# 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:** 22
**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, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/421 "2013-11-10T22:16:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Oooo, a crushing rebuttal! Thank you, thank you very much. ---
**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, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/422 "2013-11-10T22:18:44Z")
I am signing off. ---
**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, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/423 "2013-11-10T22:20:15Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > 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. where, in this thread, has it been stated that ‘creationists’ must believe in a 6000 year old earth? thats yet another strawman of your own. THere certainly is a set of creationists that believe that - but its not ‘all’ of them. Now - lets get specific - what is the one thing that ID provides that evolution does not? Where is the ‘evidence’ leading us? ---
**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, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/424 "2013-11-10T22:25:11Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > 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. You do not appear to be aware that it is the proponents of a theory who are responsible for providing the method of falsification. I agree that ID has not been subjected to being falsified–because its proponents know that it is not science and that they could not provide such. ---
**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, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/425 "2013-11-10T22:31:44Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Thank you, thank you very much. And _whoosh!_ ---
**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, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/426 "2013-11-10T22:44:20Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > 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. Oh! The persecution! Well, I’m sure that the trial transcript is available somewhere online. Maybe you can provide an example of this? I’m sure no ID proponent would ever quote a scientist out of context. As I mentioned previously, I did hear Kenneth Miller talk about the case. One anecdote he related did have to do with making Behe look a little foolish on the stand. As related by Miller, Behe is a short man. When he was testifying, the plaintiffs’ lawyer kept stacking piles of scientific papers supporting evolution in front of Behe while he was in the witness box and asking him if he was familiar with all the evidence for evolution. Soon Behe had to pop his head up over the mountains of papers in front of him to be seen when he was answering and it made him seem overwhelmed by the proof in front of him. Miller made the comment that this theatrical tactic gave him an appreciation of some good lawyering. Miller also related how this case was what the ID proponents said they had been asking for. Here was the chance to present their case in a neutral forum. But yet only Behe actually showed up. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/427 "2013-11-10T23:02:17Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > I have not heard of any studies done on the nerve of the giraffe, maybe because evolutionist believe their assumptions. Maybe if there was a study done, biology have may progress further. No such study was done because a perfectly valid explanation exists. We _already know_ why the giraffe’s nerve curves the way it does. The answer is there, the evidence is overwhelming, and there’s no need to look for an alternative. That answer: the giraffe evolved over time, from other mammals with considerably shorter necks. In the entire phylogeny, it’s typical for the laryngeal nerve to loop around the neck, and this wasn’t a huge detour for most, as they had shorter necks. As the giraffe was naturally selected for longer and longer necks, the nerve grew with the necks. [Here’s a source to start you off](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEAQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftsjok45.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F12%2Fgiraffeevolution.pdf&ei=aed_UreOE4_PsgaI24DQAQ&usg=AFQjCNFAtm9yZo7k_ePjrQ8MIi31xrPqng&sig2=wp6C-PgFzHm27tQZKgGFrw&bvm=bv.56146854,d.Yms&cad=rjt). This makes _perfect_ sense in the light of evolution, and _no_ sense in any intelligent design model. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Suppression of dissent against evolution is a widespread tactic of supporters of evolution. Suppression itself denies academic freedom and cases of suppression include denial of earned degrees, loss of careers, refusal to publish in peer reviewed journals, and government bans on even religious schools teaching students about creation or Intelligent Design. Well, it’s worth noting that there was actually [a high-profile court case which tried to validate intelligent design](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District). The result? ID was _routed_ by a conservative Christian judge. PBS has a [documentary](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html) which is quite telling. Hell, the biggest name behind ID at the time _refused_ to go on the stand and claim, under oath, that intelligent design fulfilled the criteria of a scientific theory. It was judged that intelligent design is _not_ science - in fact, in the case of the textbook presented in Dover, the textbook was literally copied from a creationist textbook with each example of “creation” replaced electronically with “intelligent design”. If new evidence arrived since then, then anyone could easily take it to court and try to get the verdict overturned. Unfortunately, there _haven’t_ been any advances in Intelligent Design. Because what can you do with it? Intelligent Design has no predictive _or_ explanatory power. Evolution, on the other hand, has both in spades. There is no denial of academic freedom. Oh, someone advocating ID may have trouble finding a job in a university, or having their research published, but so would someone who rejects germ theory. It’s embarrassing for a university to have them on their roster, and their papers are frequently _extremely_ bad. I welcome you to provide a _single_ case where an intelligent design advocate was censured or denied academic freedom without good reason. > [@](#): > > Suppression