Evidence for God from Science

Regarding Of Pandas and People things are not always how they are represented.

While certain early drafts of Pandas and other writings may have used the terms “creation” and “creationists,” it is clear that these terms were defined to mean something quite different from “creationism” as later defined by the Supreme Court. As noted earlier, from the beginning Pandas specifically rejected the view that science could detect whether the intelligent cause identified was supernatural. Although the process by which an intelligent agent produces a designed object can loosely be called a “creation” (as in stating that this brief was the “creation” of several lawyers), the authors of Pandas clearly understood that this was a “placeholder” for a more sophisticated expression of this concept. A pre-Edwards draft from early 1987 emphatically stated that “observable instances of information cannot tell us if the intellect behind them is natural or supernatural. This is not a question that science can answer.” The same early draft rejected the eighteenth century design argument from William Paley because it illegitimately tried “to extrapolate to the supernatural” from the empirical data of science. Paley was wrong because “there is no basis in uniform experience for going from nature to the supernatural, for inferring an unobserved supernatural cause from an observed effect.” Similarly, another early draft (also from when the manuscript was still titled “Biology and Origins”) stated: "[T]here are two things about which we cannot learn through uniform sensory experience. One is the supernatural, and so to teach it in science classes would be out of place . . . cience can identify an intellect, but is powerless to tell us if that intellect is within the universe or beyond it." By unequivocally affirming that the empirical evidence of science “cannot tell us if the intellect behind [the information in life] was natural or supernatural” it should be clear that the early drafts of Pandas meant something very different by “creation” than did the Supreme Court in Edwards. The decision to use the term “intelligent design” in the final draft to express the emerging theory of origins was not an attempt to evade a court decision, as Plaintiffs have alleged, but rather to furnish a more precise description of the emerging scientific theory.

http://www.fteonline.com/pandas-creationism.html

Regarding the substance of Judge Jones' critique of Pandas, one would do well to read the amicus brief filed by FTE in the case. The FTE brief clearly demonstrates (1) that the published versions of Pandas do not promote creationism; (2) that the early drafts of Pandas did not promote "creationism" as it has been defined by the Supreme Court; and (3) that even if early drafts of Pandas did promote creationism in the eyes of Judge Jones, those drafts should be legally irrelevant....

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/do ... judge.html (recommended)

Hey I haven't read much of this topic, but here is something that may help prove the Bible and God using "logic". It is located under the Bible and Scripture board of this forum, and the topic name is Bible foreshadowing. Here is the link:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =9&t=32805

Kurieuo wrote: And if you followed that case from beginning to end then you will know that YECs who hijacked ID for their own purposes went against the recommendations of The Discovery Institute (ID).

Yeh I think you're right. I live in AUS so I couldn't follow it as easily but I did get that impression.

Wow you have lots of cool info on this case I didn't know about Kurieuro. Thanks.

Jad wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: And if you followed that case from beginning to end then you will know that YECs who hijacked ID for their own purposes went against the recommendations of The Discovery Institute (ID).

Yeh I think you're right. I live in AUS so I couldn't follow it as easily but I did get that impression.

Wow you have lots of cool info on this case I didn't know about Kurieuro. Thanks.

I live in AUS too so no excuses

It took me a while to see that it is perhaps best to see two factions within ID. The first faction I would classify myself as being within, along with The Discovery Institute and those founders of the "ID movement" like Meyers, Dembski, Behe and Wells. This faction is actually little interested in the Creation vs Evolution debate. Rather the core issues for this faction are defining positive and empirical methodologies for detecting intelligence, and as such attempting to free the strangle hold of philosophical naturalism which rules out "intelligence" a priori in biology while accepting the scientific pursuits of archeology, SETI, and the like.

The second faction were accepted under the "umbrella" of ID and have to some extent usurped control. Jonathan Wells was challenged on RTB's Creation Update regarding this, and was warned that not defining the designer would backfire and bring ID into disrepute in the sciences, particularly if Young Earth Creationists took a hold of ID. Wells however replied it was not his place to limit the explanations as to who the designer is or how such a designer created (I guess rightfully so). Yet, Wells was quite comfortable having YECs under the umbrella of ID. As such, many creationist Christians have hijacked ID whether innocently or intentionally and it has been made into an issue of Evolution versus Creation by critics and Christians alike.

Even Ben Stein of the "Expelled" movie I linked to in another thread seems confused about ID. I have seen him use "Intelligent Design" and "Creation" interchangeably in an interview I found. However, he does seem less interested is the Creation versus Evolution debate, and more interested in how and why there is a monopolization of a metaphysical philosophical naturalism in science to the extent any trace of collusion with or hinting towards some other kind of conclusion based on scientific facts and evidence is shunned (i.e., Richard Sternberg's publishing Meyer's article in a scientific journal).

I am not sure ID will ever loose the Creationist stigma, which is perhaps why I now just prefer to see two factions in the ID movement. Those who hijacked ID for their own creationist and evangelical motives, and the other those who initially sparked this movement. Hopefully at the end of the day the grip of philosophical naturalism over science which ID set out to challenge will still slip, and I am hopeful that one day I will live to see science being taught in a free-thinking and philosophically neutral environment.

Kurieuo,

I pretty much agree with that assessment and I'm glad you're seeing some of the YEC incursions and what the impact is on the credibility of the movement. It's pretty ironic to me. These are much the same people who attempt at times to crucify OEC leaders when dealing 1 to 1 but they are more than happy to adopt them for cover to promote their agenda. C'est la vie.

I do see the ID movement in its purer form attempting to demonstrate the science and probability implications in a more formal manner than the straight philisophical schools and teleology of the past. I'm still not entirely sure that the mechanics and premises needed to pull that off are all in place, but then that's sort of the point in terms of their addressing the more common naturalistic school that often presumes far more than their evidence allows.

I appreciate your thoughts on the issue, respect them and am glad you are seeing some of the concerns I expressed earlier that I now see you including in your evaluation.

Bart

I thought I would comment on this... What worries me about about not backing up ID is that it gives Darwinists the complete center stage to rant. I know that there still is alot of research that needs to go into it and it's not ready for prime time but I recently attended a debate between a major Californian university here and the Discovery Institute where one of their professors freely admitted that they still do not have a complete answer for Behe's flagellum argument (brought on over 10 years ago).

Organizations such as defendscience.org are commonplace in the universities, are backed up by most professors, and repeatedly make their claim that Darwinian evolution is a scientific fact... For instance, in my anthropology class, my Berkeley professor handed out a paper claiming that evolution was an undeniable unquestionable fact. How can this be? In other words, they don't have a complete answer to Behe's flagellum argument, but can still promote the idea that DE (Darwinian evolution) is on solid ground? This makes me wonder...

I'm concerned that their claim (or DE) completely denies "any" kind of divine intervention when it comes to origins. I believe it is a complete naturalistic approach to origins which denies any type of spirituality conclusively. Not only does this fly into the face of Christianity, but it also flies into the face of most major religions such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism, not to mention the ET advocates that believe we are here because of aliens seeding our planet(s). My point here being, is that where do we draw the line here?

Now I'm in agreement that ID may have some problems, but so did DE when it first started out. Like the Discovery Institute, I do not think we should be teaching ID in our public schools as of yet... But perhaps later? Who knows... Perhaps the ID movement may progress to something else. But if we stifle it now, my only concerns are what else should we promote in defense to DE? YEC? In fact even if the DE advocates would promote their view as merely a theory, that would probably be enough for me to drop the ID movement entirely. But as of yet, they haven't.

Like many here, I'm finding that science (whether it's DE or ID) cannot sway my belief system anymore... But when I was younger in the early 80's (and not a Christian) I remember arguing against a Christian in favor of DE. I could not get my mind around the fact that if we looked at science, it in no way could promote any type of divine intervention (according to how it was taught to me in school). This is my only concern.... And for other non-Christians as well..

I see your point Gman. You and I have discussed this very subject quite a few times now. My only hesitation is the question of are we barking up the wrong tree? I still question a lot of what ID is suggesting. There a many parts of YEC that have hindered creation as a science moreso than promoted it. Not all of it of course but enough to have an impact. Is ID heading down that same path? Like Kurieuo mentioned could fundamentalist YEC'ers take the reigns of this ID movement and drive it over a cliff?

Jad wrote:I see your point Gman. You and I have discussed this very subject quite a few times now. My only hesitation is the question of are we barking up the wrong tree? I still question a lot of what ID is suggesting.

I think another question here is do we even bark at all or leave it alone? Do we just claim that Darwinian evolution is an undeniable undisputed literal fact and then go on with our lives?

Jad wrote:There a many parts of YEC that have hindered creation as a science moreso than promoted it. Not all of it of course but enough to have an impact. Is ID heading down that same path? Like Kurieuo mentioned could fundamentalist YEC'ers take the reigns of this ID movement and drive it over a cliff?

