Atheists control science

I would also have to disagree.An old standard common-sense harmonization of science and religion says that religion is for answering the whodunnit and why questions about the universe, whereas science is for answering the how-it-works questions. Even if a god or designer were proven conclusively to exist, that would not change how the universe works and hence would not change science. Well, it may require some extra discipline to apply due dilligence to working out how something works instead of copping out with a goddidit "conclusion".The only way that science would be affected would be if it were also discovered that things happen because of arbitrary supernatural intevention, such that there are no underlying natural laws. Such as your final example of realizing that lightning really is the "Finger of God".

I think a bit more would be required of Marc before this discussion would be interesting. An acceptable definition of atheist would not help the discussion significantly. Marc's real objections are 1) that nobody is putting the brakes on specific lines of scientific inquiry that Marc finds objectionable, and 2) that ID isn't getting a fair shake.Anybody who allows those things is, according to what Marc has posted in this thread, either an atheist or a lousy, stinking, collaborator. Tiding up the definition of atheist just determines how many people are in each of those two buckets.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Perhaps you can point out where I said that.

then This tells me you are saying that science has anything at all to say about gods.They don't.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Which is irrelevant to what you claim I said. I never said natural science has anything to say about gods.

What would science have to be wrong about, then, in regards to a creator/designer?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

In NOT saying anything about the Creator or Designer and thinking that chemistry and biology and physics happened because of natural laws instead of whim.

So they are wrong to not see evidence before it is presented? I guess Newton was wrong about relativity then too?

Exactly correct. As I said in Message 96 that is the value of science.

quote:

---

The Dalai Lama was once asked "What if you found out that there was no God, no rebirth, no afterlife?" His reply was "Then we would have to say that we were wrong."

​

If Creationists presented the "Creator" or if ID Proponents presented the "Designer", then science would say "We were wrong."

​

And that is the big difference.

​

Science is built on learning "We were wrong" and embraces that.

---

When new evidence is presented an honest scientist says, "Whoops, what I thought was the answer is wrong."

Except for the fact that you've not shown how any answer would change with the addition of a creator god. The only way that it would is if said deity changed physical laws. Science doesn't address the god question so the addition of a god changes nothing aside from giving us something else to study.It's really that simple. Science just doesn't give a damn if there is a god or not.

You are free to hold whatever opinion you want, but I used the terms creator and designer for specific reasons, that the terms imply direct control.

What, specifically, would change with the discovery of a designer or creator? What scientific discovery would change by simply finding out that there was a designer or creator? What scientific discovery or field implicates strictly natural origins and would be wrong with the discovery of a designer or creator? You named fields of science that would have to say "we were wrong". Why? What, specifically, would they be wrong about? Where and when has ANY field of science explicitly, or even implicitly, said "This theory ONLY works if it arose of natural origins"?Stop beating off behind the bushes. Or is it too hard for you to speak more directly? My assertion/statement that NO field of science implicates strictly natural origins and would therefor need to admit itself to be wrong with the discovery of a creator is hardly an opinion. Especially since you cannot or refuse to backup your initial claim. Do not confuse the fact that so far we have ONLY found natural origins and no evidence for this designer for being wrong about there not being one, what with never even addressing that topic.

Actually those terms (creator and designer) do not imply direct control, at least not direct control of the kind that interferes with scientific inquiry. For example, a creator might be the entity Deist accept that set things into motion and no longer interferes. That creator could have done all of his designing via "front loading" with the end result being a universe according to the creator's intention accomplished without the interference Creationists insist on.Or viewed another way, for you to be correct would imply that because the universe is currently in a state where biology and physics work there can be no creator for our universe. But the truth is that science does not address such a question.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Maybe shudda wudda cudda.But as you yourself point out that is not the Creator that is marketed by either the Creationists or ID Salesmen.

It seems to match the kind of intelligent designer that Genomicus argues for.