Science has proven that the design argument does not work? True or false?

please no one liner answers - eg. 'yes' or 'God doesn't exsist'


I'd like some reasoning and logic/opinion and why please!! :)Science has proven that the design argument does not work? True or false?
Reality disproves that argument. Science does not waste it's time on such things.Science has proven that the design argument does not work? True or false?
false





It's hard to prove a negation. If somehow you could claim the infinite knowledge that it would take to be positive that there is a design flaw in the world, It still wouldn't disprove God, it would only disprove the soundness of the design argument.





You might enjoy reading ';Candide'; by Voltaire. It's a short , amusing story. Two of it's major themes are ';If this is the best possible world it's a little surprising that some of the things that happen should be happening';, and ';we should probably spend most of our time on being our self and not too much proving the design argument. (which ironically you and I are both doing now)





Enjoy!
no, not true. design argument says that there are multiple designs in nature that can't be explained by sheer science. like for example, the repeating pattern of vertebrae; the symmetry of flowers; and the way that entire ecosystems operate and how animals and plants have depended on each other and managed to maintain balance for millions of years. science cannot explain these anomalies; it can explain why animals depend on each other, but it cannot explain HOW the systems were created.





good luck on the homework ; )
There were some good programs on evolution on discovery channel that discussed the evolution of different animals.





I cannot remember which books I read on evolution off the top of my head but if you go to your local library I thik there are dozens of them %26gt;.%26lt; Also, research Michael Behe with a search engine. There was a very technical and interesting discussion about some experiments done with blood clotting in mice and how they could support evolution. Michael Behe himself wrote an equally lengthy article refuting the conclusions drawn by the scientists who did the experiments. The scientists (I forget their names) performed an interesting set of experiments and drew conclusions that these experiments offered proof of evolution.





For the flip side of the coin there is a nice publication put out entitled, ';Is there a creator who cares about you?'; published by the watchtower, bible and tract society. You can obtain a free copy from someone at your local kingdom hall. Also Michael Behe's comments in the article on blood clotting in mice was interesting.





edit: I prefer not to draw conclusions for anyone else. However, no, science has not proven or disproven the design argument. Good science is always open to a logical conclusion (theory) with a solid base of 'evidence' until solid proof for or against said conclusion is provided to prove it is, or isn't a fact.


Actualy the theory of evolution remains a theory. No conclusive evidence has been provided one way or another. the same is true (scientifically speaking) of the design theory. Personally I believe in deisgn. I encourage you to do research into both sides of the equation for yourself, all you will get here is opinions. -Tony
You are referring to the idea of intelligent design as opposed to randomness as the underlying cause of the order of nature.





Those of a religious or spiritual persuasion tend to prefer the idea of intelligent design as it keeps in tact their world view. Those who are entirely rational in their approach, considering only what their senses can perceive and their reason deduce tend to prefer the chaotic entropic viewpoint.





Consider however the balance of the two most absolute effects observed in nature: entropy and synergy. If the randomness generated by entropy were absolute then chaos would rule and there would be no organized natural phenomena after a few billion years or so, if the Big Bang were the last and only creative event in the universe. But if there is an intelligence at work, then you would see complex progressive systems of order everywhere that the intelligent design process were at work, which is the case.





Referring to Hindu religious mythology which perceives three absolute Deities at work. Brahman the Creator, Shiva the Destroyer, and Vishnu the Sustainer, it would appear that there is a triad of intelligence at work. So it seems that not only is creation ordered but that destruction and thus entropy is also intelligent (since there is a deity in charge of it).





Really I think what we perceive in our science at its present stage of development is quite limited. Really we are only now getting a good look outside of our own solar system with the space telescopes and you have to realize that most ideas in science have a life cycle of about one generation after which they are shelved for other ideas. Read the old science text books and you will see this.





The thing about science too is that no question is every really closed, unlike on Yahoo Answers. :)
You would need to define `science' in this question in order for me to answer it. What branch of `science'? Physics? Biology? Chemistry?


