[Tom Bishop]

What are you talking about? ID is about whether biology and evolution was guided by intelligent processes. The existence of a God is not in the scope of that.

Rather than making up arguments, you should probably just admit that Science is espousing things without sufficient experimental evidence.

Wait.  So you quoted this... "Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, “irreducible complexity,” “complex specified information,” and “icons of evolution,” have been thoroughly examined and refuted."

You said that was evidence that science is declaring God does not exist because they are against the theory of ID.

But now you say that ID has nothing to do with the existence God.

So, if ID has nothing to do with the existence of god, how can refuting that theory be saying God doesn't exist?

You are digging a deep, deep hole here.

I didn't say that ID has nothing to do with the existence of God. ID is about whether evolution and biology is guided by intelligent processes, which may include, and is typically associated with God. ID is not about whether God exists or not. Got that?

Science is telling us that the ID has been thoroughly refuted, and there is an official position in the AAAS that ID is wrong.

How did they create this official position to tell us what is and is not wrong in science without the necessary experimental evidence that the Scientific Method demands? The standard mantra is that scientific truth can only come from experimentation. Where are the experiments?

[JSS]

What are you talking about? ID is about whether biology and evolution was guided by intelligent processes. The existence of a God is not in the scope of that.

Rather than making up arguments, you should probably just admit that Science is espousing things without sufficient experimental evidence.

I didn't say that ID has nothing to do with God. ID is about wheter evolution and bioligy is guided by intelligent processes, which may include, and is typically accociated with God. ID is not about whether God exists or not. Got that?

You did say exactly that.

Also, "Evolution is guided by some kind of intelligence which may be God or not" is not science, it's not asking a question that can't be answered. Got that?

[Tom Bishop]

What are you talking about? ID is about whether biology and evolution was guided by intelligent processes. The existence of a God is not in the scope of that.

Rather than making up arguments, you should probably just admit that Science is espousing things without sufficient experimental evidence.

I didn't say that ID has nothing to do with God. ID is about wheter evolution and bioligy is guided by intelligent processes, which may include, and is typically accociated with God. ID is not about whether God exists or not. Got that?

You did say exactly that.

You are mistaken. I said that the question of the existence of God is not in the scope of ID. ID is not about whether God exists or not. It is about what God, or an intelligence, did. The objective question of whether "God exists" outside of what this intelligent process may or may not have done is related, but not in the scope of ID.

Also, "Evolution is guided by some kind of intelligence which may be God or not" is not science, it's not asking a question that can't be answered. Got that?

I agree. It's not science. Published scientific papers, scientists, the AAAS, and science are wrong to talk about how ID has been refuted. They are wrong to create a position that ID is wrong without sufficient experimental evidence. Scientists are wrongly espousing these positions, and are hypocritical.

[JSS]

You are mistaken. I said that the existence of God is not in the scope of ID. ID is not about whether God exists or not. It is about what God, or an intelligence, did. Whether "God exists" outside what this intelligent process did or did not do is not in the scope of ID.

You were using the papers arguments against ID as evidence the paper was arguing against God. That's pretty clearly you saying that ID is related to God.

Science is not anti-God, science doesn't say if God exists or not. People can be anti-God. Some scientists are religious, some are anti-religious, some don't care. Just like everyone else.

Lets try this again.

I state that no scientific paper says God does not exist.

Quote me a scientific paper that says God does not exist to prove me wrong.

[Tom Bishop]

They don't talk about that, and would not attempt such an argument. They are arguing about what God, or the intelligent process, did. You said it yourself:

"God did it" is not a theory.  You can't prove or disprove it.

It can't be proven or disproven. So these scientists are talking nonsense about things which have been refuted, and are hypocritical to create official positions on this matter.

[JSS]

They don't talk about that, and would not attempt such an argument. They are arguing about what God, or the intelligent process, did. You said it yourself:

"God did it" is not a theory.  You can't prove or disprove it.

It can't be proven or disproven. So these scientists are talking nonsense about things which have been refuted, and are hypocritical to create official positions on this matter.

I state that no scientific paper says God does not exist.

Quote me a scientific paper that says God does not exist to prove me wrong.

[Tom Bishop]

I never claimed that there were. If someone claimed that they disproved God in a physical science they would be laughed at. Science Journals have some standards. You have to at least be talking about something physical, even if the Science Journal contains a litany of pseudoscience otherwise. I am sure that there are probably papers which make or suggest that conclusion in Philosophy journals.

A particle physicist wrote this book: God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

I doubt that even a pseudoscientific physical science journal would publish a paper with that title. The journals have a modicum of standard to keep things physical, even if the scientists themselves do not and are blatant, biased, unscientific hypocrites.

[JSS]

I state that no scientific paper says God does not exist.

Quote me a scientific paper that says God does not exist to prove me wrong.

I never claimed that there were. If someone claimed that they disproved God in a peer reviewed physical science they would be laughed at. Science Journals have some standards. You have to at least be talking about physical evidence or something physical, even if the Science Journal contains a litany of pseudoscience otherwise. I am sure that there are probably papers which make or suggest that conclusion in Philosophy journals.

Ok, good to know you are no longer claiming that, but you did. Your first comment here claimed that science is trying to disprove God, that science is all about it's anti-religion bias.  I've quoted it again.

So yes, while not espousing any particular position, it really all has to do with religion. From the very beginning it was really all about science trying to disprove God. A shameful bias.

If you want to claim that as your opinion that's fine. But don't go stating it as a fact without proof to back it up. Saying "well a scientist wrote a book about hating religion" is the same as me saying "well a member of group X wrote a book about Y so all X are Y". There are plenty of religious scientists. There is no science King or science Pope that is calling down orders and commands. It's just people.

[Tom Bishop]

Obviously no physical science journal is going to approve a paper called "God Does Not Exist". Is the Journal of Applied Physics supposed to publish that one?

Why should it have to be in a science journal to know what the scientists, in general, are thinking?

The largest organization has an official position on ID. Scores of scientists are writing books about how God does not exist and that science prevails. Clearly a theme.

Back to the Ancient Greeks:

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/aristotle-on-religion/

Aristotle is highly critical of the anthropomorphizing of divinities, pervasive throughout Greek culture. He thinks not only that the stories told about the traditional gods are absurd, but that these gods do not exist, though he is prepared to allow that certain myths about the gods are possibly more edifying than others. So, Aristotle thinks that Greek "religion" is mostly irredeemably false.

Aristotile is somewhat of an athiest.

In the first chapter, Segev gives an account of Aristotle's reasons for rejecting traditional religion. As he demonstrates, Aristotle's rejection follows from his own scientific philosophy, especially as this is found in his physics, ethics, and metaphysics.

Aristotile used his science to try and reject religion.

This is how Western Science started; to try and reject religion. That was the purpose of it from the very start. It continues today.

[JSS]

This is how Western Science started; to try and reject religion. That was the purpose of it from the very start. It continues today.

Again, this is your opinion, which is fine. You can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't make it a fact. Saying it does not make it true.

A fact is science journals will not publish 'proofs' about the existence of non-existence of God.

A fact is that there are a LOT of scientists who are openly religious. They do NOT all hate religion.

I'm sorry that some scientific findings threaten your faith, but that's not science's problem. Plenty of people have no problem believing in both science AND religion. That you make it into a fight into one or the other doesn't mean everyone does.

[Tom Bishop]

This is how Western Science started; to try and reject religion. That was the purpose of it from the very start. It continues today.

Again, this is your opinion, which is fine. You can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't make it a fact. Saying it does not make it true.

I'm not the only one saying it. The historian said it.

Can you show that the historian is wrong?

A fact is science journals will not publish 'proofs' about the existence of non-existence of God.

A fact is that there are a LOT of scientists who are openly religious. They do NOT all hate religion.

I'm sorry that some scientific findings threaten your faith, but that's not science's problem. Plenty of people have no problem believing in both science AND religion. That you make it into a fight into one or the other doesn't mean everyone does.

I never claimed that they all hate religion. Nor does this have anything to do with threatening my faith, as I try not to ascribe to any. These are merely facts. Science and religion has a long, intertwined history.

I understand that you don't like that scientists tie themselves into religion, and are clearly threatened by this, as it shows these scientists to have an underlying philosophy. But that is simply the truth. There is, in general, an underlying philosophy in science.

The truth may be that you are threatened, because you have a faith.

A dirty, unscientific faith and philosophy which does not follow the Scientific Method.

[JSS]

This is how Western Science started; to try and reject religion. That was the purpose of it from the very start. It continues today.

Again, this is your opinion, which is fine. You can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't make it a fact. Saying it does not make it true.

I'm not saying it. The historian said it.

Can you show that this historian is wrong?

( "I'm not saying it, I'm just pointing out other people are saying..." the classic way to say things and deny you said them. )

I'm sure Aristotle said those things. So what? Are you calming Aristotle was the King of Science and that all scientists swear fealty to him and follow his commands to destroy religion?

Again, I'm not saying there aren't scientists that hate religion. But your claims that the whole of science is biased against religion and the it's purpose from the start was to destroy religion is bunk. I've been to college, I've never been indoctrinated into some secret cabal and ordered to fake research with the goal of destroying religion.  Nonsense.

A fact is science journals will not publish 'proofs' about the existence of non-existence of God.

A fact is that there are a LOT of scientists who are openly religious. They do NOT all hate religion.

