# Can science disprove God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2013, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301 "2013-11-07T03:01:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/381 "2013-11-10T19:46:52Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Yes astrology used to be science. In the future will be laughing about evolution being science. Maybe, if it gets replaced by even _better_ science. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/382 "2013-11-10T19:49:08Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Evolution Fraud and Myths to name a few: > Piltdown man: One actual fraud. Hooray! Piltdown was never accepted as a good find by the paleontological community. Never. No scientific work ever pointed to Piltdown to make any point about the science. The fraud was sensational, but irrelevant to science. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Nebraska man: A Creationist fraud. The tooth in question was mis-identified as ape-like in 1922 because the original discovery was rather weathered and human and swine molars share several characteristics. By 1927, the tooth had been examined more closely and correctly identified as swine. Popular reports (not scientific journals) made claims for an “ape man” and when the correction was made, Creationists began lying that it had been a fraud from the beginning. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Java man: Dubois made an error that he was either too ignorant or too embarrassed to admit. Like Piltdown, his claims were received with skepticism in the scientific community, (perhaps leading to his embarrassment), and Java was not used by later scientists as evidence of evolution. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Orce man: This fragment has still not been positively identified. It may be either hominid or something else–analysis continues. While the scientists are studying and debating the find, noted Creationist liar Duane Gish, has jumped in with the false claim that it has"proven" to be a donkey’s skull. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Neanderthal: Not sure what your point is supposed to be. One of the important aspects of science is that errors are exposed and corrected. There is much that is not known, (and much that is disputed) about Neandertal, but that discussion does not include fraud. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Lucy > [omniology.com](http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html) The guy is simply lying. > [@jstucker15](#): > > The Peppered Moth > [The Peppered Moth](http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth) :rolleyes: The staging of the photos was intended to demonstrate the relative quality of the camouflage of each variant. The issue of whether the photos should have been included in so many textbooks is a contentious one with different scientists taking different positions, (a point your link carefully omits). It is also one more example of textbook publishers taking an action that Creationists later blame on “scientists.” = = = So, two actual frauds, neither accepted by the scientific community as real, two examples of scientists disagreeing with each other before a consensus is reached that are dishonestly played up by the Creationist community as lies or frauds, one example of science actually correcting itself, and one outright lie by a Creationist. Nothing in that list argues against the science that supports the Theory of Evolution–although it does show how often good “Christian” Creationists are willing to Bear False Witness. ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/383 "2013-11-10T19:51:08Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Maybe, if it gets replaced by even _better_ science. That is what they are looking for. Something to replace it. Until then they are stuck with evolution and holding off ID. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/384 "2013-11-10T19:52:32Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > That is what they are looking for. Something to replace it. Until then they are stuck with evolution and holding off ID. ID’s not even science, let alone a better explanatory mechanism than evolution. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/385 "2013-11-10T19:52:45Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > That is what they are looking for. Something to replace it. Until then they are stuck with evolution and holding off ID. Every attempt to publish “scientific” works by Intelligent Design proponents has been debunked by scientists within months of publication. ID is a bad joke with no science involved. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/386 "2013-11-10T19:54:48Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > That is what they are looking for. Something to replace it. Until then they are stuck with evolution and holding off ID. Are you saying that intelligent design is something different than creationism, and if yes, how so? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/387 "2013-11-10T19:56:49Z")
How does ID explain Endogenous Retroviral Insertions? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/388 "2013-11-10T19:58:35Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > How does ID explain Endogenous Retroviral Insertions? Intelligently, I think we are meant to assume. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/389 "2013-11-10T19:59:45Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > How does ID explain Endogenous Retroviral Insertions? Well, obviously the Intelligent Designer knew he would need retroviral elements to allow mammals not to evolve placentas millions of years later. ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/390 "2013-11-10T20:10:30Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > Are you saying that intelligent design is something different than creationism, and if yes, how so? ID look at where the scientific evidence leads. If it has a complex design that can not be possibly explained by evolution then so be it. The inference is some intelligent agent is evolved. They don’t name the intelligent agent. Intelligent design better explains the evidence that is seen. Evolution is not up to the task. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/391 "2013-11-10T20:14:35Z")
