Will Science eventually disprove the existence of GOD?

Question

So Charles Darwin was a Fool?

Religion is for those whom deny the truth.
Science is for those whom seek the truth.

Answer 1

You are half right in all that you say! Check this out! and tell me what you think! More right than what most think, actually!!! Especially about religions! But check it out! What about? The Big Picture!
Darwin was no more a fool than the majortity on earth today. As a matter of fact (and in my opinion!) he was much wiser than say... any poop who ever lived!
(sorry! the letter "e" is missing and "an extra "o" creeped in! that "poopy" word! It just so happens they are full of it! (once you do the research on the subject! right down to the killing of God's prophets to the wars on earth today, to the Inquisition and everything in between such as the Inquisition, etc....
Religion is truly at the root of all evil things on the planet and that has been proved so much and in so many ways that it practically leaves no more to debate whatseover on the subject. It is all very well documented and the knowledge of it can be acquired in just about any book store on the planet and certainly in every library! The worst mistake anyone ever made, and again, in my humble opinion, is to mix any man-made "religion" with the true God of Love, Wisdom, Power and Justice, and to all claim to be serving and or representing Him, regardless of any discrepancy in their individual beliefs and teachings. It stands to reason that not all of these different "religions" can be right. And if even one is right, well, that would, by default, make all others "wrong". And yet, everyone seems happy as pig in "poop" to just say: "Oh! as long as you accept Christ in your heart! you're saved!" Well I don't agree and those who think like this are a "hell" of a lot more "foolish" than Darwin ever was! All that he was was that he tried to make sense of things the best way he knew how... At least he tried! At least he used his brain! At least he didn't sit on his laurels, accepting every and any man made theory shoved his way! Not about God, not about anything else! For the amount of lies and half-truths we must read here always, people behind them are fortunate that they don't have a person even like "me" for a God! I don't think I could be half as patient and tolerate and merciful and go on not wishing any of them to be (well you can see for yourselves at the second book of Peter, chapter three and verse nine!). You must have heard of that Church of Scienthology, where all of those believing in science joined by the hundreds; where John Travolta, Kevin Costner, Lisa-Marie Presley, Tom Cruise and many others have been drawned to accept as "their religion"! And still they preach as many lies as any other religion on the market! The bottom line is whether there is a God or not! as some won't believe no matter what! A sun sitting in mid air burning thousands of times hotter than any furnace we've ever seen; billions of stars doing the same; (sitting in mid-air); a universe forever expanding! gorgeous sun-rises and sun-sets; oceans of deep blue water containing billions more living entities than we ever even took the time to get to know as we were too busy getting to the moon instead to find out??? Anyhow! to finish that sentence about whether or not we accept God or not; let one thing be clear! He would know a heck of a lot more than we, puny humans, could ever know! Can't we at least agree on that! I mean, Eternity, is quite a bit longer than the ninety years of this short life that most of humans have been, could we say, fortunate to enjoy as "humans", in this old system??? Which of us can even boast of knowing what an eternal creator would know??? Who do we think we are? in comparison??? Again, in my opinion? A mere speck of dust in the universe!

Answer 2

It more or less has. Nearly every major concept in the bible has now been superseded. Weather the world will be a better place, i doubt it. Science gives answers to the material which can be a good guild to the moral / ethical. However, it does not by necessity open minds. So looking for answers to moral question in science can be as bigger trap as believing any one book has all the moral answers. The greater solution is to open minds with understanding and scepticism towards 'quick, simple and plausible answers' in morality because they are usually wrong. Just read history. By the way science is the progressive study of 'common sence'. The processes that produce answers in science are the very same that any sensible person would use to resoulve a problem. IE look at all the auternatives, test, test test again, Check out with all the people in the know for your area then put it up for examination by every person. The idea that all science is just somebodies whim is to completily misundersand what is ment by theory. And those of you who up hold the Bilble as totally true - be aware of the arguments you use, if there are some holes in science theories, the ship of total biblical truth is fast mimicing HMS Hood

Answer 3

Hmmm, the problem is it never will. Until science has the answer for literally everything, you face a huge problem.

