[tpaine]

Aric2000:
"If god made it so, then there is no reason to study it."


Thankfully Newton, Galileo, etc. did not think this way. How does the assumption that "God did it" negate any need for study? I don't see the connection.
2462 -fester-

It doesn't 'negate', -- it 'discourages'
such study, -- as many victims of the inquisition tell us.

[Alamo-Girl]

I'd like to add something to the discussion. The claim has been made that saying God did it will halt (or delay) scientific inquiry.

I wish to add that scientists halt their own inquiry when they invoke the anthropic principle. As evidence, I give you this:

Cosmological Parameters and Galaxy Biasing (pdf)

On page 9, with regard to an anomaly, the writer says: Do we need to introduce a new physics or invoke the Anthropic Principle to explain it?

For lurkers, here are some other anomalies that have been bucketed into the Anthropic Principle.

IMHO, there is no substantive difference between halting inquiry by saying God did it v. by bucketing the anomaly into the Anthropic Principle. Neither is acceptable to me.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"It doesn't 'negate', -- it 'discourages' such study, -- as many victims of the inquisition tell us."

Take a look at the history of the Inquistion and tell me if it was driven by the philosophy that "God did it. You'd best not engage in scientific study or else . . ."

Speaking of inquisitions, I can well imagine creationists making genuine scientitific discoveries but having them ridiculed and discarded via evolutionist "inquisitions" in certain universities. Students, likewise, have been at the receiving end of "inquisitions" when they suggest there might just be some intelligent design behind all this stuff that looks and acts so consistently.