, implies life beyond Time and space and origins. Oh no, that's too much like.... God. Under no circumstances, no matter what the evidence is, can God be a scientific conclusion. A big bang that happened in nothingness for no appearent reason, that's a valid scientific conclusion. Intelligence beyond the universe? No way.