of dissenting views occurs in a number of fields other than evolution, including the Big Bang and Global warming. Suppression includes not just suppression of dissenting views, but discrimination against those holding dissenting views, or even those who are deemed (sometimes incorrectly) to be giving support to dissenting views. So… How 'bout some evidence? What are you talking about? > [@](#): > > [http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Suppression\_of\_dissent\_against\_evolution](http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution) The first real case of academic discrimination cited is _climategate_. Yeah, no. That site is full of shit. I’m sorry, climategate was in no way evidence of academic discrimination - they’re referring to the type of “discrimination” where a small group of scientists decide, privately, to not publish in or cite a scientific magazine that published a study that was bad. How bad? Well, _half the board of editors retired in protest_. That’s not academic discrimination. Even if the journal had done nothing wrong, it wouldn’t be academic discrimination - it’s a small group _privately_ deciding not to associate themselves with a journal. The way they go on to claim “Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”… No, I’m sorry, that’s _bullshit_. ID is not unscientific because it has never been published. ID is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable and has no predictive or explanatory power. Again, this is something Behe _refused to testify against_. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Only theories upon theories that turn out to be wrong. All the past hoaxes that was needed to get people to believe. > Hoaxes like the embryo drawings were continued to be used even after it was discovered to be a hoax. Whoever told you this is lying to you. [They do not understand why the drawings are in the textbooks to begin with](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaiPcZRqWms). > [@](#): > > Only the orthodox view of evolution is presented to the public. All dissenting views are silenced. Nobody is censuring ID. We aren’t presenting it in schools, as it’s unscientific and in essence creationism, but nobody is silencing dissenting views. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Intelligent design is discrimanted against so evolutionist do not have to face the arguments it makes. What, you mean like irreducible complexity, which was refuted again, and again, and again? Or fallacious arguments regarding the “probability”? > [@](#): > > Science is the opposite of faith. That is why evolution is a religion and not true science. When you look for evidence of evolution it just melts away. I don’t believe for a second that you _understand_ the evidence of evolution. Throughout this thread, you have offered misinformation after misinformation, and not once, regardless of how many times people have pointed out that your sources are dishonest or that your arguments are flawed, have you sat down and thought, “Huh, maybe I should study what I’m talking about”. Case in point: > [@jstucker15](#): > > Evolution Fraud and Myths to name a few: Tomndebb _completely destroyed_ these arguments. Can we get a recall? Any admission that you’re wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/428 "2013-11-10T23:12:26Z")
jstucker15, if you come back, here is a short list of things to do: 1. Provide falsification criteria for intelligent design. This is a basic necessity for any scientific theory; a way to prove it wrong. 2. Demonstrate that you _understand_ the evidence for evolution in any reasonable way 3. Provide real evidence that ID proponents have been shut out of journals for reasons other than “their arguments are wrong and potentially harmful”. I’m not going to hold my breath. ---
**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, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/429 "2013-11-10T23:30:51Z")
I will fix your quote nesting errors, because I didn’t say what you say I said. > [@jstucker15](#): > > > [@Musicat](#): > > > > Ignorance again. You are confusing 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. Evolution doesn’t address the question of how life began. You think it does, but since it doesn’t, you claim it is flawed? Straw man much? > [@](#): > > If the evidence shows life is too complex to have created itself, then evolution is a complete waste of time. Evolution is not abiogenesis. What can we say to make you understand that? > [@](#): > > An intelligent agent is inferred. Only in your mind. Just because _you_ can’t explain something doesn’t mean Goddit. Just because _you_ can’t explain something doesn’t mean others can’t, and they have. This has been explained to you several times in this thread. There really is no point in you continuing to spout this ignorant statement. It doesn’t get any better from repetition. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/430 "2013-11-11T00:02:09Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > . Dude there is this little known (sarcasm) thing called [Confirmation bias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) that you should be aware of. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/431 "2013-11-11T01:23:01Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > As I mentioned previously, I did hear Kenneth Miller talk about the case. One anecdote he related did have to do with making Behe look a little foolish on the stand. > > As related by Miller, Behe is a short man. When he was testifying, the plaintiffs’ lawyer kept stacking piles of scientific papers supporting evolution in front of Behe while he was in the witness box and asking him if he was familiar with all the evidence for evolution. Soon Behe had to pop his head up over the mountains of papers in front of him to be seen when he was answering and it made him seem overwhelmed by the proof in front of him. > > Miller made the comment that this theatrical tactic gave him an appreciation of some good lawyering. Behe has written OpEds for the Times where he says he accepts most of evolution, and he definitely accepts an old earth. I’m sure he doesn’t bring this up when speaking to his creationist friends. He claims there is intervention in the development of life, but at least he doesn’t claim God poofed us into existence. I suspect **jstucker15** would not be pleased. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/432 "2013-11-11T01:49:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > he doesn’t claim God poofed us into existence. He doesn’t want to get in trouble with his homophobic compatriots 🙂 ---
