Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

[Canuckster1127]

For zoegirl:

A God would be above the laws He makes but that doesn't exclude the idea that His laws are predictable.

Again, not to flog a dead horse, but the fact that his laws are predictable is maybe more than a happy coincidence. But there is no reason they have to be. Nor is there reason to believe they will have to operate this way tomorrow. And, of course, we won't entertain that notion that the god you feel created the laws may not actually be the right one. It is the totality of this uncertainty that makes the prospect of invoking supernatural explanations in science fundamentally untenable.

Again, my bedrock assumption is that the *creation* is predictable and testable. I don't feel that the existence of God in no way compromises the ability to test and observe his creation.

And I totally agree. Otherwise, I would never have gone into science. But I continue to maintain that as a scientist, I am bound to observe an assumption that God does not and has not intervened in observable phenomena I am investigating.

I think we must all be careful of making assumptions that cannot be made and naturalism as an argument against the existence of God is one, imo.

Well, unless we have changed topic here, I don't think that methodological naturalism (the philosophy I argue is the foundation of scientific inquiry) does this. Metaphysical materialism does do this, but accepting this idea is not a necessary component of scientific exploration.

I think I agree with this distinction.

Science as a method, by definition has to limited to the material, the observable, the measurable and the recreatable. Now, the scientist, isn't limited to this in terms of his or her beliefs unless he or she chooses to limit the entire sphere of his or her beliefs to just this sector which is what happens when materialism is carried out beyond the scientific method to a metaphysical belief system, which, ironically is precisely when it ceases to be science and then becomes an epistemological construct that relies upon unprovable premises in the larger scope.

A scientist can do science during the week working with the constructs of the scientific method as a requirement of their profession and attend Church on Sunday and worship the creator of the Universe without there having to be the slightest disconnect, as long as that person is clear as to what is hard science and what is metaphysical or religious belief that by definition is outside the realm of science. A lot of people have difficulty with this separation however, and in that regard some Christians and Atheists have more in common with each other than they do with the majority who can make that distinction.

My opinion anyway.

[frankbaginski]

ARWallace,

A couple of questions for you since you seem knowledgable in science. Maybe in the answers you may get a feel for the amount of intervention God has with His creation.

Explain how an embryo developes into a finished species with symmetry and no twist?
Explain how every atom in the universe is a spinning dipole yet they do not run down over time?
Explain the cause of the changes in the ZPE over the last twenty years?
Explain why the redshifted light from distant sources occurs in freq steps or quantum steps?
Explain the behavior of photons in that they seem to know what every other photon in the universe is doing?
Explain why organic molecules are left handed?
Explain why the organic molecule that connects our cells together looks like a cross?

There is no need to write a reply to these. They are meant to show just how little we know. As time goes on I expect this list to grow substantialy. More questions to answer. For everytime we think we found an answer we actually are faced with more questions.

[Canuckster1127]

ARWallace,

A couple of questions for you since you seem knowledgable in science. Maybe in the answers you may get a feel for the amount of intervention God has with His creation.

Explain how an embryo developes into a finished species with symmetry and no twist?
Explain how every atom in the universe is a spinning dipole yet they do not run down over time?
Explain the cause of the changes in the ZPE over the last twenty years?
Explain why the redshifted light from distant sources occurs in freq steps or quantum steps?
Explain the behavior of photons in that they seem to know what every other photon in the universe is doing?
Explain why organic molecules are left handed?
Explain why the organic molecule that connects our cells together looks like a cross?

There is no need to write a reply to these. They are meant to show just how little we know. As time goes on I expect this list to grow substantialy. More questions to answer. For everytime we think we found an answer we actually are faced with more questions.

Frank,

This is the traditional God of the Gaps argument and while I believe in God, obviously, I believe to argue for the existence of God on this basis is a logical fallacy and unnecessary.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

I have no problem at all admitting that science doesn't have all the answers, that it sometimes raises more questions than it answers or even that it often doesn't even ask the right questions.

That's not a basis of faith however.

Bart

[zoegirl]

Explain why the organic molecule that connects our cells together looks like a cross?

well, you got me curious, to what are referring here? There are hundreds of proteins involved in connecting cells together....

[frankbaginski]

ARWallace,

The argument about the flagellum has been beat to death. I see common parts you may see evolutionary steps. I cannot show God create the flagellum and you cannot show me the steps that transform one species into another. In fact you cannot show me the steps from one bacteria to another that uses parts of the flagellum. Even though the steps happened by accident we can't figure them out. Does that seem odd to you, it does me.

[Canuckster1127]

ARWallace,

The argument about the flagellum has been beat to death. I see common parts you may see evolutionary steps. I cannot show God create the flagellum and you cannot show me the steps that transform one species into another. In fact you cannot show me the steps from one bacteria to another that uses parts of the flagellum. Even though the steps happened by accident we can't figure them out. Does that seem odd to you, it does me.

What if science did figure them out? Would that shake your faith?

[frankbaginski]

Canuckster1127,

I am not refering to the God of the gaps. The strangeness of the photon investigation is beyond "normal" science. I think we might actually be at the point in physics to "see" the hand of God. This in my view is no gap.

It would not shake my faith if the steps were found. Good luck in finding them.

[Canuckster1127]

Canuckster1127,

I am not refering to the God of the gaps. The strangeness of the photon investigation is beyond "normal" science. I think we might actually be at the point in physics to "see" the hand of God. This in my view is no gap.

It would not shake my faith if the steps were found. Good luck in finding them.

Fair enough. I don't know that they will be found and in any event all science could do in that situation is offer a plausibe path, but it still would not prove how it actually did happen.

Science isn't the sum of all knowledge and never will be.

[ARWallace]

From straight memory, wasn't he the one who also came up with the theory of natural selection? (or am I mixing up names?) He wrote DArwin himself asking him to check up on his logic and thoughts. Aren't there some who consider him to be the orginal theorist behind the theory of natural selection?

Two and a half gold stars, zoegirl! He did develop the idea of evolution by natural selection independently of Darwin, and he did send a copy of his manuscript to Darwin for review. And to his credit, Darwin did present both his and Wallace's papers together at a meeting of the Royal Society. But he wasn't the original theorist. In fact, Darwin developed his ideas long before Wallace - he just spent 30 years collecting evidences, Wallace more or less moved him to press - Wallace published a journal article, Darwin a book. And Wallace was a common man of modest means wracked with malaria and dysentery in Malaysia while Darwin enjoyed tea and crumpets on the back lawn. Not that I am dissing Darwin... Hey, shouldn't you be lesson planning - or grading papers or something?

What is what we are examing with regard to historical evidence DOES reflect a personal involved God? Would you EVER be able to prove otherwise?

I am not sure I follow the question.

For myself, I don't like resting on the "God did it" for the explanation, but not, perhaps, for the same reason as you.....I believe He DID create and design the bacterial flagellum but I personlly love examining HOW He did it. FOr that, I think scientific explanations are awesome....it's what I love about biology.

What degree of intervention do you think was involved? There's sort of a spectrum with "he popped into existence instantly" to "he developed the laws that govern the universe and let things go".

For now, my biggest concern was this idea that seemed to be cropping up that "naturalistic" explanations are sufficient to rule out God. The idea that a proposed pathway clinches an argument that it is without God just bothers me.

Well, if you read the Wedge Document, this bothered the architects of ID too. So much so that releasing the grip that materialism had on science became one of their prime directives. Personally, I am a little less worked up about this - I think god is as much a part of science as you want him to be. For example, if a deep and clinical understanding of the molecular biology of gene expression somehow demystifies the beauty of the embryonic development of your baby to the point of believing god had no part in the process, then I'd say you'd have a problem. On the other hand, if a deeper understanding of the process of evolution enhances your appreciation of how it could generate the biodiversity we see on Earth today, then I'd say this could possibly be spiritually motivating.

But HOW in the world can you even ASSERT this as a testable hypothesis? You could NEVER be able to test that God DOESN"T intervene and therefore cannot, with any confidence, state that its a valid principle.

Well, here's the thing - the existence of a supernatural entity is, as we have agreed, outside the domain of science to verify. We simply can't use science as a tool to confirm or deny the existence of god(s). So we can't assume that some agent that we can't detect is involved in operations of the natural universe. We have to make the assumption there is no intervention because we have no way to detect the entity intervening. Would you agree that tarot card reading or astrology are nonscientific pursuits? If the slip of a card really did determine your fate, we'd have no way to explain this nor any way to understand how. We (realists, at least) assume there is no supernatural activity at play...no divination - but to some this is a very real part of their life. Re-reading this, I think this may be a rather bad example. But I'm stretching to come up with a better one (hey, I'm tired).

Bear in mind that I am coming at this from a Christian perspective, so my scripture states that God was involved during creation (btw, currently OEC and progressive creationist) and accomplished what He willed. He established the creation and stated it good, fit, proper....

Thank you for your candor.

[frankbaginski]

zoegirl,

Look up an image of laminin. I find it very interesting that:

Job 31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

Just what did He use to fashion us?

[Gman]

Explain why the organic molecule that connects our cells together looks like a cross?

well, you got me curious, to what are referring here? There are hundreds of proteins involved in connecting cells together....

This has got me confused too... A message from God or something?

[Jad]

Well, I did a little research - and some folks on this board have posted a link to a thesis written by John A. Davison - (i.e. JAD) - a physiologist professor emeritus at the University of Vermont.

Ah yes, that makes sense now lol. Thankyou for clearing that up for me.

Can I be so bold as to ask what your world view is? Agnostic, Atheistic, Deist etc? While I enjoy your reading (and others) I can't help but notice this discussion is heading towards a more philosophical route. The throwing back and forth of scientific facts to each other is always good fun but I don't think it is leading to any resolved answers or much more than some form of tension. Nice Christian tension but tension non the less . You've already made the suggestion in some of the discussion here to agree to disagree so I thought maybe a different angle might make for a more stimulating conversation. Your call though, I don't want to impose anything on you.

[Jad]

Explain why the organic molecule that connects our cells together looks like a cross?

well, you got me curious, to what are referring here? There are hundreds of proteins involved in connecting cells together....

This has got me confused too... A message from God or something?

I think he is talking about Laminin. Do a google image search on Laminin and you'll see. Frank you been watching Louie Giglio's 'How Great is our God' DVD?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejj51hNIL3E


-

[frankbaginski]

Jad,

I bet that was confusing with JAD being tossed around. Did you read his manifesto? I found it interesting to read. At least it offers a way to check itself without waiting a couple of million years.

Evolution is so slow you cannot see it happening. What a great theory. It cannot be tested. And anything found must be due to natural selection. Ha ha ha The rest of the sciences must think the evos are nuts.

[frankbaginski]

Jad,

I got the laminin image from a creation scientist that does work in AZ. You should have seen the pictures of the beatles he had. He works with electron microscopes. Nice guy. He is definitely in the design camp.