I'm sorry that some scientific findings threaten your faith, but that's not science's problem. Plenty of people have no problem believing in both science AND religion. That you make it into a fight into one or the other doesn't mean everyone does.

I never claimed that they all hate religion. Nor did I claim anything about anything threatening my faith, which does not factor into this, as I try not to ascribe to any. These are merely facts. Science and religion has a long, intertwined history.

I understand that YOU don't like that scientists tie themselves into religion, and are clearly threatened by this, as it shows these scientists to have an underlying philosophy. But that is simply the truth. There is, in general, an underlying philosophy in science.

The truth is that YOU are threatened, because YOU have a faith.

I'm not threatened, I'm just annoyed that you keep claiming things you can't back up. I don't care if a scientist is religious, anti-religious, or other. I know there are plenty of all religious, moral and political affiliations.  You are the one claiming "science" has this evil God-killing goal, and all your proof is that some scientists don't like religion. Well, go figure. Scientists are human and have opinions.

The underlying philosophy in science is to understand the physical world.

I have seen zero proof there is anyone guiding it to destroy anything.

You want some examples too contrast to yours? Here. I'll just list some random ones from Wikipedia.

John Ray (1627–1705): An english botanist who wrote "The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation" (1691)
Isaac Milner (1750–1820): Lucasian Professor of Mathematics known for work on an important process to fabricate Nitrous acid. He was also an evangelical Anglican who co-wrote Ecclesiastical History of the Church of Christ with his brother.
Stephen Barr (born 1953): physicist who worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory and contributed papers to Physical Review as well as Physics Today. He also is a Catholic who writes for First Things and wrote Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.
George Francis Rayner Ellis (born 1939): professor of Complex Systems in the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. He co-authored The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with University of Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking, published in 1973, and is considered one of the world's leading theorists in cosmology. He is an active Quaker and in 2004 he won the Templeton Prize.

So many.  I'll leave you with this.

J. Richard Gott (born 1947): professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University.

When asked of his religious views in relation to his science, Gott responded that "I’m a Presbyterian. I believe in God; I always thought that was the humble position to take. I like what Einstein said: "God is subtle but not malicious." I think if you want to know how the universe started, that's a legitimate question for physics. But if you want to know why it's here, then you may have to know—to borrow Stephen Hawking's phrase—the mind of God."[275]

[JSS]

The truth may be that you are threatened, because you have a faith.

A dirty, unscientific faith and philosophy which does not follow the Scientific Method.

Two pieces of advice, try not to attack people, and maybe stop deleting your posts, re-posting them and editing them for ten minutes after.

Maybe sit and read it over a few times before you hit reply, so people don't miss all the edits and changes after they respond.

I think I'm done with this conversation.  I try and stick to things that can be argued like facts, and this is just too heated and full of opinion.  Religion and conspiracy theories are not arguments anyone can win.

I must strengthen my willpower and resist such temptations in the future...

[Tom Bishop]

Those are interesting references but those some-scientists-are-religious references are generally about scientists redefining God from the standard historical religious contexts. Now find us a modern contemporary scientist held in high regard who claims:

"Creationism was right all along!"

or

"The world REALLY IS 6000 years old!"

or

"The Earth is the central body of the Universe!"

Support any of those positions and you are rejected from normal science discourse. You are deemed a quack scientist or whatever. They don't believe in the scriptures, or that they could be true.

Newton supported a young earth, but his alt-beliefs are usually hidden in Science education, as it goes against the vibe.

[JSS]

Those are interesting references but those some-scientists-are-religious references are generally about scientists redefining God from the standard religious context. Now find us a modern contemporary scientist held in high regard who claims:

"Creationism was right all along!"

or

"The world REALLY IS 6000 years old!"

or

"The Earth is the central body of the Universe!"

Support any of those positions and you are rejected from normal science discourse. You are deemed a quack scientist or whatever. They don't believe in the scriptures, or that they could possibly be true.

Newton supported a young earth, but that's usually hidden in the scientific education, as it goes against the vibe.

Oh God, here I am breaking my promise to myself 60 seconds after I made it.

Tom, when you say religion do you really mean Christian fundamentalists? Because they are the only ones who believe those things.

There is a whole world out there, full of Christians who don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. They actually greatly outnumber those that do.

You have a very narrow view of what 'religious' is. It's more than your extremely limited and narrow mindset. There are hundreds of religions out there.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, when you say religion do you really mean Christian fundamentalists? Because they are the only ones who believe those things

I don't care who believes it. The fact is that if you are a scientist and believe or claim any of those things you are rejected. Science rejects possible truths on basis of an inherent underlying philosophy.

What if the scriptures were true?