The problem is that if you remove all the logical solutions to a problem, the improbable becomes probable. And once you're into the realm of solutions being "improbable" you can start throwing all kinds of answers about, and no one can argue them, regardless of how wacky the ideas may seem.

Fortean events (paranormal activity and such like such as poltergeists) simply cannot be explained by science. Which opens up the can of worms in that you then only say what ISN'T causing the events.

Answer 4

Science might get evidence against some peoples perception of God but it cannot disprove that something enabled things to be as they are.
If God is whatever it is which enables everything to exist, God could be mere chance, or nature.
Science can never disprove that nature exists.

Answer 5

unfortunately Science is not in the business of disproving things and that is because you can not disprove a negative. However there is hope that science will gain more acceptance and that the "Intellegent Design " groups will fall apart.

The best thing that could happen for science is for people to stop ignoring evidence that they want and accept fact as fact.

Answer 6

I think you would need a hypothesis to test, with controls set up. I don't think god is really testible in an ultimate sense, ie the universe may have started with a big bang, what happened before that, we don't know therefore god may have started it. If we do find a reason for the big bang, then god gets pushed back before that, and so on.
If you're looking for proof that the biblical god didn't create the world 6 thousand years ago, then you're on safer ground, physics, biology, and almost any science you could think of wouldn't work if that was the case.

Answer 7

Sceience never proves or disproves anything. Proof is not found within the realm of science. Proofs are only found within Mathematics and Logic. Science is a method where evidence is collected. Based on that evidence hypothesis are proposed which make predictions and then those predictions are tested. Based on the results of the outcome of those tests probabilities are arrived at. In the case of the god hypothesis, evidence is sorely lacking and predictions are either not made or when they are made they are so vague as to be useless. Further proponents of the god hypothesis substitute logical fallacies for meaningful evidence, engaging in the worst form of illogical arguments from ignorance, arguing that their own lack of understanding is evidence for the god hypothesis when in fact it is only evidence for ignorance.

Answer 8

No !!!!!

Have you read "Origin of Species"? Or "The Enchanted Loom"? Both postulate evolution but admit to all the shortcomings of the theory. Even today, scientists argue about so called "evidence" and none can agree on any of the so called "proofs" of evolution.
There are high stakes involved for the first person or group that can prove evolution is a fact. Just like any other theory, there usually is tampering with the evidence and outright lies about their importance. Mankind will go to any means to try to prove that God does not exist. But even Darwin had to admit that the means by which life started in the first place is still a mystery.

Answer 9

Science needs a viable definition to start with. But the definitions given for god are vague and manifold. You cannot disprove a vague notion.

What you can disprove is a definition like "omnipresent omniscient all-powerful creator entity". This can be rather easily proven to be self-contradictive and/or incompatible with physical reality.

But if science does so, godbelievers will simply change their god definition and you're back at the start.

Answer 10

I believe in a giant pink elphant called Bob, who floats around all day laughing at people. However, he is completely invisible and undetectable.

Think I'm talking rubbish? Well try to prove otherwise!

(This is my way of illustating the point he can never be disproved. However, many of the things religion used to hold, like the young earth and creationism, etc, have been (for any reasonable person) disproved, and for many people, in the absence of any prood FOR God or the Bible*, that's as good as.)

* Don't even talk to me about Intelligent design and Creationist 'scientists'. When they get a few non-religious people believing in ID over Darwinism, I'll believe it isn't just a front for trying to prove people's religious beliefs. Evolution *can* be proven, for all intents and purposes. At the very least, to the extent it becomes merely a matter of time until it can be categorically stated as such.

For one thing, it can be easily observed in bacteria, among other things. Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor. The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

Also, look at the fossil record. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions, which is essentially proof of evolution. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transition fossils (fossils of organisms between two lineages) may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.

They also claim that evolution relies purly on chance, and is therefore statistically impossible. There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Evolution has been, for all intents and purposes, proven. While it is still technically a theory, it is one backed up with a huge amount of evidence. The same cannot be said about creationism.

Answer 11

No, it's the other way around. Science has already proven the existence of GOD.