You’ve got an untested “if” in there. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/392 "2013-11-10T20:18:14Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > ID look at where the scientific evidence leads. If it has a complex design that can not be possibly explained by evolution then so be it. The inference is some intelligent agent is evolved. They don’t name the intelligent agent. > > Intelligent design better explains the evidence that is seen. Evolution is not up to the task. You didn’t answer the question of whether intelligent design is the same as biblical creationism. Is it because there is a legal reason why they can’t name the intelligent agent? ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/393 "2013-11-10T20:18:34Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > Well, obviously the Intelligent Designer knew he would need retroviral elements to allow mammals not to evolve placentas millions of years later. Don’t have enough information here. Are you saying no mammals have placentas? ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/394 "2013-11-10T20:24:32Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > You didn’t answer the question of whether intelligent design is the same as biblical creationism. > > Is it because there is a legal reason why they can’t name the intelligent agent? The evidence doesn’t give the name of the intelligent agent. They just follow the evidence no matter where it leads. If you watch this video you will see that this man was not religious but he came to the conclusion that it was designed by someone because Darwin’s claims did not explain it. Darwin’s Heretic > **[Rewatching Darwin’s Heretic | Evolution News](https://evolutionnews.org/2013/11/rewatching_darw/)** > > Of course I’ve seen it before — but wow, I’m reminded both of the power of its message and beauty of the production itself. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/395 "2013-11-10T20:27:48Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Don’t have enough information here. Are you saying no mammals have placentas? It’s a tongue-in-cheek response. It’s thought that ancient retroviral elements allow the formation of placentas in mammals. Since viruses are much older than mammals, your intelligent designer must have designed them millions of years in advance, but kept them on the backburner until mammals didn’t evolve. And why did he make viruses anyways? ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/396 "2013-11-10T20:31:07Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > The evidence doesn’t give the name of the intelligent agent. They just follow the evidence no matter where it leads. So, besides the name of the intelligent agent, how does intelligent design differ from creationism? ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/397 "2013-11-10T20:48:58Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > It’s a tongue-in-cheek response. It’s thought that ancient retroviral elements allow the formation of placentas in mammals. Since viruses are much older than mammals, your intelligent designer must have designed them millions of years in advance, but kept them on the backburner until mammals didn’t evolve. > > And why did he make viruses anyways? Most likely we don’t have the full knowledge. Just like when evolutionist thought about bad design in fish, it turns out there was a purpose for the design after all. I’m sure science will eventually answer these questions. Evolution can never answer the ID questions because evolution is slow change over millions of years. A self replicating cell is extremely complicated machine that is irreducibly complex. It can’t be accounted for by slow minute changes over millions of years. All the parts have to be in place all at once. You should google the minimum requirement of DNA that is needed to for life. “Bad Design” Debunked in a Fish: It Actually Achieves the Impossible > **["Bad Design" Debunked in a Fish: It Actually Achieves the Impossible |...](https://evolutionnews.org/2013/11/bad_design_debu/)** > > The National Science Foundation and U.S. Navy funded what amounts to de facto ID science. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/398 "2013-11-10T20:54:30Z")
And with repetition, the thread becomes a static lifeform. ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/399 "2013-11-10T20:57:22Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > So, besides the name of the intelligent agent, how does intelligent design differ from creationism? I suggest watching the video “Where does the Evidence Lead?” There is no religion just pure science. The scientist that wrote a book on chemical evolution eventually realized the proteins could not assemble themselves into a cell. He tells his story. ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/400 "2013-11-10T20:59:07Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And with repetition, the thread becomes a static lifeform. It takes a mantra to believe in evolution. It may take a mantra to overcome false stories. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=21)