Evidence for God from Science

Hmmm... I don't think so. There are old Hebrew prayers that say God is not corporeal, and that He does not have human features.

To which words do you refer in Hebrew?

Yehren wrote:Hmmm... I don't think so. There are old Hebrew prayers that say God is not corporeal, and that He does not have human features.

Firstly, we're not discussing 'old Hebrew prayers'. Secondly, I am not arguing at this point that God is corporeal.

To which words do you refer in Hebrew?

The words 'tselem' and 'demuth'. I suggest you see how they are used in Scripture (as well as looking up their definitions in a standard lexicon like BADG), before you start making a case based on what you suppose them to mean.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:Sigh. Yes, that is what it says.
"Evolutionary theory is a body of statements about the processes of evolution that are believed to have caused the history of evolutionary events. Biological evolution occurs as the consequence of random and nonrandom processes.
A. Random Processes
1. Mutation
Variation in the characteristics of organisms in a population originates through random mutation of DNA sequences (genes) that affect the characteristics. Genetic variation is augmented by recombination during sexual reproduction, which results in new combinations of genes.
Variation is also augmented by gene flow, the input of new genes from other populations.
2. Genetic Drift
Genetic drift, results from random variation in the survival and reproduction of different genotypes. In genetic drift, the frequencies of alleles fluctuate by pure chance. Eventually, one allele will replace the others (i.e., it will be fixed in the population). Genetic drift is most important when the alleles of a gene are neutral and it proceeds
faster, the smaller the population is. Genetic drift results in evolutionary change, but not in adaptation.
http://faculty.evansville.edu/de3/b3990 ... n%20random'

1 and 2 are related.
Of course it's random from our perspective. We don't know all the variables involved! As we delve into the process further we are begining to discover more about what exactly causes mutations. But we cannot predict it.

It is termed random because we cannot know when it occurs or what caused it.

But Yehren says we know what causes it, God is (at the very least) the secondary cause.

It is termed random because we cannot know when it occurs or what caused it.

I thought mutations, gene drift and natural selection caused it, and it can be predicted. If you don't know that, how can evolution be called science?

Just like tossing a die we don't know what number it will land on. Are you saying that even God himself doesn't know how the die will lie??
Are you?

So evolution is like throwing dice now? I don't understand what this has to do with the question at hand.

Quantum physics is completely random

If you say so.

Basically everything in existance is made up of quantum particles which randomly appear and dissapear act as waves and particles and only resolve to where they appear to us when being observed. Is this illusionary perspective of the world ok with your worldview?

Is that your definition of completely random? When we observe the wave we can measure velocity, and when we observe the particle we can determine location. How is that illusionary or random? The uncertainty principle states that we cannot assign both values at the same time, but does give a predictable standard deviation.

But what does this have to do with the supposedly well-documented and substantially underwritten non-random theory of evolution?

Yehren wrote:It is the doctrine of the Church that evolution is consistent with Christian belief. It is not the doctrine of the Church that evolution is a fact, since that is a scientific question, and outside the magisterum of the Church.

We are then to believe that the doctrine of the church is that something which may be factually inconsistent is consistent with it's beliefs.

And please stop saying that the RCC defines what all Christian beliefs are, they don't. Even within the RCC there is discord.

There are slightly more Catholics than all other Christians combined. And they acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith.

Have you spoken to all Catholics? Do 15 year-old African Catholics know what the theory of evolution is? And you continue to appeal to authority and majority here, as already stated, that is a logical fallacy. And if the RCC were to reverse it's position on evolution, will you change your position? Given the major differences by Catholics on many issues, your statement is dubious at best.

You should be careful with accusations of dishonesty. They can turn around and bite you.

Already stated it was not an accusation, it was an observation. Feeling a bit sensitive, are you?

You don't seem to understand that the TOE can neither agree nor disagree with that. It is too weak a method to say one way or the other. You might as well assail chemistry for not including God.

Chemistry does not have the metaphysical implications, nor make them in the same way that the ToE does, in respect of the origin of man, for example.

Furthermore, if the ToE cannot explain what natural selection is, why is it scientific to invoke it? You are just appealing to ignorance then.

A random process, (variation) plus a directed process (natural selection) is a directed process. This is what you are having trouble understanding.

You are right, I have trouble understanding it.

First, logically, if randomness=R, then how can R+~R=~R?

Secondly, you are stating this for a single generation, but the randomness is present in every step over successive generations. How can the insertion of randomness over successive generations be seen as non-random?

Thirdly, if you say that natural selection is non-random, do you consider it to be a process or an outcome? If you consider it a process, which selects due to present environmental conditions, you have to account for the non-randomness of the environmental conditions as well, since that is the driving force for natural selection.

In other words "carpenters don't drive nails; hammers drive nails." Do you see a problem with that?

Did the carpenter make the hammer or the nail?

None for human intelligence. But God can (and does) use contingency to serve His purposes.

Prove how the ToE is God's contingency.

But it always gets where it's supposed to go.

Circular reasoning......

Evolution moves to a result, not a plan.

So it is random then? If there is no plan, then the result is not directed or predetermined, thus random.

But as the Pope says, God can use contingency as easily as anything else. We may demand that God had to do it in ways that are comprehensible to us, but that has little effect on Him, I think.

So now you are saying, according to the Pope, that despite all your assertions about the validity of the ToE, creation is incomprehensible, and down to God's contingency?

All things are possible with God. You are just ascribing human limitations to Him.

Of course all things are possible with God, but you are the one limiting Him by relegating Him (at the very best) to be a selector of genes coughed up by a random process.

Fortunately, natural selection is the antithesis of chance. And so the process is not random, but directed.

How can the process be directed, if as you stated above, it does not go according to any plan, and just moves to an undetermined outcome? More below though, you are assigning way to much power to natural selection in the overall ToE.

I have cited both scripture and research here, to show what is true. I would be pleased to show you evidence for the above, although no person with training in biology or the Bible would doubt it.

Since you do not know anything about me, I would caution against making further assertions along the lines of Biblical and scientific training.

What research did you cite? And you quoted Scripture without exegesis, so how have you proven anything to be true?

But it says just the opposite of what you said it did. It clearly shows that evolution is a combination of random and nonrandom processes. And random process plus nonrandom process becomes a nonrandom process.

That is quite an astonishing claim, which is logically inconsistent as discussed above. But why don't you give us a clear explanation of how natural selection is non-random.

All you have done so far in this entire discussion is assert the contrary without any proof, and make dismissive comments like "please learn what it actually says", and "although no person with training in biology or the Bible would doubt it".

But since you insist on asserting that natural selection is the determinant in the ToE, why don't we see where it stands in relation to the other evolutionary mechanism, genetic drift? Gene drift is clearly understood in the biology texts to be random.

"If a population is finite in size (as all populations are) and if a given pair of parents have only a small number of offspring, then even in the absence of all selective forces, the frequency of a gene will not be exactly reproduced in the next generation because of sampling error. If in a population of 1000 individuals the frequency of "a" is 0.5 in one generation, then it may by chance be 0.493 or 0.0505 in the next generation because of the chance production of a few more or less progeny of each genotype. In the second generation, there is another sampling error based on the new gene frequency, so the frequency of "a" may go from 0.0505 to 0.501 or back to 0.498. This process of random fluctuation continues generation after generation, with no force pushing the frequency back to its initial state because the population has no "genetic memory" of its state many generations ago. Each generation is an independent event. The final result of this random change in allele frequency is that the population eventually drifts to p=1 or p=0. After this point, no further change is possible; the population has become homozygous. A different population, isolated from the first, also undergoes this random genetic drift, but it may become homozygous for allele "A", whereas the first population has become homozygous for allele "a". As time goes on, isolated populations diverge from each other, each losing heterozygosity. The variation originally present within populations now appears as variation between populations." (Suzuki, D.T., Griffiths, A.J.F., Miller, J.H. and Lewontin, R.C. in An Introduction to Genetic Analysis 4th ed. W.H. Freeman 1989 p.704)"

But it is even more than this:

"Chance events can cause the frequencies of alleles in a small population to drift randomly from generation to generation. For example, consider what would happen if a... wildflower population ... consisted of only 25 plants. Assume that 16 of the plants have the genotype AA for flower color, 8 are Aa, and only 1 is aa. Now imagine that three of the plants are accidently destroyed by a rock slide before they have a chance to reproduce. By chance, all three plants lost from the population could be AA individuals. The event would alter the relative frequency of the two alleles for flower color in subsequent generations. This is a case of microevolution caused by genetic drift...
(Campbell, N.A. in Biology 2nd ed. Benjamin/Cummings 1990 p.443)"

Furthermore, you since you seem to be arguing that natural selection is the predominant mechanism for evolution, that is also clearly wrong according to:
"In any population, some proportion of loci are fixed at a selectively unfavorable allele because the intensity of selection is insufficient to overcome the random drift to fixation. Very great skepticism should be maintained toward naive theories about evolution that assume that populations always or nearly always reach an optimal constitution under selection. The existence of multiple adaptive peaks and the random fixation of less fit alleles are integral features of the evolutionary process. Natural selection cannot be relied on to produce the best of all possible worlds." (Suzuki, D.T., Griffiths, A.J.F., Miller, J.H. and Lewontin, R.C. in An Introduction to Genetic Analysis 4th ed., W.H. Freeman, New York 1989)"

"One of the most important and controversial issues in population genetics is concerned with the relative importance of genetic drift and natural selection in determining evolutionary change. The key question at stake is whether the immense genetic variety which is observable in populations of all species is inconsequential to survival and reproduction (ie. is neutral), in which case drift will be the main determinant, or whether most gene substitutions do affect fitness, in which case natural selection is the main driving force. The arguments over this issue have been intense during the past half- century and are little nearer resolution though some would say that the drift case has become progressively stronger. (Harrison, G.A., Tanner, J.M., Pilbeam, D.R. and Baker, P.T. in Human Biology 3rd ed. Oxford University Press 1988 pp 214-215)"

This of course also raises the question as to how you distinguish whether organisms evolved due to gene drift or by natural selection?

And since gene drift is clearly described as random, this makes it entirely feasible that evolution may happen by completely random processes, since natural selection is either not always required, or the changes cannot definitively be ascribed to natural selection. So even if you assert that natural selection is non-random, it does not matter, because it is not present in all cases, especially in small populations in a stable environment.

The bottom line remains that randomness forms a large part of the ToE, and that leaves no room for God in the equation. Even if you assert that the processes were established by God, it relegates Him to a deist position who no longer plays any part in His creation. Alternatively, if God is purported to use natural selection as His mechanism to insert order, it relegates Him to a part-time influence, since natural selection is not present in all cases, nor proven to be non-random.

I guess this is about as much as I'm going to say on this topic right now. It's clear that you strongly hold certain beliefs, and it is your right to do so. We can leave it up to the audience to decide for themselves what position they wish to support.

Yehren Tell me about Jesus, What was his role in creation? Does Jesus, have an impact in the World today?

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:It is termed random because we cannot know when it occurs or what caused it.

I thought mutations, gene drift and natural selection caused it, and it can be predicted. If you don't know that, how can evolution be called science?

It can be predicted that change does occur. Which changes occur, on the other hand, cannot be predicted.
It's like the weather we can predict that earthquakes and Hurricanes will happen and the mechanisms behind them, however we cannot predict the date a particular storm will appear and the track and size of this storm.

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Just like tossing a die we don't know what number it will land on. Are you saying that even God himself doesn't know how the die will lie??
Are you?

So evolution is like throwing dice now? I don't understand what this has to do with the question at hand.

The question is if one knows all the variables the process is not random at all, just like your controlled coin toss experiment.
An Omnipotent God would know from the beginning where everything would lead, and therefore it is impossible for him to be relagated to a secondary cause. He is all causes.

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Quantum physics is completely random

If you say so.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Basically everything in existance is made up of quantum particles which randomly appear and dissapear act as waves and particles and only resolve to where they appear to us when being observed. Is this illusionary perspective of the world ok with your worldview?

Is that your definition of completely random? When we observe the wave we can measure velocity,

But not know its position.

August wrote: and when we observe the particle we can determine location.

But not know its velocity

August wrote:How is that illusionary or random?

It's not there until you measure, it its in all possible locations.

August wrote:The uncertainty principle states that we cannot assign both values at the same time, but does give a predictable standard deviation.

Quantum mechanics goes beyond the uncertainty principal

August wrote:But what does this have to do with the supposedly well-documented and substantially underwritten non-random theory of evolution?

Because the implications for quantum physics is that we inhabit a world in which our senses are so limited that we get a false impression of reality. There are light waves which the human eye can never perceive and sounds which the human ear can never pickup. Perhaps the main implicaition for quantum mechanics is that the entire universe is composed of wave particles which are completely random in nature. Which water molecule will evaporate? Which radioactive atom will decay? All of it random and unpredictable.

So again why do you see no problems with the ultimate randomness of quantum physics.

Well put.

Yehren Tell me about Jesus, What was his role in creation?

If you're a Christian, then you know He is God, existing eternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Do you accept that?

If so, then it follows that Jesus is also the Creator, who made all things.

Does Jesus, have an impact in the World today?

I can testify that he has an impact on my world. He remains Lord.

I don't get how you figure quantum theory to by an example of randomness. I mean the very base idea is that atomic energy is contained in specific quanta. The energy levels are not even remotely random it is very ordered.

But Yehren says we know what causes it, God is (at the very least) the secondary cause.

No Yehren did not say that. Please don't invent positions for me.

Yehren on mutations:
It is termed random because we cannot know when it occurs or what caused it.

I thought mutations, gene drift and natural selection caused it, and it can be predicted.

You've confused evolution and mutations. They aren't the same thing.

Jbuza wrote:I don't get how you figure quantum theory to by an example of randomness. I mean the very base idea is that atomic energy is contained in specific quanta. The energy levels are not even remotely random it is very ordered.

Again focusing on one aspect and ignoring the rest?


"I dont see how coin flips are random because there is a head side and a tail side, it is very ordered.

I agree.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:I don't get how you figure quantum theory to by an example of randomness. I mean the very base idea is that atomic energy is contained in specific quanta. The energy levels are not even remotely random it is very ordered.

Again focusing on one aspect and ignoring the rest?


"I dont see how coin flips are random because there is a head side and a tail side, it is very ordered.

Not trying to do that. Qunatum theory shows that atomic structure is very specific and not random.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:I don't get how you figure quantum theory to by an example of randomness. I mean the very base idea is that atomic energy is contained in specific quanta. The energy levels are not even remotely random it is very ordered.

Again focusing on one aspect and ignoring the rest?


"I dont see how coin flips are random because there is a head side and a tail side, it is very ordered.

Not trying to do that. Qunatum theory shows that atomic structure is very specific and not random.

Very specifically random.
Please read here.
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sci ... ncepts.htm

Fortigurn wrote:

Yehren wrote:Hmmm... I don't think so. There are old Hebrew prayers that say God is not corporeal, and that He does not have human features.

Firstly, we're not discussing 'old Hebrew prayers'. Secondly, I am not arguing at this point that God is corporeal.

To which words do you refer in Hebrew?

The words 'tselem' and 'demuth'. I suggest you see how they are used in Scripture (as well as looking up their definitions in a standard lexicon like BADG), before you start making a case based on what you suppose them to mean.

Still waiting.