If we are talking about the fundamentals of science, I don't think the YEC'ers could (at least not in our secular sciences)... It has become very clear to me that their science is not only biased, but very flawed. To me and others hearing it, it makes it sound that Christianity itself is now flawed too... As for ID, I think it may have some flaws too. But do we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

And there is also a catch... I believe ID is a little more open to interpretation who the creator is which makes the YEC'ers mad because they claim that it IS God, which is true, but this stance will never work in a secular society. So what are we to do?

In saying this... I believe we need to be careful on how we approach this. Do we support it, keep questioning it, or move on? At what point do we adhere it's underlying message? If not, what other alternatives do we propose? Was it designed by a creator or did it originate naturally on it's own? I believe there are only two possibilities.. If there is a third, what is it?

Kurieuo wrote:And if you followed that case from beginning to end then you will know that YECs who hijacked ID for their own purposes went against the recommendations of The Discovery Institute (ID).

Did you know the judge on that case also essentially cut and paste the response of ACLU in his own rulings?

Kurieuo I think you have an interesting point here... And when YEC hijacks ID, it more or less labels ID as being a Christian fundamentalist movement, which according to the secular world means....

Gman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:And if you followed that case from beginning to end then you will know that YECs who hijacked ID for their own purposes went against the recommendations of The Discovery Institute (ID).

Did you know the judge on that case also essentially cut and paste the response of ACLU in his own rulings?

Kurieuo I think you have an interesting point here... And when YEC hijacks ID, it more or less labels ID as being a Christian fundamentalist movement, which according to the secular world means....

Read the rest of my posts (if you haven't) and let me know what you think.

I am not at all against ID, but thoroughly for it. I have followed it essentially since reading Behe's book Darwin's Black Box quite some years ago. However, my observations have forced me to admit there are two groups of ID proponents.

One I would label authentic to the original movement and founders who desire to create a neutral philosophical environment in science by toppling metaphysical naturalism. The other consists not simply of YECs, but Christians in general, who never really did understand ID except through the lens of their Christian creation beliefs. Such people often make ID an issue of Creation vs Evolution without caring much about the science, and such people would not be satisfied to simply have science taught in philosophically neutral environment but would want divine creation to reign.

Kurieuo wrote:Read the rest of my posts (if you haven't) and let me know what you think.

I am not at all against ID, but thoroughly for it. I have followed it essentially since reading Behe's book Darwin's Black Box quite some years ago. However, my observations have forced me to admit there are two groups of ID proponents.

Kurieuo I think you and I align pretty well on the issue, including in other posts I've read from you. I think you are doing a great job on it. If you feel I was a bit forward in my post, please forgive me. Somehow I feel being an ID advocate on this forum can be lonely at times...

Kurieuo wrote:One I would label authentic to the original movement and founders who desire to create a neutral philosophical environment in science by toppling metaphysical naturalism. The other consists not simply of YECs, but Christians in general, who never really did understand ID except through the lens of their Christian creation beliefs. Such people often make ID an issue of Creation vs Evolution without caring much about the science, and such people would not be satisfied to simply have science taught in philosophically neutral environment but would want divine creation to reign.

Good point... And speaking as a Christian, I don't want Christianity (as much as I love it) or any other religion taught in our secular public schools. I believe in the separation of Church and State.. Unfortunately I think there is an all or nothing at all tendency among Christians to push their agenda into the schools. It's too bad, because they are not being realistic... Not only do they stifle the case for ID, they can also go off promoting how YEC can become a mainstream rational science in the secular world based on a faulty English interpretation or view of the Bible.

Gman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Read the rest of my posts (if you haven't) and let me know what you think.

I am not at all against ID, but thoroughly for it. I have followed it essentially since reading Behe's book Darwin's Black Box quite some years ago. However, my observations have forced me to admit there are two groups of ID proponents.

Kurieuo I think you and I align pretty well on the issue, including in other posts I've read from you. I think you are doing a great job on it. If you feel I was a bit forward in my post, please forgive me. Somehow I feel being an ID advocate on this forum can be lonely at times...

Kurieuo wrote:One I would label authentic to the original movement and founders who desire to create a neutral philosophical environment in science by toppling metaphysical naturalism. The other consists not simply of YECs, but Christians in general, who never really did understand ID except through the lens of their Christian creation beliefs. Such people often make ID an issue of Creation vs Evolution without caring much about the science, and such people would not be satisfied to simply have science taught in philosophically neutral environment but would want divine creation to reign.