I hear people throw around this word `science' all the time in arguments but it's meaningless unless it's defined.


If you're asking if Physics has proven or disproven anything about God then the answer is no. God and spirits are outside of the purview of Physics.


I believe the design argument does not work because it rests on the claim that this world which has been `designed' is the best world possible and things in it function amazingly well as they were designed to. Not so. One example: a dog's leg. Look up CCL Repair Surgery and TPOL and you'll see a dog's hind leg is poorly designed as the Tibial Plateau is on an incline and whether the dog is old or very young the ligaments can rupture due to this `design'. It took a human being to conceive of a way to fix this design so that dogs can go back to leading normal lives after a ligament rupture.


And that's just one example..........
The ';teleological argument'; is I believe an educated interest in attempting to prove God's hand in the making of the universe. A direct branch off of metaphysics that tries to prove a higher power is responsible for the seemingly great order in which everything we perceive is laid out and put together.





Interesting I will say, but we have to admit that scientific discoveries have diluted a lot of philosophical paradoxes since the birth of metaphysics. So we must ask in parallel with the argument; Is there a point in which scientific discovery will come to a ';wall'; of insurpassability? If that ';wall'; exists, how will we know it exists? For if that wall in all surety does not exist, then I believe the teleological argument is without merit. And since it is a historical fact that as man evolves, the ';wall'; meeting our scientific explanation of reality keeps getting pushed further and further back, we have no logical reason to think that this ';wall'; will ever find it's resting position.





Lastly, some religious people back up evolution to say that ';God allows certain discoveries at certain allotted times';. I would disagree to this logic, because that would mean ';predestination';, which means you have no control over your life. And under that logic, heaven and hell would be void of meaning since we are then just robots ';led to the slaughter'; so-to-speak.
';I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.';





(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding ';Do you believe in God?'; Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)





“If we find the answer [the unified theory], it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for we would know the mind of God.';”





Stephen Hawking quotes (English Physicist, b.1942)





“This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”





Isaac Newton quotes (English Mathematician and Physicist, ';father of the modern science';, 1642-1727)
If you approach the thesis of this argument logically, then science has neither proven it true nor false, it has simply ignored it based on the lack of any real evidence.





The argument states that since things are either not understandable, or are entirely too fine tuned to be random, that God exists. This is the logical equivalent of a turtle jumping over the Grand Canyon. Anything could account for what we do not understand, and to simply patch over what we don't get with ';God';...well, it doesn't exactly help us get ahead in understanding things. People have attributed to a higher power things which they do not understand since people have existed. Eclipses were once the work of the gods. As were storms, earthquakes, meteors...the list goes on and on.





Another problem with the Design argument is that is shamelessly biased. Tell a design-supporter that yes, things we cannot explain are the likely product of one or many higher beings, and they are likely to tell you that they know WHICH higher being, and that there is only one...and it is the one they believe in. This is not the case with all of them, only the ones who use the design argument in the political arena.





The argument juxtaposes logic and faith, two things that are nearly polar opposites. To say that faith is logical is to misunderstand the meaning of logic, and faith. You cannot logically conclude that God exists, if you could...you would no longer call what you believe in a faith.





Faith is belief without seeing. Logic is the method of drawing a conclusion based on unbiased fact.





For the record though...I believe in a higher being. What I don't agree with is those who use faith as a means to turn science into a demon. God gave us big brains so we could figure out what we don't understand.
Science has shown (unfortunately, nothing can be ';proven';) that most aspects of the young-earth/ID/creationist ';theory'; are without merit. Since ID advocates are unable to provide any evidence to support their claims, I think it could be better argued that ID proves itself wrong.
No, science just doesn't have evidence to show that it does work, therefore it isn't science. Believe what you want, just don't call it science.
False. Some Christians argue that God has designed the world to run using natural selection.





Science has disproved Paley's designer, but not the design argument entirely.
Not necessarily. The theory of evaluation only shows that we evolve and loose traits we do not need based on our environment. Some Christians believe God designed us to do this.