Why is it that one of the most common arguments for apologetics is that "Science can't prove God", yet the same people are using science (sort of) to prove that there is a God? Just like those who cherry pick their Holy Books, they also cherry pick at science. Is there a way to get people to stop trying to use science and use logic...simple everyday logic and still prove that there is no God? I understand that given what we know about science goes against what is in the bible. however, many people are up on science enough to make the discernment. Any suggestions?
Asylum said, "Why is it that one of the most common arguments for apologetics is that "Science can't prove God", yet the same people are using science (sort of) to prove that there is a God?
Science does not try to prove anything about god. In order for science to prove something about anything "it" has to be defined or (described) and there has to be some observable or logical evidence to support "its" existence. Opinions are not facts and theists are only trying to make facts fit what they already believe. That is not the way science works. Their ideas are not scientific or proof of anything. I can believe something is true but if it cannot be proven then it isn't the truth. No instance of a supernatural explanation supplanting a 'natural cause' has ever been observed. And yes we have observed 'natural cause' in the laboratory.
Asylum said, "Just like those who cherry pick their Holy Books, they also cherry pick at science. Is there a way to get people to stop trying to use science and use logic...simple everyday logic and still prove that there is no God?"
No! Logic does not lead anyone to believe that there is a god. You have to abandon all logic to believe a Supernatural Being magically created everything in a week. What 'caused' the Creator.
Asylum said, "I understand that given what we know about science goes against what is in the bible. However, many people are up on science enough to make the discernment. Any suggestions?"
First you need to understand that is the Creationists or advocates of Intelligent Design who try to make science fit their beliefs. Science is not trying to prove anything about god. However, none of the scientific discoveries support what they already believe. That is why Creationists want to prove science is wrong. Creationist try to prove scientists wrong by confiscating Evolution or the Big Bang theory (scientific theories) to prove that there is a god or creator. Everything that exists is either matter or energy. Did "the Creator" make the Universe from something or nothing? If the apologists can't tell us what god is made of or what god made the Universe from than they haven't answered anything. They tried unsuccessfully to get around the fact that their arguments for a Creator is religion not science by arguing that the concept of a "Creator" could be treated scientifically. The Creationist apparently didn't learn a lesson from those failures. Creationists have not presented a scientifically acceptable alternative theory to evolution. What is the alternative theory to the Big Bang that is offered by Creationist? I can tell you that they don't have one. Because to say that the Big Bang could not have happened without a Creator is not true and is not science. Creationists say that Intelligent Design provides empirical scientific criteria for detecting design in nature. Detecting design but not detecting the designer. They say that science doesn't have to identify the designer. A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about design, and it sure is not science. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some explicitly say they cannot be included.
Creationist criticize the theory of Evolution but they have not shown that they have a theory that can account for any of the data evolution accounts for, and they have not provided any reason for believing that their theory or (intelligent design) even has the potential to produce anything useful to science. There are all sorts of findings and experiments that could have falsified evolution. In the century-and-a-half since Darwin published his theory, not one has.
Proponents of intelligent design (ID) assert that certain complex biological systems could not emerge from a gradual evolutionary process. They argue instead that such structures are best explained via the deliberate action of an unspecified intelligent designer. Real scientists understand that the prolonged action of natural selection can be expected to leave traces behind in the structure of modern organisms. And when scientists go looking for those traces they invariably find them in droves.
Natural selection operates by preserving small, favorable variations that occur naturally in any population of organisms. Over time these variations accumulate to the point that large-scale change is the result. This implies that natural selection works by modifying structures already present in the organism. It does not craft new, complex systems from scratch. This observation is crucial in distinguishing between those systems that could have been crafted by selection and those that could not have been. If we find that a particular organism possesses a complex system made from parts wholly distinct from anything to be found in the organism's closest evolutionary cousins it will be difficult to explain that system via selection. But if we find that the system appears to be cobbled together from parts that were readily available, then natural selection remains a strong candidate. Charles Darwin employed this principle in his studies of the complex systems used by orchids to attract pollinating insects. He discovered that these contrivances, as he called them, were indeed fashioned out of modified versions of parts present in closely related flowers. Stephen Jay Gould famously used the panda's "thumb" to illustrate the same principle. Some Creationist or Ider's tried to use the fact that pandas possesses a sixth digit on its front paws that it uses to strip the leaves off of bamboo. This digit is not a true opposable thumb like that possessed by apes and humans. If it were, we would have a strong argument against natural selection in this case, since the panda's closest relatives have nothing like such a thumb. In reality, however, the panda's thumb is cobbled together from alterations in the bones found in the paws of other bears. Since examples like these are ubiquitous in nature, natural selection passes its first big test.
The picture has cleared up dramatically in the past few years thanks to large-scale studies of mammal DNA. These studies indicate that giant pandas and red pandas are only distantly related. Their common ancestor lived 40 million years ago. One lineage gave rise to bears, including giant pandas. Another lineage gave rise to red pandas as well as skunks, raccoons, and weasels.
Design advocates do not admit that the Intelligent Designer' is god because they want it taught in science class (along with dinosaurs and cavemen cavorting together) they say it's not religion. ID is not science, but a form of creationism. The latest version of ID maintains that a 'Designer' must intervene miraculously to accomplish certain natural scientific events. The verdict in the case in Dover PA. Over ID being taught as science in the School was a landmark decision of American jurisprudence. That decision prohibited the teaching of ID as science (it's not science) and identified it as religiously based, and forbade it from being introduction into public school classes as science.
Religion was simply man's attempt to understand the world before there was science. When the Greek philosophers began to develop science they also began to become skeptics, and that's what led to the burning of the library of Alexandria. Similar to the struggle that is going on today between teaching Creation pseudo-science or real science. There is no scientific theory that involves a creator.
Well. I don't know what you get that, but all people use the same observational science.
The argument of "cherry-picking" evidence is the usual malpractice of those who hold the view of intelligent design.
I was taught that creationists don't fight over the evidence with evolutionists. For we have the same earth, same facts, and thus the same evidence. Creationists fight with evolutionists over the INTERPRETATION over the evidence. Creationists start with the Bible as a source of their interpretation of what happened to the past. Secularists consider the Bible as an invalid source of evidence.
Most evolutionists are naturalists; they use the current natural processes as their method of interpreting what happened to the past.
This is an issue concerning origins science.