pbhj's Journal: past post - Re:intelegant design != God [sic]

Re:intelegant design != God (Score:2)
by pbhj (607776) on Mon 02 May 02:00PM (#12406705) Homepage Journal
>>> "If Inteligent Design was something other then the belief in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, then those proponents would be spouting out endless theories as to who that Inteligent Designer was/is. There would be groups solidly believing that Aliens did it. There would be groups solidly believing that Zeus did it. There would be groups solidly believing that the planet Earth is actually the Inteligent Designer. There would be groups that would be believing that a machine inteligence from another dimension broke into ours, or created our dimension and inteligently designed all of us."

These seem like possible first hypotheses. Not my belief but I don't see how you can _prove_ that the universe wasn't designed by transdimensional alien beings (a là Men In Black (the movie) at the end). Current physic-al theories breakdown at a temporally distant singularity after all.

=======

Re:intelegant design != God (Score:1)
by cnelzie (451984) Alter Relationship on Mon 02 May 02:38PM (#12407145) Homepage
So shouldn't we at least mention such shortcomings of science?

What exactly do you mean by this? Science acknowledges its shortcomings every single day. That's why there are the clear definitions behind what a hypothesis is, what a theory is, what a scientific law is and what a fact is and where facts are used in the supporting structure of science.

Things that cannot be tested within the confines of our existing technology can never be anything other then a hypothesis. It has been that way as long as science as existed with the clear seperation between hypothesis, theory and scientific law.

It has also been true that the use of 'Facts' are simply pieces of information that are discovered through the process of testing a hypothesis and are used to take that hypothesis and formulate a theory.

After becoming a theory, those facts are tested, retested to confirm or deny the validity of that theory. If the theory is deemed entirely invalid and false, it is tossed aside. If that theory is deemed valid but weakly defined/worded, then it is restructured to support the existing facts, which only strengthens the theory.

This is something that I learned when I was in elementary school in early science classes. This was further reinforced as I took additional mandatory science classes in Middle School.

I have no idea how anyone, who claims to have a High School Diploma, could also claim to have no idea what the difference between a Hypothesis, Theory and Scientific Law is. I am not a scientist, I do not deal with hypothesis, theories or scientific laws in my regular daily activities and still I know this.