Why do scientists deny the REALITY of INTELLIGENT DESIGN in nature and the universe-REALITY IS NO CHEMICAL ACCIDENT???
2007-01-23 00:55:58 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
because they refuse to accept that there is GOD who made all these
2007-01-23 01:05:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Science is a methodology that seeks to explain the natural universe via natural means. By definition, it does not and cannot appeal to supernatural explanations. Intelligent design implies a "Designer", which is a supernatural explanation. It's outside the bounds of science.
However, many scientists do hold religious beliefs. If I recall a recent poll correctly, 40% of scientists believe in a creator god. And well over 95% of scientists polled also accept the theory of evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive, as some seem to think.
2007-01-23 09:02:37 · answer #2 · answered by . 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It may be no accident but it is a very logical sequence of events.
Some of the arguments for intelligent design like DNA actually indicate the opposite.
If somebody said"let there be light" they would not have to produce a star to do it ,it would just be.
Human beings would not need the action of DNA once they were created they would just go on their merry way!
2007-01-23 13:27:33 · answer #3 · answered by Billy Butthead 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
This is a very educational and scientific site explaining the difference.
The key is that I.D. is a religious theory, based on beliefs and feelings;
while evolution is a scientific one , based on research and hard evidence.
It doesn't mean that one invalidates the other.
It means that they are different. Here's how ---
Science will test an apple and come up with facts about the apple (ie... it is red, a seed bearing fruit, comes from a tree...etc.) all of the facts are true regardless of belief systems.
Any observer, from anywhere, will come up with the same set of facts for that apple.
Religions will look at the same apple and come up with beliefs about the apple (ie symbol of Mans downfall in the garden of eden, symbol of ripeness and fertility, symbol of knowledge ...etc.)
Those beliefs are true only for the particular group who has them. No two religions will come up with the same belief set for that apple.
It doesn't invalidate those beliefs -- BUT those beliefs are personal. They are not reproducible on a grand scale by un-biased obsevers.
Ultimately, it's the same apple, and comes down to whether or not you like what the apple tastes like.
2007-01-23 09:22:12 · answer #4 · answered by yardchicken2 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
As soon as IDers come up with a testable theory, we'll get right back to you. Until then, pipe down.
ID proponents should spend more time on research instead of litigation. Their record in the courtroom isn't very good.
2007-01-23 08:59:48 · answer #5 · answered by gebobs 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
There is no evidence for intelligent design. It is based on faith and nothing else. So much evidence points towards evolution.
2007-01-23 09:16:08 · answer #6 · answered by bldudas 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Let's hear it for jstor! That is the proper use of the term mutually exclusive. Most people screw it up using it in the wrong context.
Good job jstor!!
2007-01-23 09:31:50 · answer #7 · answered by James O only logical answer D 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because it is based on faith with no scientific substance supporting it.
2007-01-23 08:59:47 · answer #8 · answered by Gene 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