# 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:** 21
**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, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/401 "2013-11-10T21:03:11Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Just like when evolutionist thought about bad design in fish, it turns out there was a purpose for the design after all. Provide the name of any “evolutionist” that claimed that fish had a “bad design.” What you have presented is a straw man argument. You pretend that your opponent has made an argument, then you demolish the argument that you created, and declare “victory” over a position your opponent never held. I read your link. No evolutionary scientist was quoted. The people who claimed that one could not have both stability and maneuverability were engineers, not evolutionary scientists. Until you provide a quote from an evolutionary scientist about the motion of the fish being “wasteful,” you have done nothing but create a straw man for you to tear down. Once again, we see people pushing Creationism, (or its stealth cousin Intelligent Design), bearing false witness. Imagine that. ---
**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, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/402 "2013-11-10T21:04:57Z")
> [@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. How hard should we try looking for the explanation for any given thing before we just give up and assume it happened by magic? ID is an aggressive effort to try to get people not to be inquisitive, to stop thinking about things and stop looking for the right answer. ---
**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, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/403 "2013-11-10T21:07:21Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > It takes a mantra to believe in evolution. It may take a mantra to overcome false stories. You mean like the false stories that Creationists have told about Nebraska Man, Orce Man, and Lucy? Or like the claim that you keep posting without any evidence or citation that “Intelligent Design” has been demonstrated when every claim for ID has already been disproved by 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, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/404 "2013-11-10T21:08:39Z")
> [@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 keep making this claim in spite of ID being disproven over and over. What is your source for this nonsense? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/405 "2013-11-10T21:21:40Z")
I find it very telling that the site devoted to “Intelligent Design” gets a domain name of “[evolutionnews.org](http://evolutionnews.org)” so that it can masquerade as something its not. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/406 "2013-11-10T21:24:26Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Yes astrology used to be science. In the future will be laughing about evolution being science. Astrology was _never_ science. One definition of [science is:](https://www.google.com/#q=define%22+science) > [@](#): > > the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Astrology was never subject to hypothesis and testing. In more recent times, when it was tested, it failed. Miserably. There never was any scientific basis to astrology to begin with, nor any credible mechanism as to how it could work. This is why it was discarded. [Here’s how science works.](http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-3.htm) Just because something looks scientific (to you) and was a long time ago doesn’t mean it was science. The scientific method wasn’t even developed until a few hundred years ago and when it is applied to most ancient beliefs, they fail. That’s why they are not science. Evolution, on the other hand, has been tested, observed in the laboratory, evidence seen in physical records, and is such a unifying theory that without it, nothing in biology makes any sense at all. > [@jstucker15](#): > > 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. Ken Miller refuted this expertly in court in the _Dover_ case, referenced above. He proved this hypothesis terribly wrong, and brought a stack of books and papers to the court to back him up. The parts do _not_ have to be in place all at once, and no machine has been found yet that couldn’t have been built from less complex parts. Indeed, we have numerous examples of exactly those parts. You are spouting falsehoods and ignorance. This is nothing new and we’ve seen it all before. You have been given refutations, yet you continue to repeat your mistakes. The fingers-in-ears philosophy is a child’s tactic. “La, la, la, I can’t hear you!” ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/407 "2013-11-10T21:25:40Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I find it very telling that the site devoted to “Intelligent Design” gets a domain name of “[evolutionnews.org](http://evolutionnews.org)” so that it can masquerade as something its not. Well, they call it “alternative medicine” or “complimentary medicine” when it’s not medicine. It’s a common tactic. ---
