if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed?

question: by admitting to "God" does science lose its grounds?assertion: by scientific enquiry, believing that the base of all things came from one intelligent source only directs science to explore the science in observations of that law, which would assert that chaos is only apparent, and that purpose exists for items under scientific scrutiny.question: so, if a scientist accepts that all things were based by an intelligent entity, he also asserts that everything was designed?assertion: no. he only asserts that the basis was of intelligence and designed some, but scientific data does not assert that all was designed. IE: a man takes a tank, fills it with water, and adds chemicals to see how they will react, the reaction was not controlled, but allowed freedom in a contained environment to "become"question: so a scientist accepting that an intelligent entity was first may not be religious?assertion: true. religion makes assertion based on divine inspirations. a man who eats magic mushrooms can believe he had involvement with the divine. religion also has been targets of corruption, and nothing man mandated is totally infallible.the scientist in question, may find science in the religions to be impressive, and perhaps even of divine assertion, yet acknowledge that flaws in overall religion and writings of man were not written by the hand of the divine, and therefore, while acknowledged, may not be religious.the acceptance that by scientific principle, that which was first had intelligence only directs the enquiry of science to the assertion of order within boundaries, and chaos only apparent.debate?Edited by tesla, : my grand typing skills: typoesEdited by tesla, : topic changeEdited by tesla, : spellingEdited by tesla, : spellcheck whoohoo!Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

so creationism only is relative as a science if one is admitting all life was designed?what then is deistic science? I've never heard of any debate on it...(which this is only suggesting creationism as a science, which if its a biblical understanding only, would mean its not.)creationist assert that there was a supreme being, by accepting this assertion does not mean that a scientist would have to have a religion in order to admit a supreme being..if this is not creationism, then creationist don't even agree on what creationists are?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

what I'm suggested is more in between.a scientist who accepts that God "tweaks" or makes adjustments in the "created" world, but not on every level.I'm suggesting a scientist that can accept creationism, without religion to explain it, rather, to look for clues in science.anomalies would not be accepted wholly as "God acted" but neither would it be dismissed as a probability.am i describing here, a creationist, or a deist?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

i changed the topic, does that clarify?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

so if by the evidence in scientific law, that an intelligent entity is logically accepted as the basis of all things; (for the argument lets say it is so), would this acceptance hinder scientific enquiry?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

then it could only hinder scientific inquiry if they believed that this entity influenced whatever it was they are studying.
~quote from modulous~acceptance of an intelligent being would influence how?let me try better to put this,what laws of science would be established by the admission of intelligence?would it negate evolution? (by the above assertions, no.)
would it negate the big bang? (by the above assertions, no.)my point of argument is to show that if science admits to an intelligent being being first, that science is only proof of the "how" of God, and no explanation of "why" of God.in effect, I'm asserting that the admission would not affect science negatively, but rather, compliment it.but I'm not sure this can be said logically without first questioning scientists on the effect on current science.based on the initial assertions, the acts of God in science are only potential, and not definite.even if science was to acknowledge God definitively.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

question: so, if a scientist accepts that all things were based by an intelligent entity, he also asserts that everything was designed?assertion: no. he only asserts that the basis was of intelligence and designed some, but scientific data does not assert that all was designed. IE: a man takes a tank, fills it with water, and adds chemicals to see how they will react, the reaction was not controlled, but allowed freedom in a contained environment to "become"modulous, you forgot the above assertions. I'm talking about God within the context of proven science.the God you just proposed would be outside of the principles of proven science, and therefore, false.however, an intelligent entity acknowledged within science (therefore not in contradiction of science law)is a different view of God, yet acknowledging the existence of an intelligent energy that was first.within the observance of the initial assertions, would God effect science?and the "why" of God belongs to religion, science is only the scrutiny of the "how"Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

well that's not off topic actually, considering that passage of enquiry would be, in effect, a "how"acknowledgement would mean that it couldn't be dismissed, but lack of proof would also mean it couldn't be accepted either.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

which is exactly the way the science world would if God was an admitted fact, jar.only the potential that God acted is noted. but not admissible without proof. like any other science.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

thats off topic.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

because the post was created to see what the acceptance of God in science, within scientific boundaries (law), would do to science.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

the answer to your question lies in a different debate is all.perhaps before too long that debate will be initialized.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

that's off topic.does the introduction of God in science destroy science, or not?not just "what does it add"but: what is taken away?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

so you believe the admission would produce "dead ends".this appears to go against the initial "assertions" of the post.name an instance in where science would stop inquiry based on the addition?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

biblical creationism and ID would not be affected any more than they are now.at the least, they would find it a "win" to see science acknowledge "God" even if the acknowledgement does not give them any more credence than they have now in science.it should be evident also that acknowledging God in science would be proposing at least a partial intelligent designEdited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides