ID as Science vs. ID as Creationism

i believe it would be true to say that the introduction of ID to science is the scientific method of admitting the sign of intelligence in the order of the natural order, and that all that is was directed to behave in their patterns, while at the same time wanting to say its possibly wrong.the reason why most scientist don't want too is because they feel it would endorse religion. because even admitting the possibility without quoting any particular religion, those who feel it is a better theory than the "chance" theory will seek religion for answers. so many scientists realizing this, don't want it added at all.i don't believe its even necessary to add ID with any particular religious endorsement. i don't believe its necessary to add it under the premise it could be wrong. since my feelings on what i would call "the law of complexity" (not sure if one even exists, just my thoughts) would find that at T=0 there is zero chance the "something" at those coordinates spawned time and the laws of the order without direction (intelligence)but before those of you who want to dispute my feelings about this, remember the topic ^ID is not "religion in disguise" is my argument, but that ID would be admitting that religion is valid. and for that reason, scientists do not want it in science. (as i believe anyways to be the true source of the problem).

---

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

first paragraph:introduce the possibility in science of "intelligent designer" (God) in "theory" (could be wrong)to be the goal of ID advocates. (as i see it anyways) the ones who want to advocate it believe wholeheartedly God IS, or, believe the "possibility" is true. the ones who believe he IS, will quote the references that led them to that belief. which of course, can mean statements like the one you just quoted.i wouldn't expect it any other way given human nature. does it make the possibility any less accurate ? no. does it give scientists something to argue against? definitely.but what is the truth? is ID a possibility given the size, scale and complexity of the universe?

---

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

you have a very valid point.my argument would be that science is used as a tool for atheist's to hide behind. since " no one has proven God, and science does not admit to it as a possibility, he is not" without a scientific explanation of what God is, no one can truthfully explore where God has potentially acted or not.by how i define him, i can see that he set an order that has definite actions and reactions, and then gave some things the power of choice, to act or not act, based on their belief. has God acted? if he IS, why wouldnt he?faith is action, based on belief, with no doubt to the outcome.
when you walk out of your house, you are taking faith that you are, and the door is, and the world outside is. you acted on that belief.so by how i see God as defined within scientific boundaries of laws, which are true by all observation, i then concluded God based on those laws and observations.the truth is, no one can say God is not (no proof) and other's will argue no proof that God is. so already its accepted by the masses and even scientists, that God potentially is. (meaning, with no definite proof either way, it is possible in theory)what ID advocates want, is the official announcement by science as a whole and to be taught in the classroom, that because no proof either way is evident in science, that it does not endorse either aspect "at this time" but that the "potential" is there.Edited by tesla, : as=isEdited by tesla, : added a point.

---

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

this would be limiting God's ability by man's logic.if God is, and hes a much more superior intelligence and form, what man can say what is possible, or not possible for God?i have to go to work, God be with you all, and be well

---

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

by looking at God scientifically, i have come to one conclusion : all things are natural, accept what we cannot comprehend. what we cannot comprehend, is not "supernatural, if true, but rather, natural, and beyond our comprehension.but knowing that, we can apply what we can comprehend to hopefully take what many consider "supernatural" and with understanding, know how and why of it, and understand its natural.

---

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

well done!i must commend you for your abilities to understand my lack of better communication!that being said: here is a link to what i have observed:http://EvC Forum: Before Big Bang God or Singularity -->EvC Forum: Before Big Bang God or Singularity

---

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

science studies reality. if God is reality, he should be observed.God in science does not stagnate it. it empowers it. because God at the top of science forces one to "keep digging".if things are chance, you observe the laws of chance. if it is not chance, but dictated by intelligence, then it must be pursued as such.

---

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

see message 19, and observe the link then.God disproven? if he IS, why disprove him?why introduce God in theory, if you can by "law" ?

---

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

i don't believe he wants proof, i think he just wants to debate the value of adding based on lack of proof, and debate if ID has any place at all in science.(i could be wrong). I've shown proof, but no one wants to examine it.as far as the legitimacy of science, and the study of God, i feel they are related, since by my definition, all that is came from one source, the very body of God. which makes all things that are, relative to him. and all things that are, relative to each other, by its relation to him.God's abilities: if God wrote the laws, what other law could he delete or add? i cannot say with any honesty, what limits God may have.did you understand this teslanese?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

nice and honest post. i like that.now understand me, my belief in God without doubt, did not happen until i had debated the laws of science that led to him.all roads lead to Rome. something cannot come from nothing.i debated them here time an again, and no one has shown anything other than the truth of the laws.now this was not warping laws to fit my fancy, it was observing laws, finding the outcome, and then noticing it matched perfectly to alot if not most to all of the "bible"now I'm sure you'll go " hm thats very interesting, but you've subconsciously yada yada yada".nope. didn't subconsciously do it, its true, anyone who examines them will find them true. and the truth is, at T=0 (the coordinates) you'll find: energy, first, singular, timeless, all the universe came from it, intelligence by necessity (no ,matter chaotic, or ordered energy), and singular creation=faith.so at T=0 :singular timeless energy that was before all things, and just "was", which was intelligent, and created all that is based on faith that it was/is.now whats another name for that?T=0 is inevitable. science recognizes the coordinates, so why don't you start examining WHAT is at the coordinates. if truly nothing, nothing would come of it. so it was something. tell me what. define something for me that makes sense then.if I'm the fool, humble me.

---

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

T=0 is not science?is it not true coordinates by science laws?why should i beleive you? you have not proven me wrong, just keep saying that i am adding my beleifs. did you read my post?how can you find proof of God until you know what your looking for?i give you the definition by the laws of science, THEN do you know where to look.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

thanks moose for clarity i believe that only through realization of what reality truly is, will God be understood. most people believe that reality is subject to the viewer, and as long as that is believed, then what can the truth be?there is an objective reality (reality as it truly is) and when it is scrutinized, will the truth be known to those who look.but peoples lives are busy, to busy sometimes, and a person who holds on to a narrow view of the world, will not readily look past the comfort zone.all of true science has come from one source. who can dispute this? to find the truth, the beginning must be looked at, and possibilities exhausted. by this reasoning and the unwillingness of the human brain to walk outside comfort zones, must the realization be by individual.science is the how, and the biblical creation account is pretty broad in my opinion. but science of today scrutinizes what could not be seen in those times. so as God is, and always was, he still is, and will be. because outside the start, nothing can be. with no foundation, no building stands.i apologize up front if i have lead your discussion off the course you would like to see, and pray you forgive me for any unintentional sway.God be with you always,
-Tim Brown

---

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

and as moose has asked, how do you search for the evidence?with no scientific definition, how do you know what to look for? you can be staring at it, and not realize what your looking at. unless you know what to look for.

---

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