Why do people debate intelligent design, evolution, God, etc?
Nobody wins. Neither camp ever conclusively proves or disproves anything.
Intelligent design is a theory which aside from the obvious, means it can't be proven. Regardless, it's still an entertaining debate subject.
Science revolves around LOGIC. Logical thought supported by raw data, mathematics, physics, and all of the collections of data found in each scientific specialty. In this way, LOGIC can be thought of as the language of science.
On the other hand, religious and theological beliefs exist outside of scientific boundaries. They are solely dependent upon FAITH, which is nothing more than voluntary belief in something that can't be proven. In this way, FAITH can be thought of as the language of religion.
Discussion and debate primarily use LOGIC, and they are scientific constructs that are used for exploration from a scientific point of view. So in a way, discussing and debating religion is like using the wrong language to interpret results.
Put simply, intelligent design cannot be supported in a meaningful way using logic since faith is the required element for assuming its validity.
Strangely, and as a side note. Scientists who consider faith and theory as valid scientific tools for creative discovery consider intelligent design as a valid option where clear answers are yet to be found. Some of the greatest minds of mankind from Einstein to today's theoretical physicists start with a theory and enough faith to consider throwing math at abstract ideas until something works.
Even Einstein believed in God. He could be wrong, but I feel his theories are better than most of ours. When in doubt, why not go with what the smartest dude in the room said?
- RealistLv 59 years agoFavorite Answer
Einstein did NOT believe in god.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” - Albert Einstein
Why am i getting thumb downs, if you don't like facts and quotes it is not my fault. it is right there in front of you a quote from Einstein himself that explicitly says he does not believe in god.
and your definitions and preconceptions about what a theory is are wrong. hear are the definitions of the steps of the scientific process for those of you whose parents made you step out for science class.
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
- QuestionerLv 79 years ago
Einstein was a deist at best.
So, why debate? The people who shrug their shoulders and say, “What difference does it make if God exists or not?” are simply showing that they haven’t thought very deeply about it.
If there is no God, then there is no Supreme Being to which we must give an account—no Judgment Day, no Heaven or Hell. If this is just a great cosmic accident, then there is no such thing as morality (there is no right or wrong, no good or evil). It would be no more wrong for the innocent to suffer than for the sun to burn or the ice to melt. We should just live by the saying, “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” Because when you die there is nothing and nothing mattered. As the contention of Dostoevsky’s character Ivan (paraphrased), that if there is no God, everything is permitted.
But if there is a God—well, that’s a different story. Are we an accident or the image of God? Are we without purpose or have an eternal goal? Do we live like an animal or like a child of God? In the end, is it dust or eternity?
Could it be as the renowned atheist, Dr. Richard Dawkins, has said that life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA. The universe has “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference” (God’s Utility Function). Is that true, or could it be something else?
To tell you the truth, I don't know why people talk about anything else?
- nossonLv 49 years ago
Before showing how I can back up ID I just want to explain the context.
Intelligent design is not teaching us anything new. It’s restating the obvious. Life forms are clever pieces of equipment. Its only because we have the idea that all new DNA code comes through random mutations that ID has emerged.
So let’s make this clear. ID has not come to refute evolution it has only come to refute the idea of random mutations.
Now I believe in universal common decent. I am also a scientific naturalist in the sense that I believe that the world runs according to a natural order.
So my version of ID is not that god created all animals as is or that god intervened to help things evolve. Rather that there are programs in the DNA that are the blue print for the development of all life on earth.
So you have on one hand the idea of
and on the other hand you have the idea that there is a
mechanism that controls changes in the DNA
It just so happens that we know for a fact that organs have mechanisms for controlling the DNA
Read this article
So ID – or a version of ID – is a scientific fact. Not a religion not a hypothesis not a theory. A fact.
Now not only does the idea of random mutations not nave any evidence or any mathematical model to show how it could be possible in theory we also know that it contradicts the most fundamental law in nature. The second law of thermodynamics. Now I know what you are thinking. The sun.
Really? The earth is not a closed system because the sun is giving energy. So in that case would the second law of thermodynamics not apply on earth? Well were does it apply? The law that Einstein said was the most fundamental law of the universe doesn’t apply to the universe because there are start everywhere. How strange.
The sun explains how we get energy not how we get order. Anyone who says “the sun” has no clue of the laws of entropy.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Even though it can't be proven or disproven on paper in writing, neither can you prove or disprove your own existence on paper, but nobody argues that they themselves don't exist. It's sort of a given.
We can, however, prove that the existence of invisible deities is very unlikely, given their consistently complete and utter lack of presence in reality.
Tell a police officer that you were robbed by a ghost, and he's not going to believe you.
Tell a rational 21st Century Agnostic or Atheist that a universe-creating ghost has set up the entire universe just so they can have billions of flesh and blood humans worship that ghost and believe in their ghostly existence, and they're not going to believe you either, and for good reason...
It's very unlikely, and probably to the 99th degree not true.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Anonymous9 years ago
People debate religious and scientific matters because it's fun and because we can.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It's unfalsifiable.
Your second-to-last paragraph is so bizarre. Basically, what you're saying is that scientists who are religious consider religious ideas to be valid. No, duh. Is that supposed to prove something?
Einstein didn't believe in the god you seem to think he did, jsyk.
- jacob_vLv 59 years ago
Actually evolution is conclusively proven. Intelligent design can conclusively be demonstrated to be an ignorance based position.
- Andrew HLv 79 years ago
"Neither camp ever conclusively proves or disproves anything." - I beg to differ.
As for Einstein, here is a direct quote on his views on god:
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."Source(s): Facts
- 9 years ago
because evolution actually has solid proof behind it. do you acknowledge the fact that skeletons of early humans have been found and the rapid evolution of bacteria? those are just really simple examples but there is a boatload of evidence for evolution. we just try to educate christians who live their life in fear of something that doesnt exist.
- JohnLv 69 years ago
Please keep in mind: when you say the word "God," you are implying a consensually understood and defined term. The word is inherently ambiguous. Perhaps Einstein believed in "god," but not necessarily a Judeo-Christian god.
- 9 years ago
Intelligent design is not a theory, or even a hypotheses and your definition of theory is incorrect.