Good point... And speaking as a Christian, I don't want Christianity (as much as I love it) or any other religion taught in our secular public schools. I believe in the separation of Church and State.. Unfortunately I think there is an all or nothing at all tendency among Christians to push their agenda into the schools. It's too bad, because they are not being realistic... Not only do they stifle the case for ID, they can also go off promoting how YEC can become a mainstream rational science in the secular world based on a faulty English interpretation or view of the Bible.

I have noticed we tend to agree a lot on these kind of subjects so we must be right.

Regarding separation of Church and State , I actually think this issue is really made out to be more than what it is. Why not separation of Atheist and State? Separation of Church and State is based on the false premise that religion is responsible for a great deal of tyranny and evil and not people themselves. Yes, bad things have happened under religions, but so too without; in fact more so without it seems. Separation of Church and State seems to me a secular agenda, and it means so many things and different contexts whether politically, in education, public sectors, or what have you. Quite frankly I do not really understand the fuss.

I would also quite frankly love Christianity to be properly taught, but only is a class dedication to religion, theology, world views, philosophy or the like. I do not think it should be taught in science, however at the same time people should not be prevented from drawing conclusions compatible with their own ideological and personal beliefs. Science is not really an area to teach a particular theology, or indoctrinate with secularism, or the like. It is a place where people of varying beliefs should be welcomed to study as free from any particular religious or secular belief in order to draw their own conclusions on the evidence.

Separation of Church and State in the US was actually implemented and designed to benefit both institution, not exclude religious thought or religious people from the state or education.

It was originally sought in the context of seeking for there to be no one Christian denomination supported by the state or exerting undo influence over anyone's right to determine and follow their own conscience.

There has been a movement to my observation to move beyond that and pretend that an atheist or secular humanist point of view is not religious and therefore the official point of view of the government by default. This agenda doesn't have the public support to be implemented by elected legislatures so it is promoted throught the courts.

In that context, I understand the response of the larger camp of ID that has been mentioned although I think those who promote it by this means are sacrificing principle for a utilitarian approach and I think too much is sacrificed.

I also agree science is not the place to teach these things. I don't think the schools should be establishing one religioun over another except in the context of straight education where social studies, philosophy etc. are taught in the context of history and an explanation for societal movements and in the US of course, Christianity has in the past been woven into a great deal of the thinking and expressions made.

Ironically enough, the greatest beneficiary of Separation of Church and State in the US has been the Church. It flourished immediately in the wake of its implementation in the US in the form of the second great awakening.

Kurieuo wrote:I have noticed we tend to agree a lot on these kind of subjects so we must be right.

Well hopefully anyways...

Kurieuo wrote:Regarding separation of Church and State , I actually think this issue is really made out to be more than what it is. Why not separation of Atheist and State? Separation of Church and State is based on the false premise that religion is responsible for a great deal of tyranny and evil and not people themselves. Yes, bad things have happened under religions, but so too without; in fact more so without it seems. Separation of Church and State seems to me a secular agenda, and it means so many things and different contexts whether politically, in education, public sectors, or what have you. Quite frankly I do not really understand the fuss.

I agree fully... I think a question here is can we teach the Christian religion without labeling it as the Christian religion? I'm often reminded of Rich's article Don't know the name "Jesus". For me I can see what ID alludes to even though the term maybe generic... The problem in the states here is that we have so many different types of religions who also pay taxes. How do we get around this?

Kurieuo wrote:I would also quite frankly love Christianity to be properly taught, but only is a class dedication to religion, theology, world views, philosophy or the like. I do not think it should be taught in science, however at the same time people should not be prevented from drawing conclusions compatible with their own ideological and personal beliefs. Science is not really an area to teach a particular theology, or indoctrinate with secularism, or the like. It is a place where people of varying beliefs should be welcomed to study as free from any particular religious or secular belief in order to draw their own conclusions on the evidence.

It appears that the ancient Greeks didn't have a problem with it...

I like your reasons, but I think the problem here is that how can you avoid any type of religion when it comes to origins? It almost automatically alludes to either being created intellectually or like you said via metaphysical naturalism... I don't see how we can escape this when it comes to studying any of the sciences. At least when it comes to origins, it's practically philosophical in nature...

Canuckster1127 wrote:In that context, I understand the response of the larger camp of ID that has been mentioned although I think those who promote it by this means are sacrificing principle for a utilitarian approach and I think too much is sacrificed.

Bart, can you expound of this? I'm not sure if I understand. Thank you....