Science would still try to reject any and all new physical and historical evidence suggesting that, automatically, and with prejudice. They would try to find some way to claim an alternative interpretation of evidence, or that the evidence was wrong, questionable, or an illusion. They are motivated to do that, based on an inherent, underlying belief system, regardless of truth. You know it. We all know it.

They can't accept that. They just can't. Science is a disguised faith at its basis. A belief system. It's not a search for truth if you have an inherent bias against some truths.

[GreatATuin]

How many people, who made that system, would need to know that it was being used to help fake the existence of space travel, let alone connect that to the shape of the Earth?
You could hire a dozen or so scientists, invite them to a research facility comparing the possibilities, see if there was anything more efficient than a satellite system, have them put together a few possible models, then bid them goodbye keeping their schematics, leaving them content in the knowledge they helped convince the government of the worth of satellite travel. Then commission or build what would be required, just telling the workers to get on with their jobs, and there you go. Most people who work on projects don't ever know every little detail, especially when the government or some private agency is involved, because why would they need to?
Stratellites in position, basic signals being sent out in specific directions, a line of code in the stratellite to delay the signal strictly on that end so that it appears to be sent from further up... That might mean maybe one or two people involved in the construction to help make it fake, but even then you could spin a story about it helping to work with the existing satellite system and thus it's best if it appears to be up there, and you end up with a very simple situation.

That's completely out of touch with reality. Satellites are everywhere. You can't cover that up with a couple scientists. The amount of work to build systems that could function just like satellites but without actual satellites is tremendous. If you align your dish with anything different from the position of the geostationary satellite it's supposed to get its stream from, it stops working. You can't build a system that would simulate that with just a few people, and you can even less suppose they'll never question anything or say anything. And that's just geostationary broadcasting satellites. There are many other types, some of them can actually be seen with the naked eye at the exact position they're supposed to be, including for example the ISS.

Assuming it could be "very simple" is delusional.

[JSS]

Tom, when you say religion do you really mean Christian fundamentalists? Because they are the only ones who believe those things

I don't care who believes it. The fact is that if you are a scientist and claim any of those things you are rejected. Science rejects possible truths on basis of an inherent underlying philosophy.

What if the scriptures were true?

Science would still try to reject any and all new physical and historical evidence suggesting that, automatically, and with prejudice. They would try to find some way to claim an alternative interpretation of evidence, or that the evidence was wrong, questionable, or an illusion. They are motivated to do that, based on an inherent, underlying belief system, regardless of truth. You know it. We all know it.

They can't accept that. They just can't. Science is a disguised faith at its basis. A belief system. It's not a search for truth if you have an inherent bias against some truths.

I'm afraid you have a deep misunderstanding of science.

You also have a misunderstanding of faith.

Faith is what you believe, that's between you and God.

You are claiming "the scriptures" are true, but remember those are only YOUR scriptures. There are many, many others. Which ones do you think science should believe?

Science doesn't reject 'the scriptures'.  Science just has nothing to say about if one book is the one and true word of God over another. You can't prove that. You can believe the world is 6,000 years old but nobody else has to. I'm sorry but your faith is not my faith, or anyone elses. It's yours alone.

Nobody can tell you your faith is wrong.

But you can't demand I believe it too.

[GreatATuin]

Those are interesting references but those some-scientists-are-religious references are generally about scientists redefining God from the standard historical religious contexts. Now find us a modern contemporary scientist held in high regard who claims:

"Creationism was right all along!"

or

"The world REALLY IS 6000 years old!"

or

"The Earth is the central body of the Universe!"

Support any of those positions and you are rejected from normal science discourse. You are deemed a quack scientist or whatever. They don't believe in the scriptures, or that they could be true.

Newton supported a young earth, but his alt-beliefs are usually hidden in Science education, as it goes against the vibe.

No modern contemporary scientist will say this, because all of these claims have been proved wrong by modern, and sometimes not-so-modern science. Science didn't prove them wrong because of a bias against religion, but because it was looking for a scientific truth independent from belief.

In "A Special Day", Marcello Mastroianni said "I don't think I'm an anti-fascist - if anything, fascism is anti-me". The same goes with science and religion.

[Tom Bishop]

It was agreed here that the scientists claiming those things would automatically be put into the loony bin. That's called bias, and is unscientific. Anyone saying such a thing, and their so-called evidence, is automatically rejected.

There is a philosophy in science against scripture. Science claims to be in the search of truth, but only certain truths. That is disgusting to me.

all of these claims have been proved wrong by modern, and sometimes not-so-modern science

No it hasn't. In this discussion there was agreement that that there is no experimental evidence against Intelligent Design, as an example.

The standard for truth in science is experimental evidence and the Scientific Method. Where are these experiments?

You have declared and decided that something is wrong, but neglect to show experimental evidence showing this.