**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 11, 2013, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/433 "2013-11-11T08:37:27Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You do not appear to be aware that it is the proponents of a theory who are responsible for providing the method of falsification. I agree that ID has not been subjected to being falsified–because its proponents know that it is not science and that they could not provide such. I’ve a feeling that the term and concept of ‘falsification’ itself might be the problem. “not falsifiable” might sound like a plus point to some people, but of course it means the same as “not verifiable” to anyone in the know. So, **jstucker15**. Falsification works like this: If I make a claim, part of that claim needs to be a test criterion of the type “If my claim is wrong, here’s how you’ll know it…” - that way, in advance of any argument about the truth of my claim, we can be sure the parameters of truth or falsity have been defined. For example: I claim I can levitate vegetables with my mind. Someone tests me with an onion and I say “Oh, I can’t actually levitate onions. Try me with something else”; someone tests me with a potato and I say “Oh, but it’s Monday - I’ve never been able to levitate potatoes on a Monday - I thought you knew that!” - and so on. Because I have not provided falsification criteria, nothing can be nailed down. So what are the falsification criteria for ID. If ID is wrong, how could this be tested and established? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/434 "2013-11-11T11:18:00Z")
Just for reference, before someone makes false claims about evolution, here are a few falsification criteria for parts of evolution: - Fossils of species known to be fairly recent showing up in ancient strata - Hybrids of extant, long-since-divergent species being found (something like the crocoduck - have I mentioned that Kirk Cameron is kind of stupid and dishonest?) - An organism giving birth to another organism of a different species …Just to name a few. Of course, of those, the last two are actually things many creationists seem to think evolution _predicts_. Which is more than a little bit silly. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/435 "2013-11-11T13:45:05Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > something like the crocoduck - have I mentioned that Kirk Cameron is kind of stupid and dishonest > …Just to name a few. Of course, of those, the last two are actually things many creationists seem to think evolution _predicts_. Which is more than a little bit silly. No, he’s not stupid and they are not silly. They \*actually are \*very dishonest. Really, **jstucker15** , you are being misled by some very evil people. For your own sake put a bit of study in the subject. Or another tact, just for giggles, imagine it is the ID camp that is lying. Just imagine, what would you expect to see? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/436 "2013-11-11T14:46:01Z")
Look , just ask yourself. Which is more likely? 1. All the thousands upon thousands of scientists, all over fucking the world, a lot of them religious at that, are all involved in a giant conspiracy to keep the truth from you. 2. A handful of (admittedly very loud) Americans are lying, to keep the truth from you. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/437 "2013-11-11T17:02:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Define the objective standard of morality. Is it the one some of us in the West use today, is it the one my ancestors in Israel used, or is it one we’ll use in 100 years? > But I do agree morality comes from an intelligent source - humans. It is what God gave us. Where do you think your logic comes from? You think that comes from humans too? ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/438 "2013-11-11T17:03:36Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Look , just ask yourself. Which is more likely? > > 1. All the thousands upon thousands of scientists, all over fucking the world, a lot of them religious at that, are all involved in a giant conspiracy to keep the truth from you. > > 2. A handful of (admittedly very loud) Americans are lying, to keep the truth from you. Argumentum ad populum ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/439 "2013-11-11T17:05:26Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > I will fix your quote nesting errors, because I didn’t say what you say I said. > Evolution doesn’t address the question of how life began. You think it does, but since it doesn’t, you claim it is flawed? Straw man much?Evolution is not abiogenesis. What can we say to make you understand that?Only in your mind. Just because _you_ can’t explain something doesn’t mean Goddit. Just because _you_ can’t explain something doesn’t mean others can’t, and they have. This has been explained to you several times in this thread. There really is no point in you continuing to spout this ignorant statement. It doesn’t get any better from repetition. When the public school books take abiogenesis out of the evolution unit, you can make the claim that they are unrelated. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/440 "2013-11-11T17:16:43Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Argumentum ad populum If so, you are misconstruing the argument. The argument under question here isn’t whether or not something is true because most people believe it but whether or not the majority of the world’s scientists (including Christians) are engaged in a world spanning conspiracy to withhold the truth. It’s closer to reductio ad absurdum since it is unlikely, to the point of ridicule, that such a massive and widespread conspiracy could exist, particularly for so long and across political divisions, religions (as most scientists who are Christian are also buying into it), and philosophies. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > When the public school books take abiogenesis out of the evolution unit, you can make the claim that they are unrelated. Which public school texts (particularly on biology)? All of them? Across all 50 states? That’s a strong claim, and one I’d like to see backed. It certainly wasn’t in the textbook I used in high school (admittedly a while back). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=23)