**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, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/408 "2013-11-10T21:25:55Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > 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. I probably will. but it’s Sunday and I’m watching football. I did Google “minimum requirement of DNA that is needed to for life”. The third hit is [The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein - Answers in Genesis](http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/the-origin-of-life). In that link, they answer the question you seem to be avoiding: > [@](#): > > From what we know about the chemistry of the molecules involved, it really looks like the molecules could never put themselves together into living cells apart from the careful selection, engineering genius, and deliberate design of the Transcendent Creative Intelligence we call God! Is this where you get your biology? Is this supposed to open my eyes? You’ve said all molecular machines and enzymes are proteins. You never answered my question about what type of molecule actually strings amino acids together into peptide chains. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/409 "2013-11-10T21:31:46Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > . . . Astrology was never subject to hypothesis and testing. In more recent times, when it was tested, it failed. . . . Well, it was always subject to the same tests performed more recently. Even the ancient Sumerians could have done controlled tests, double-blind challenges, and the like. The problem with astrology isn’t that it isn’t falsifiable. The problem with it is that it has been falsified! ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/410 "2013-11-10T21:32:44Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I find it very telling that the site devoted to “Intelligent Design” gets a domain name of “[evolutionnews.org](http://evolutionnews.org)” so that it can masquerade as something its not. Not that surprising; literally the whole point of “Intelligent Design” is to pretend it’s something it’s not. It’s just a very thin mask for plain old creationism. Even the [courts](http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-1140156.html) say so. ---
**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, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/411 "2013-11-10T21:33:44Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Astrology was _never_ science. One definition of [science is:](https://www.google.com/#q=define%22+science)Astrology was never subject to hypothesis and testing. In more recent times, when it was tested, it failed. Miserably. There never was any scientific basis to astrology to begin with, nor any credible mechanism as to how it could work. This is why it was discarded. > > [Here’s how science works.](http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-3.htm) > > Just because something looks scientific (to you) and was a long time ago doesn’t mean it was science. The scientific method wasn’t even developed until a few hundred years ago and when it is applied to most ancient beliefs, they fail. That’s why they are not science. > > Evolution, on the other hand, has been tested, observed in the laboratory, evidence seen in physical records, and is such a unifying theory that without it, nothing in biology makes any sense at all. > > Ken Miller refuted this expertly in court in the _Dover_ case, referenced above. He proved this hypothesis terribly wrong, and brought a stack of books and papers to the court to back him up. The parts do _not_ have to be in place all at once, and no machine has been found yet that couldn’t have been built from less complex parts. Indeed, we have numerous examples of exactly those parts. > > You are spouting falsehoods and ignorance. This is nothing new and we’ve seen it all before. You have been given refutations, yet you continue to repeat your mistakes. The fingers-in-ears philosophy is a child’s tactic. “La, la, la, I can’t hear you!” Today we see no non-replicating cells in the process of evolution built little by little. Nor can it be done under laboratory conditions. If evolution were true there should be billions of non DNA cells building themselves up until DNA replication is achieved. Evolution utterly fails to explain it. Intelligent design has a better explanation. ---
**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, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/412 "2013-11-10T21:37:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Not that surprising; literally the whole point of “Intelligent Design” is to pretend it’s something it’s not. It’s just a very thin mask for plain old creationism. Even the [courts](http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-1140156.html) say so. You have been indoctrinated with propaganda. What the video on “Where the Evidence Leads?” You will be surprised. ---
**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, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/413 "2013-11-10T21:40:40Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Well, it was always subject to the same tests performed more recently. Even the ancient Sumerians could have done controlled tests, double-blind challenges, and the like. > > The problem with astrology isn’t that it isn’t falsifiable. The problem with it is that it has been falsified! ID has not been falsified. That’s the problem. That is why evolutionist keep saying they are creationist and believe the earth is 6,000 years old. They are blowing smoke so you don’t investigate. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/414 "2013-11-10T21:40:57Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Today we see no non-replicating cells in the process of evolution built little by little. Nor can it be done under laboratory conditions. If evolution were true there should be billions of non DNA cells building themselves up until DNA replication is achieved. Evolution utterly fails to explain it. Intelligent design has a better explanation. Ignorance again. You are confusing [abiogenesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) (the origin of life) with evolution (how life reproduces and changes). ID is not an explanation of anything. It’s an excuse when all other explanations fail to satisfy someone who is dying to find a religious reason and has decided to stop searching for a natural one. Can you give an example of a scientific discovery made by ID? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/415 "2013-11-10T21:50:35Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Today we see no non-replicating cells in the process of evolution built little by little. Nor can it be done under laboratory conditions. If evolution were true there should be billions of non DNA cells building themselves up until DNA replication is achieved. Nonsense. Science doesn’t claim that life originated as cells being spontaneously built like that. And the lack of crude life forms appearing anymore if explained easily enough; anything heading in the direction of life gets eaten by already existing life long before it can remotely qualify as alive. And as said the origin of life isn’t the same thing as evolution in the first place. Even in some other world where life really was artificially created by passing aliens or something, there would still be evolution. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Intelligent design has a better explanation. No, “intelligent design” _aka_ creationism just throws up its hands and says a wizard did it. It explains nothing. > [@jstucker15](#): > > You have been indoctrinated with propaganda. Hardly, you are describing your own position, not mine. Intelligent design is literally nothing but propaganda. There is nothing whatsoever of worth to it; it’s just creationism with a paper-thin mask. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/416 "2013-11-10T21:53:14Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > ID has not been falsified. It can’t be; it’s not a scientific proposition. If you don’t get that there’s no way you can contribute meaningfully to this conversation. ---
**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, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/417 "2013-11-10T21:57:07Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > You have been indoctrinated with propaganda. What the video on “Where the Evidence Leads?” You will be surprised. You should read this link about ID proponent Michael Behe’s _Dover_ testimony: > [@](#): > > [Michael Behe - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony) Some nuggets: > [@](#): > > Behe was forced to concede that “there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”[43] and that his definition of ‘theory’ as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify.[44] > [@](#): > > Behe was forced to agree that “the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond” and that “it’s entirely possible that something that couldn’t be produced in the lab in two years… could be produced over three and half billion years.”[45][46][46] From Judge Jones’s findings: > [@](#): > > “Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.”[47] > > “ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that ‘irreducibly complex’ systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.”[51] > > “Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor ‘missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,’ what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.”[52] I somehow think you won’t be surprised, though. ---
**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, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/418 "2013-11-10T22:02:47Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Ignorance again. You are confusing [abiogenesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) (the origin of life) with evolution (how life reproduces and changes). > I am aware of this. This is one of the problems with evolution. It jumps ahead without any explanation on how life arrived in the first place. If the evidence shows life is too complex to have created itself, then evolution is a complete waste of time. An intelligent agent is inferred. Just as we see the images of four presidents on the side of a mountain we can infer it wasn’t caused by rain and erosion. We don’t have to be religious to infer someone created it. > > Just as SETI scientist can infer an alien intelligence by the signal they receive. Think about it how were the scientist going to prove intelligent life in the universe if they can not infer it by the signal? No signal would be proof because they may be trying to satisfy their belief in extra terrestrials. This is what you are saying. > > In this century we know enough about chemistry to know there is no natural explanation. > > ID is not an explanation of anything. It’s an excuse when all other explanations fail to satisfy someone who is dying to find a religious reason and has decided to stop searching for a natural one. > Can you give an example of a scientific discovery made by ID? … ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/419 "2013-11-10T22:09:11Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > … Oooo, a crushing rebuttal! ---
**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, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/420 "2013-11-10T22:15:19Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > You should read this link about ID proponent Michael Behe’s _Dover_ testimony: > > I have read about t Michael Behe’s testimony before. How they took him out of context. > > When the evidence he presents can’t be denied, then attack and destroy him on a personal level. > > Behe use to believe in evolution when he was going to school. Later he began to realize something wrong with evolution. He knows something you don’t. He is also in the DVD “Where does the evidence Lead?”. > > Some nuggets: > > I don’t know why I am always short 2 characters. What is wrong with this website? > From Judge Jones’s findings: > I somehow think you won’t be surprised, though. I don’t know why I am always short 2 characters. What is wrong with this website? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=22)