Evidence for God from Science

And what is this observation? One of the observations would be Irreducible Complexity. Here is a pdf that explains what is meant by IC... http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_IrreducibleComplexityRevisited_011404.pdf Now I would like you to answer the following question (you seem to be avoiding it) ...

Goodsake, it all depends on what you'd consider proof. Let us agree to disagree then. =) proof ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf) n. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. Agree on that as a good definition of proof? Yes I do. So let me pose this question. Do you,...

Having posted tirelessly in this board to clarify what science really is, I grow tired. Throughout my postings I have been wary of sharing what my beleifs are. I feel, having posted so voluminously on this board, that I owe this community a glimpse and perhaps more on what it is that feed my spirit...

You've not been clarifying what origin science is-you've been talking about operational science as if evolution is operational science. Also-what are the chances a fool would be wise? I am sorry KMart please stay on topic this thread is for my beleifs not evolution or science. But I will answer you...

roysr wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:It begins with observation, not with theoretical explanation.

The part you seem to be missing is that the concept of ID began with observation.

And what is this observation?

Natural selection is an explanation and not pre-conceived. That is a pretty profound assertion. Firstly, I would argue if that's the case, then the theory of evolution is circular. I don't understand what you mean? How is it circular? If I say perhaps proboscis monkeys have such a large nose becaus...

Has anyone ever gave thinking any thought? What I mean is, how do humans think? We can't really answer that for anyone else but ourselves. I know that when I think, my thoughts are in words. Such as , in planning my weekend in my mind, I am planning it out in words. Not spoken words, but just words...

If I may interject to ask a question, although I don't want to disrupt this conversation you two have going. :) But is assuming there to be 'no designer' not also a bias? Is 'peer review' enough to 'objectively' evaluate the question of a designers existence or non-existence? Kurieuo. Science does ...

Having posted tirelessly in this board to clarify what science really is, I grow tired. Throughout my postings I have been wary of sharing what my beleifs are. I feel, having posted so voluminously on this board, that I owe this community a glimpse and perhaps more on what it is that feed my spiritu...

As for ID. Design assumes designer and this is a bias. For that matter, evolution assumes natural selection, and that's a bias. Where does that leave us? Natural selection is an explanation and not pre-conceived. Are factors such as predation, isolation, and sexual selection really bias? Or are the...

As scientists are a diverse group there is a peer review system which tries to prevent bias. Not fullproof due the the limitations of man. That's right. However, all scientific theories start with an individual or smallish group, and those may be biased because of preconception. Subsequent peer rev...

But as you said "ideally" we wish it not to. Do you believe we can, honestly, keep our preconceptions out of anything we do? As scientists are a diverse group there is a peer review system which tries to prevent bias. Not fullproof due the the limitations of man. It is not possible to be ...

August wrote:

But science is not meant to provide moral framework.

I agree, my argument is the other way round. Some moral frameworks influence science, and it is somehow inescapable.

But as you said "ideally" we wish it not to.

Don't you think you are only talking about the observational causes and effects of love and hatred?(in which case I would agree with you). It still does not speak to where such deep emotions originated. While we only discussed morals here, there is a host of other universals that fall into this cat...

It does not imply supernatural. Science can only reasonably prove what does not fit the evidence, i.e. rule out explanations. You said ID "is not a legitimate science" and then posted a definition of science that said "Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena "...