Why don't the so-called intellectuals that have no error-free explaination for creation have a sense of...
367659
I agree that the Universe was created by a higher being. I don't agree that said being created man at all. However, I do think that by becoming aware of ourselves and simply believing in said being's existence that said being is now aware of us. I don't believe that God/Diety/whatever you want to call it really gives a damn what we do. Anyway...I think that all beings, sentient or otherwise, that exist in the Universe are a result of the divine and since the divine makes no mistakes we are as we were meant to be. Flawed but still here. Still trying to find the meaning of it all.
518447
I guess for Intellgent Design, one of the wonderful things about not actually being science is that you aren't bounded by the same rules, obligations and constructs.\n\nAs a result, they can shift and move anyway the (political) wind blows.  Good for them, bad for rational thought and society.
820895
The theory of intelligent design is the same as when the ancient celts said "mushroom circles form because of fairies". Infact their is no evidence of intelligent design at all. Creationist Science is completely non empirical and a total insult to real science. Its either the earth is a giant labratory of differrent combinations of rna that is billions of years old and the universe started with the culmination of a big bang that was created by what quantum physics calls "the quantum bounce effect" or a black hole creating a baby universe. Or... some giant mythological being created a man and a woman from clay in a magic garden 4000 years ago. Thousands of years ago people did not have science and the world was a big and scary place, they were at the mercy of the elements so they used Gods and Goddesses to humanize the world around them. Sooner or later that developed into monothiesm. Then the early christians stole their creator diety from the Hebrew people. Talk about copywriting. However even though their is tons of real evidence backing up the anthropic principle. Millions of people are very primitive and need a diety otherwise their world view is incomplete.
967928
You know something, you are very uninformed. For you information:\n\nMost scientists believe in some sort of creator or deity. There is a simple explanation for this, and that is science can incorporate the idea of the supernatural since there are places that science cannot go.\n\nThe creation of the universe is one of them. Science can explain all the way back to 10^-43 seconds, but before that there is no explanation, there is only the unknown that is just as well explained as God as any other theory. So God and science are not at odds here, as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking would agree\n\nSpeaking of my great, great, uncle, several times removed Albert Einstein, he is quoted as saying "God does not play dice with the universe." What he meant by this was a repudiation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, because to Albert the universe was a beautifully ordered and created place, created by God.\n\nSome scientist see God in randomness (Heisenberg). Others see it in harmonies of patterns and chaos (Glick and Mandelbrot). Even Darwin still credited God for creating the universe, though he sought scientific explanations for the evolution of species.\n\nThese men were/are fervent men with fervent beliefs. The fact that they deal in science in no way impedes their beliefs in God.\n\nNow, that being said, what you believe God did or does may not be the same thing that these men believe, maybe because they understand Gods universe better, maybe because they are more open minded than to narrow their vision to a few hundred pages of a book, a book that is interpreted many different ways so that who knows which version is right, if any. But when it comes down to it, they believe in God in one form or another, and maybe their views are more enlightened than most.\n\nYou can count me with them, by the way, as I take a more scientific view of the world. I am Deist, what that means is I believe in God as a first cause. I believe that God set the beautifully intricate stage, that we are still trying to understand, and let it be, to run the way it will, a universe of detail ever unfolding.\n\nBTW I gave you a thumbs up on the question, because while it was indelicate, it was thought provoking and deserved an answer, even if it was mostly my opinion.
133381
It’s not possible simply because they have nothing to relate it to. Even if they did see they would not understand it.
697103
No they are much smarter and do not believe in gods
1091888
This is a case where some people don't want to admit the truth, that God exists. Because if God exists, then there could be a right and wrong and a morality which they don't want. True science should not rule out any possibilities, including the existence of a creator. However what we have today are a bunch of them who start off without even considering the possibility of a God. so when the evidence points that way they refuse to see it.
397544
There is plenty of unintelligent design to dismiss this idea.\n\nAn irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become - because of later changes - essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."\n\nH. Allen Orr\n\nIntelligent design does not discount everything in evolution, and so they would agree with mainstream science on the answers to most of your questions. Intelligent design allows boils down to God planned it that way.  That's why it can't be taught alongside evolution, because it involves belief, not evidence.\n\n"ID advocates are very keen to give the impression that they have the support of scientists. It is true that a number of scientists support ID, as indeed there are scientists who support Young Earth Creationism and many other pseudosciences. But they are a tiny number in relation to the total number of scientists, the vast majority of whom support evolutionary theory."\n\n...\n\n"What are the "scientific" arguments used to support Intelligent Design?\n\nA. The arguments for Intelligent Design are primarily arguments from ignorance, also known as god-of-the-gaps arguments. ID advocates also claim to have positive evidence of ID, in the form of "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity", but these arguments turn out to be disguised arguments from ignorance. In addition, ID advocates sometimes make an argument from analogy. A lot of their effort is also devoted to attacking specific aspects of evolutionary theory, rather than giving support to their own ID hypothesis.\n\nhttp://www.talkdesign.org/introfaq.html
382403
Strictly speaking, you have decided NOT to embrace the "undecidable" and NOT the "unverifiable".  Unverifieable, inherently implies the potential applicability of the scientific and/or logical verification process, which in turn could be a function of the Uncertainly Principle, time, knowledge, instrumentation, etc.  Whereas the situation at hand is by far much more hopeless than that; the very notion of "verifiability" does NOT even apply in this case.  Yes my friend those ancient desert-dwellers really knew how to screw us all with their creation of an undecidable god that can only be attained through the pure fairytale process of "faith".   And hence started the greatest conspiracy ever plotted against the human race, and which, in its many mutated forms, continues to this very day.   ... As for the pity part - well, how can I pity someone who has a great family, enjoys his life, and has otherwise had the courage to construct his own reality in accords with his moral will?    Besides, we do not much care for twice-removed guests like you DOWN HERE anyway. :-)
1131234
I think they say it's a mystery, that we are incapable of understanding.\n\n             I say it's a flat out contradiction.  \n\n             They'd probably have some weaselly answer for your last question.
88621
Many scientists avoid the subject of religion and rather simply try to gather evidence, build models (hypotheses or theories), test them, keep the ones that succeed, throw out the ones that fail, rinse and repeat.\n\nAs one accumulates these evidence, it lends credence to the probability to the models (theories) being true.  This means that these models are consistent with what evidence is collected with respect to the past and that it may predict new kinds of evidence that may be found in the future.\n\nThe problem is that some people get into semantic word play with the word "theory" and think that demonstrating a flaw or a lack of explanation in the "theory" invalidates it totally making it false.  If you replace the word "theory" with model (which maybe scienstists should do), it reduces the ability to attack it.\n\nAnd, as for the "Big Bang", there are models which, if correct, say that the "Big Bang" was not necessarily the beginning.\n\nI think one problem people have with these "theories" is that they lack the experience, study, and knowledge of the evidence to appreciate their validity or not and so reject them simply out of hand because they are not consistent with their own belief system.\n\nHere's the problem.  If I say that the grass outside my window is green and you say "I don't believe you", that does not invalidate the fact that the grass outside my window is green.  It just means that you refuse to accept the evidence.  Your statement of disbelief does nothing to disprove the evidence.\n\nNow, given that the stories in Genesis are inconsistent with the evidence of the universe, you have a choice.  Accept them as allegorical and still find value in the teachings of the bible or whatever your religion might be. Or, you can see it as an attack on a literal interpretation of the bible.  But, these scientists didn't set out to attack the bible or religion.  They just set out to interpret the evidence and found that words in the bible didn't provide sufficient explanation to intepret the evidence and create consistent models.\n\nIt is only folks that think a word for word literal interpretation of the bible is required to be religious that find that science is an attack on religion.\n\nIt is possible to interpret the bible as guide for how to live one's life without ascribing to a word for word literal interpretation.  It just depends on your interpretation.
906890
The logic behind it is what is incomprehensible not the actions... But we don't need to understand the logic in order to understand the actions and believe
36695
O.K. admiralbob! I'm glad your not in charge of everything. Everyone wants to prove how things work, but they can't answer the question as to who made it all happen.....Anyway I've got broadband but the download is taking a minute so based off of others speculation and the website that I observed, I would say SURE THING. God is intelligent so why wouldn't he use science he created it? But yeah! They should use it to teach if they have found that proof! It would really back up the bible too.
1108136
No, I'm a scientist but I'm certainly not a genius. You do need to have an imaginative mind though. Most of the hands on work we do - anybody could do. Its thinking about why things work the way they do which is the hard bit. Most reasonable intelligent people can become scientists if they have a bit of imagination.
518798
"Creationists" are functionally illiterate, so what else would you expect?\n\nAnyone who defines "evidence" to mean "because I said so" is clearly illiterate. And that is all the "evidence" they have to support the "creation" argument.\n\nThe universe has always existed and was not created by anyone or anything.
298194
Because they have blind faith in creationism.  Nothing you say or do will ever change that.  You could show  mathmatical proof or facts to back up evolution (which I believe exist).\nThey have faith is something they cannot prove.  End of story.
477169
Having been in Israel, I know the weather conditions. I don't need science to prove my beliefs. They can come up with logic or reason or faith or whatever...I still believe. The world needs to try to disprove Scripture. It makes them feel good. And, while science may give them what they want; it won't give them what they need.