I.D. proponents: Make up your mind!

This is a very good question. i don't know a simple definition for intelligent design that's accepted.The attempt is for science to recognize a created universe. that i do know, and also believe. The proponents, myself included, want science to recognize this observation about existing That we trust as fact.Science has many tools. The greatest tool is the collective intelligence of great minds.since religions tend to vary, and religion and science cannot marry in their endeavors without prejudice, science is the best way to teach our children the basics of God without prejudice of religion.The problem has been the proof. and a lack of a definition of God means their isn't any way to gather any scientific proof. Most proponents do not recognize a need for a definition of God for science. Other than the "supernatural" aspect they have accepted. This flaw has been a folly for all mankind; religious, and non religious.I do believe the structure size variety and perfectly natural balances and order is so beautiful, so perfect within its interactions and so massive in scale in comparison to this tiny planet and our currently undefined reason for being in it a good reason alone to accept God and creation. However, i do not accept the religious arguments that the bible should be the basis of science concerning creation. but that the science of creation in the bible fits science.There will be no conflict between the truth of God, and true science. because God established all things, so then what we do study in science speaks for God.God, i have argued; is natural. i have met resistance with this saying on both sides.You have debated with me on my arguments. and certainly, whether you agree or disagree, you should at least see my point. i came to God from my observations in science, not from the bible to science. but from science to the bible. although i don necessarily interpret religion the same way as other believers, i do believe that God IS. and also that science should recognize the definition that its own observations do show if examined.Indeed what IS Intelligent Design? Can we marry God and science without conflict? I Believe we can. I'm just not sure under what title. It is not a new science. Its a variable. Why not just teach the variable and the definition? that is AFTER and ONLY AFTER, The same observations i have made have been scrutinized by science.IF the scientists of this day will not examine it, then i myself will attempt to become a scientist in the necessary field to bring the observations to the science board myself.You have read my argument, I Don't believe you understand it. But if you have understood at least enough, How would you classify The definition and findings to science under the assumption that it is true? call it Intelligent Design? call it a variable? or will you not be hypothetical with me for he sake of your question?

---

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

quote:

---

But now you want science to abandon its established methods and accept scripture,

---

Not hardly, slow down frank..
I want science to accept what it finds. Not endorse religion. That's why God in science is important to me, science and God are not in conflict. religions are. Its our misunderstandings that make science flawed. The dynamics of the universe are perfect. we are not.

---

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

quote:

---

Science doesn't take anything on trust.

---

oh no. science does. many scientists dont. see the science rule for objective reality.

---

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

quote:

---

So? We do the best we can

---

i believe if scientists were not so concerned about looking stupid they would ask better questions, communicate better, and maybe learn something.

---

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

http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/objective_reality.htmlHere is your link.You make some good points. And i can't disagree with them all. But i do disagree that all science is tentative. some things are objectively true.

---

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

right. Other than the obvios. So I'm trying to point it out. Then maybe we will. Depends on what true analysis confirms.

---

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

quote:

---

Creationists are in no position to lecture science on how science should be done.

---

Sure they are. You think no scientists are creationists?Just because i believe the universe was created doesn't mean i cant be good at science.It is worse when a scientist is so closed minded they take the position of "there is no God" instead of " i don't know if there is a God." Because science has zero proof that God does not exist other than God wont obey THEM.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

quote:

---

Scientist is not a title. It describes an activity.

---

Exactly. Because a scientist believes in God does not mean he is not good at science.

quote:

---

Negative argument fallacy. Science has zero proof that Leprechauns do not exist, and yet I don't see why scientists should make them a part of science. Can you explain why Leprechauns should not be a part of science since no one can prove that they don't exist?

---

The point is God is a REAL possibility.Look. If you thought a neutron had the capability of turning into an electron within the proper environment, yet had no proof accept the theory based on the disappearance of a neutron and emergence of an electron, Then you would consider it a variable in the equation of the dynamic you witnessed. Even without proof. you would consider the possibility.Life IS. Existing IS. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the most accepted theory of man for this dynamic to be possible? If God IS, He probably isn't what you want him to be. But it isn't going to matter what you think in the end. You can die. But God will live. and i believe what God says IS; WILL be. like it or not.Now with that a really great possibility, Isn't it worth the time since you EXIST to try to understand and answer the question of God and reality? If you choose to accept God and your wrong in the end. fine your dead. If you decide there is no God and there is; your screwed.

---

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

quote:

---

This, however, does not mean that science - the branch of knowledge that tries to explain the evidence - is not tentative

---

Neither does it mean that it isn't definite.as i always say, i AM. definitely.

---

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

quote:

---

The point is that a scientist must be objective to the existence or not of deities

---

Yeah I'd like to think that..So why are so many proclaiming that God is as much a variable as a leprechaun? They choose the belief he's an impossibility. What kind of scientist would ignore such a huge possibility with massive repercussions if they are wrong? based on what evidence for no God? Lack of proof he is? We exist don't we? isn't "how can we exist" a question that God would be the best explanation for? what more proof do they need to even entertain the idea?

---

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

I do believe in prayer.

quote:

---

When an explanation appeals to divine/supernatural agency, it ceases to be a scientific explanation, by definition, because it has failed to provide a fully observational basis for its assertions. You can't be good at science if you don't understand this.

---

And scientist are ignorant because they fail to understand that supernatural means it is beyond your current ability to understand, but that all things are natural once understood.There are plenty of "supernatural things to boggle the mind. Edgar Cayce or like psychics and such are real anomalies without much explanation. But its real.How can a scientist be good at explaining the world around them if they ignore some of the greatest mysteries that we'd like explained?

---

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

Again you infer religion anytime you see "God" in an argument. God can be discussed without inserting religion.That's how the creation argument should be discussed within science.

---

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

without objective truths existing; science would have no base to begin tentative analysis.

---

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

quote:

---

Can you name a single instance where adding God into a scientific theory has improved our knowledge of the natural world? If we add God into Newton's formulas do they suddenly become more accurate?

---

maybe.You first need a scientific definition to understand the "what" of God and his/its relation to man.With this understanding their "may" be a way to tie mathematical equations better together.For instance, IF the math we have now is true, yet missing a key component ( such as a ball's path being a three second launch off the ground starting at T=0, yet on the return path you accrue a negative number because you didn't have the ground in the return eqation) Then you may build years of study and math explaining dynamics by that math and waste years of potential growth because of an overlooked variable.If God IS and IS in a physical and real sense, then its a definite variable That should not be overlooked.Of course I'm adding much in speculation, though its True to speculation, we first must examine the truth of what we DO know to further support or refute current theory as we continue to grow in knoledge of our existence and what we exist in.We have alot more data now, overwhelming data piling in. I believe we are behind in examining that data because of breakdowns in communications between the sciences. My opinion of course.

---

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

yes really. God IS is a statement beyond religion. If you believe it truly then God is as real as the air you breathe. and a small mind cannot comprehend that because its supernatural and not natural. God is natural to me as the earth is natural to you.

---

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