if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed?

question: by admiting to "God" does science loose its grounds?assertion: by scientific enquery, beleiving that the base of all things came from one intelligent scource only directs science to explore the science in observations of that law, which would assert that chaos is only apparent, and that purpose exists for items under scientific scrutiny.question: so, if a scientist accepts that all things were based by an intelligent entity, he also asserts that everything was designed?assertion: no. he only asserts that the basis was of intelligence and designed some, but sceintific data does not assert that all was designed. ie: a man takes a tank, fills it with water, and adds chemicals to see how they will react, the reaction was not controlled, but allowed freedom in a contained environment to "become"question: so a scientist accepting that an intelligent entity was first may not be religios?assertion: true. religion makes assertion based on devine inspirations. a man who eats magic mushrooms can beleive he had involvment with the devine. religion also has been targets of corruption, and nothing man mandated is tottally infallible.the scientist in question, may find science in the religeons to be impressive, and perhapts even of devine assertion, yet aknoledge that flaws in overall religion and writtings of man were not written by the hand of the devine, and therefore, while aknoledged, may not be religios.the acceptance that by scientific principle, that which was first had intelligence only directs the enquiry of science to the assertion of order within boundries, and chaos only apparent.debate?Edited by tesla, : my grand typing skills: typoesEdited by tesla, : topic changeEdited by tesla, : spelling

---

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

Not sure what this has to do with creationist scientists. Sounds more like a deistic scientist. Creationist scientists, if we are using our terms as commonly understood would be fideistic rather than deistic.I think therefore that either the title should be changed, or the content. If the title is changed, I don't think there is a great deal to debate.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

so creationism only is relative as a science if one is admiting all life was designed?what then is deistic science? ive never heard of any debate on it...(which this is only suggesting creationism as a science, which if its a biblical understanding only, would mean its not.)creationist assert that there was a suppreme being, by accepting this assertion does not mean that a scientist would have to have a religion in order to admit a supreme being..if this is not creationism, then creationist dont even agree on what creationists are?

---

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

If you want to, you can have this be a semantic argument over the term 'creationist' versus 'deist'. You can have it be about creationist scientists who are scientists that happen to believe the universe was created by a deity who intervened in the case of earth and/or life (creationism but with no specific religion necessarily). You can have it about scientists who believe that the universe was created by a deity that subsequently let the universe run without intervention with life and the earth being drawn out from those original rules (with no specific religion...essentially called deism). You can have the discussion that is inclusive of both of these positions.Either way: it isn't entirely clear from your first post what is to be debated - and it might help if you include your own position and what conclusions you draw from it.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

what im suggested is more in between.a scientist who accepts that God "tweaks" or makes adjustments in the "created" world, but not on every level.im suggesting a scientist that can accept creationism, without religeon to explain it, rather, to look for clues in science.anomolies would not be accpted wholly as "God acted" but neither would it be dismissed as a probability.am i describing here, a creationist, or a deitist?

---

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

i changed the topic, does that clarify?

---

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

Thread copied to the if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed? thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.