Big Bang VII, scientists in a box ?

Question

I appreciate all the participation in this discussion. What I have concluded is that science has itself in a box refusing to see outside of that box and even consider intelligent design along with the random chaos into order theory they support. It is as if the science community is a religion into itself and is the epitome of Humanism. Can anyone be served by such closed intellects when the evidence is so strong for design and order. It is as if the scientific community lives in a retangular cube and cannot even speculate that there may be more. As a Christian I welcome scientific inquiry, speculation and theory as I know that as the Scriptures tell me that creation is evidence enough for the existence of God the creator and designer of all things. Who is more open minded the scientist or the theist who welcomes scientific inquiries into the wonders and miracles of God.

Answer 1

It is really interesting to see the theories that secular science will come up with in it's vain attempts to stay as far away from God as possible. The funny thing is that most of their theories of origins are just renaming God and stripping him of consienceness.

Answer 2

Saying "it looks created" is not evidence for creation. End of story. Get back to me with some sort of mechanism for this, some sort of proof, and maybe the scientific community will listen to you.

It's ridiculous to say that science is a religion. Do I hold the theory of relativity sacred? Do I pray to logic? Do I think quantum physics are watching over me?

You have a poor understanding of what science is. Science involves predicting the predictable, and what man can fathom the mind of a god?

Science is open minded. That's why it doesn't accept any of its ideas without question. It constantly looks at the evidence concerning evolution, the big bang, etc., and the evidence continues to point that way. Creation is an idea that science will listen to, but there's no empirical evidence, so it cannot be taken seriously as a theory.

Scriptures are not evidence that can possibly affect the physical world. Any whack-job can make sh*t up and write it down. Don't ever say that the Bible is reliable as scientific knowledge. You obviously haven't begun to think critically about the world around you.

Hopefully you will start to do so soon. Peace.

Answer 3

What leads you to conclude that science is in a box? Science is bound to consider all possibilities. Many scientists HAVE considered ID, and have found that there is no tangible evidence to weigh, and no possible method to test it as a theory.

Wait! You're attempting to "prove" ID by asking questions on Yahoo Answers??? Don't you think you need to expand the scope of your research?

I'll reiterate what a lot of other people have posted here. It's religion that's in a box. It's been in a box for centuries. ID is just an attempt to paint the outside of the box, so the rest of us will think it's a new box and not the same one that used to be labelled "creationism". Religion, by definition, can't change. If it admits it can change, then it has to be wrong, and if it's proven to be wrong about anything, it can be wrong about everything, so it's imperative that a religion give up no ground, and admit no error. It's box is clearly defined.

Science, by contrast admits that it's wrong all the time. Admitting errors is part of it's very design (a very intelligent design, by the way). Finding the errors is what makes it go forward. Science is in a box, too, but it's a huge box with expanding sides, getting bigger all the time. The box contains a map of our understanding, and maybe someday that map will present a picture of the entire universe. It just won't happen next week, or next year. Sorry, but you and I weren't destined to live in a time where all human knowledge spanned all available information.

To me, that isn't a valid excuse to embrace the irrational to fill the void.

Answer 4

No, intelligent design is about trying to fit a lot of evidence into a story that validates the religious views of its proponents.

Evolution is supported by much evidence concerning the fossil record and DNA. Please welcome scientific inquiry and study a biology textbook without resorting to emotional arguments, then analyze the claims on the basis of the scientific method. Which argument makes the most sense, evolution or intelligent design?

You need to study the scientific method before you can unjustly trash all of it because it does not confirm your personal views.

Let me guess, you were raised to be Christian and to believe in one religious philosophy, right? That's true for most (if not all) proponents of I.D. But has that put your world view into a box and closed off your mind to the potential of science and it's ability to disprove false claims with evidence? Let's switch things around. Were the 98% of scientists who agree with evolution raised to do so? I doubt it. They came to their own conclusions by studying.

Many religious folks can also believe in evolution, from what I hear. Science isn't a scam. It's the reason I didn't die of jaundice when I was a newborn, and that I have enough food to eat and water that is not contaminated with dangerous microbes. It's the reason I'm able to communicate with you over the internet, with light over a fiber optic cable.

Science is about using reality to help others, and they can prove it is real. Can you say the same?

Answer 5

No actually physics is moving forward quite rapidly. They moved from the simple Big Bang through several levels and then 5 versions of String Theory. Currently they have something called M Theory that combines all five versions of String, and another theory called Super Gravity.

This is the first one that all the math makes sense, and it even includes a testable (as soon as they are sure it is safe) cause for the Big Bang and a description of what was around before.

There is no need to go over Intelligent Design unless some evidence surfaces.

Answer 6

What most religious people seem to forget, is that about 35% of all scientists is actually religious. If they see a blueprint for creation, they wont hesitate to let the world know. But what is the real use to go searching for a god, that you don't know how and where to look for? So far all ID assumptions are no scientific, but religious theories. Call it science fiction if you like.
I just read this essay from a quantum physicist that taught some science to some theologians. It may be wise for you to read it too some time.
http://zerothorderapprox.blogspot.com/2005/01/essay-physicist-talks-to-theologians.html

Answer 7

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Your open-mindedness threatens your literal acceptance of the Bible, without which your belief amounts to nothing more than a personal concept of divinity...an opinion. Christianity does not welcome open-mindedness; indeed, it relies upon the adherent to faithfully accept the specific doctrine of his denomination...without question. And I am being purposefully redundant, faith does not allow or withstand investigation. I cannot avow my faith in my spouse's fidelity if I deliberately investigate its veracity.

Scientists are open minded to the extent that a claim is or can be made to be provable. I would love to hear more about the "evidence" that is "so strong for design and order." This is insulting. Surely someone as open minded as you can appreciate the insult here and respect that for many scientists the evidence is simply not there; moreover, it is simply not verifiable.

Theism cannot be arrived at through scientific investigation or some hyped evidence that supports a very human argument. One truly believes in "the wonders and miracles of God" through faith alone. This reflects many wonderful and admirable qualities, but it does not reflect open-mindedness.

Answer 8

ID isn't science, it is a religious.political scam to get religion taught in our public schools.

The father of the modern ID movement even stated as much.

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality god, before the academic world and into the schools." - Phillip Johnson

"I don't think I'm obligated to propose an alternative theory. I don't pretend to have an alternative theory that explains the history of life." - Johnathan Wells

Answer 9

You have it all wrong. Religion has itself in a box. It can't change. Science can. People used to believe the earth was the center of the solar system but now we all know that's bull. When ever theologians provide evidence for a creator then scientist will start accaepting it. Otherwise it is still a pseudoscience comparable to phrenology and alchemy.

Answer 10

I have considered intelligent design. I have found it thoroughly untestable and therefore unscientific. At best you can say that the level of organization in the universe could be the function of an intelligent designer. Those who call it science do not know the difference between science and doctrine.

Answer 11

Science will be happy to consider ID the moment you can produce some evidence for a designer. But as that has not happened, science will continue on without it.

If you don't think science is working, and you appear to be saying that here, stop going to the doctor, using your cell phone and computer, and driving your car. Those are all the results of science.

Sure, I'd be happy to talk about god. But not until you provide some evidence.