I don't bring the idea of God into my conversations out of respect for those who may have a different view (religion is too touchy a subject). I ask that others keep it to themselves, as well. However, if they express their opinions related to the subject, I have every right to express my own opinion on it. As I recall, you brought the subject up FIRST.
I never said a deity doesn't or never has existed. My point is that it has never been proven, nor has anyone from the ID side ever tried to prove such an existence using real science, subject to scientific peer review. It is the only proof I and many others will accept. Simply stating something "is" does not make is so. I am NOT saying there is NO God, but I am also NOT saying there IS.
Real Science is what is used to find the real truth. It is a never ending seeking of the truth. Those using Real Science never assume they know the absolute truth at the start. They base their hypothesis on what they know at present and what others around them using real science have discovered, past and present. They are ACCEPTING of new, provable evidence that's validated using the scientific method and subject to ongoing peer review.
In the attempt to prove the hypothesis or theory, those using real science are also WILLING to disprove it. A negative result or overall failure to prove is just as valuable as succeeding to prove. It's an opportunity to adjust your hypothesis or theory and your approach so you can come to the proper conclusion, at the END, not the beginning.
The majority of religions START with the "ABSOLUTE TRUTH", that a deity DOES exist and that the existence of the universe is directly related in whole or at least in part to the actions of that deity. This belief in a deity or deities is based on nothing other than stories and teachings passed down via spoken word and/or writings. There is no scientifically validated evidence, no scientific experimentation, no scientific peer review. It is all a faith based belief that the stories told are true, with no proof to back it up.
A common defense to the "no proof" argument, is "well, you can't prove it is NOT true, so, that makes it true!". With real science, for something to be true, you have to prove something IS TRUE before it is true. Do you know what people using real science do when they CANNOT prove something is NOT true? They continue to with their effort to prove it IS true BEFORE they declare it true, as long as the evidence, subject to peer review, proves it is true.
ID people, start with the the premise that "God" exists. They make no valid effort to prove that God exists. No effort what so ever. They wrap pseudoscience around their "Proof" that "no one can prove that God does not exist, so, God must exist". ID people say that when those using real science have conflicting views, or don't have a complete understanding yet, that it only proves that God must exist. What ID people forget is that real science is a never ending attempt to find the truth about the universe. The willingness to have conflicting views, different approaches, and acceptance of new hypothesis and theories and validated evidence is what makes real science the only effective, logical method to find the truth.
In short: ID is all about the preconcieved conclusion that "God exists" and using scientific mumbo jumbo to support that precieved conclusion, without actually proving it. The day the ID community changes its tactics, actually uses the scientific method and presents their evidence of God's existence along with its methodologies for scientfic peer review, with reproducibility of its experiments, the scienctific community as well as I, will WELCOME the knowledge that there is, indeed, a God behind our existence. When do you think ID will be ready to take that approach?
Keep Up with TechRepublic