if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed?

well that's not off topic actually, considering that passage of enquiry would be, in effect, a "how"acknowledgement would mean that it couldn't be dismissed, but lack of proof would also mean it couldn't be accepted either.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

The key is that in Science, when you cannot explain a "how", you do not insert "GodDidIt", but rather simply move it into the "Don't Know Yet" pile.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

which is exactly the way the science world would if God was an admitted fact, jar.only the potential that God acted is noted. but not admissible without proof. like any other science.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

But even that is pointless and without value. What does that tell anyone?The answer "GodMayHaveDidIt" is as content free as "GodDidIt".

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

thats off topic.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I'm sorry, off topic?I beg your pardon.How is pointing out that an assertion is content free off topic?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

because the post was created to see what the acceptance of God in science, within scientific boundaries (law), would do to science.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Saying "GodMayHaveDoneThat" tells us nothing and so is valueless. Just put it in the unknown pile.It is simply irrelevant since it has no content, no value, no worth or information.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

the answer to your question lies in a different debate is all.perhaps before too long that debate will be initialized.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

The topic is "if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed?"My point is accepting god in science you add no information. To say "GodMayHaveDidIt" is content free, has no meaning or value and does not even advance knowledge. "GodMayHaveDidIt" is no different than saying "jduiiefggjkbdfuifjkciuid".Trying to bring God into science is simply pointless and nonproductive.So the answer to the question, the topic, is that bring God into science is simply a waste of time and effort and so totally useless.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

that's off topic.does the introduction of God in science destroy science, or not?not just "what does it add"but: what is taken away?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Please read what I write.Introducing God into science adds nothing and can actually produce deadends. If you say "GodDidIt" you have ended the search for actual "hows" and if you say "GodMayHaveDoneIt" you have simply made a pointless, contentless, valueless statement.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

so you believe the admission would produce "dead ends".this appears to go against the initial "assertions" of the post.name an instance in where science would stop inquiry based on the addition?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Biblical Creationism, ID. Both dead ends.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

biblical creationism and ID would not be affected any more than they are now.at the least, they would find it a "win" to see science acknowledge "God" even if the acknowledgement does not give them any more credence than they have now in science.it should be evident also that acknowledging God in science would be proposing at least a partial intelligent designEdited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides