Evidence for God from Science

Jad wrote: 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
-

Ah, Ok... So we are basing our faith and science on the shape of an organic molecule?

Gman wrote:

Jad wrote: 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
-

Ah, Ok... So we are basing our faith and science on the shape of an organic molecule?

Kinda makes you wonder what would happen if there were a molecule out there shaped like a swastika .........

Al wrote: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.

But why *must* this assumption be held in order to follow emprirical methods?. In other words, if there IS no way of detecting the intervention of a God, then it really *should* make no difference if you believe in a God, as long as you held that you can test this world, that it is predicatble and testable.

I think my statements extend to other audiences, I gues.... I think you understand what I am saying, ultimately. But the fact that many atheist scientists DO use this as an argument irks me because they present this "naturalism" not as a method of examining the world, but as an apologetic for rejecting the existence of GOd.

Al wrote: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".

I will be honest and say I don't pretend to HOw or in what way God intervenes. I presented the verses that explain WHY I believe He is a personal God (that plus experiences in my life, but *that* wouldn't convince you ) I dont' think any person even COULD understand this integration. Obviously we do see the creation as predictable, even Christians understand this to be so, most operate within this understanding that the world God has made operates under predictable rules and laws. We don't blithely (or I hope we don't!!) leave off the seatbelt thinking that God's rules about momentum and inertia will be suspended today. We have tested and tested the world and see it as predictable.

But even in this very predicatbility, we could never be able to delineate out *this* part of creation as what God was not in control of.

I don't at this point believe in the variety of "popping into existence" (although not because it couldn't happen that way, rather I don't think the evidence shows that method). I also don't believe in "letting things go". I think that way lies Deism and scriptures do not reveal a GOd who simply "let things go". I believe I already described that scripture shows in Genesis a God that is personal (not just "setting things up").

Progressive creationsim, in my mind, offers the clearest model

Al wrote:

zoegirl wrote: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.

Sorry, there is a typo there....What IF what we are examining.....

In other words, if we look at all of the propsed mechanisms of HOW the organsims evolved, could we ever prove that God wasn't invovled? What if all of those theories DO reflect a creation in which its creator was involved....could you ever disprove that? or show me otherwise?

Al wrote: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

Again, I don't hold just blithely stating "God did it, that's enough", so I don't view Christianity (with regards to exmaning the world) as equal to pulling out cards....I think there is a real role to examining creation and indeed, I view it as part of our mandate from the Garden, to be good stewards....we can't be good stewards if we do not understand the creation.

I know that Darwin had been developing his thesis for a lot longer, mispoke about that....

And I SHOULD be grading....have been taking not so quick breaks from entering grades.....oy....you should definitley understand!!

frankbaginski wrote: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.

Hehe yes I was very confused lol. I'm sitting here reading all this stuff JAD said thinking "I didn't say that did I??"

Yes I've read most of the JAD's manifesto. It was a while ago though and I've been meaning to finish it but got very busy leading up to and with Christmas. And yes it is a good read. You don't have to agree with all of it but it does make you rethink a few things, no matter what side of the fence you sit on.

Canuckster1127 wrote: Kinda makes you wonder what would happen if there were a molecule out there shaped like a swastika .........

Let the nazi in you shine through....

For Frank:

Well, some of the questions you posed are physics questions - well outside my area of expertise (and to large extent, interest). But I am more interested in the point you are trying to make. This list reads suspiciously like a "stump the evolutionist" list - questions that are intended to cast doubt on evolution or science in general because it fails to currently provide answers for every conceivable phenomenon. The lists are generated by, and usually delivered with some sort of agenda - hidden or otherwise. I am not suggesting this is the case here, but I am curious as to why you presented them. And further suppose I had answers for some, or all of them. What then?

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

Well, if it has been beaten to death it is likely because it is the poster child of ID, and the only example more widely touted is the mousetrap. And the fact remains that Behe continues to insist that it is an IC structure.

I actually can show you the steps that transform one species to another. I wouldn't force you to accept them, but I can say that it has been documented to the satisfaction of a large number of people in the scientific community. Look back early in this thread on my explanation of allopatric speciation and the molecular basis directing it in threespine stickleback. Again, I am not forcing you to accept this as a satisfactory example, but it is not entirely true to state that such evidence does not exist.

And I am sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Could you restate it? "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."

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Gman wrote:

Jad wrote: 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
-

Ah, Ok... So we are basing our faith and science on the shape of an organic molecule?

Kinda makes you wonder what would happen if there were a molecule out there shaped like a swastika .........

Short, sweet, and to the point....good point Canuckster...

There are HUNDREDS of proteins invovled in cell junctions, cytoskeletal proteins, and extracellular matrix, in just as many protein shapes. I think we have to be careful to extend this image too far....it is neat, but hardly evidence of God. Far more convincing to me is the grandeur invovled in the myriads of proteins out there, the sheer beauty and order in the protein structure (nerd alert!!)... protein sythesis and Molecular genetics are my favorites to teach! Cool stuff.

ARWallace wrote:I actually can show you the steps that transform one species to another. I wouldn't force you to accept them, but I can say that it has been documented to the satisfaction of a large number of people in the scientific community. Look back early in this thread on my explanation of allopatric speciation and the molecular basis directing it in threespine stickleback. Again, I am not forcing you to accept this as a satisfactory example, but it is not entirely true to state that such evidence does not exist.

Check out this audio link below Al if you get the chance. It is in regards to allopatric speciation. You need RealPlayer installed on your PC to hear it and it will take a while to load up but in any case it's worth a listen. If you can't hear it I'll see if I can get a mp3 version of it.

pnm://broadcast.reasons.org/rtbradio/cu20021119.rm?start=01:33:20.0

zoegirl:

But the fact that many atheist scientists DO use this as an argument irks me because they present this "naturalism" not as a method of examining the world, but as an apologetic for rejecting the existence of GOd.

And I would argue an unfair extension of the idea of methodological naturalism. On this, I think, we agree.

I presented the verses that explain WHY I believe He is a personal God (that plus experiences in my life, but *that* wouldn't convince you)

Much of one's religious beliefs are the result of deeply personal experiences. And because they're personal, they're unlikely to convince others that may not share your beliefs to share them. But that doesn't detract from their role in forming your own beliefs.

I don't at this point believe in the variety of "popping into existence" (although not because it couldn't happen that way, rather I don't think the evidence shows that method). I also don't believe in "letting things go". I think that way lies Deism and scriptures do not reveal a GOd who simply "let things go". I believe I already described that scripture shows in Genesis a God that is personal (not just "setting things up").

Fair enough. You split the difference...somewhere in the middle. But would be open to the "popped it into existence" if some evidence supported it?

Progressive creationsim, in my mind, offers the clearest model

Well, I am unfamiliar with this model. I would say as someone who has been around and around on this a little that some will charge anyone who adopts anything less than a literal 6 day, Noahician flood reading of Genesis as a disingenuous theistic evolutionist. Has this charge ever been leveled at you based on this belief system?

if we look at all of the propsed mechanisms of HOW the organsims evolved, could we ever prove that God wasn't invovled? What if all of those theories DO reflect a creation in which its creator was involved....could you ever disprove that?

Well, on the one hand, a strictly dogmatic scientist (even a theistic one) would be obliged to continue seeking a naturalistic explanation...assuming they wanted to continue their scientific inquiry. On the other hand, I can I can't think of a test that cold be designed that could confirm that God was the architect involved. And finally, I am not certain you could prove a negative - that god(s) weren't involved. Again, because there is no test that could be designed to test the existence of god(s), one can't very easily disprove their role in evolution. This whole thread is starting to make me bleed out of my ears...

I could say that there may be some evidences that, if they existed, would be difficult if not impossible for the ToE to explain. But I don't think they would lead to the default conclusion that god(s) was involved.

Again, I don't hold just blithely stating "God did it, that's enough", so I don't view Christianity (with regards to exmaning the world) as equal to pulling out cards

And again, I didn't mean to marginalize your religious beliefs to mere parlor tricks. I was only pointing out that there are other human endeavors that invoke the acts of the supernatural - and for better of worse, that is what ID is. And if one's fate really could be decided by the alignment of the stars or the turn of a card, then we simply can't use science to explain it.

Al wrote:Well, I am unfamiliar with this model. I would say as someone who has been around and around on this a little that some will charge anyone who adopts anything less than a literal 6 day, Noahician flood reading of Genesis as a disingenuous theistic evolutionist. Has this charge ever been leveled at you based on this belief system?

yes....I received an e-mail from a parent las tyear with the ominous statement "you DO teach the literal 24 hour....don't you?" as if anything else was heresy.

check out http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html for more info regarding progressive creationism

Al wrote:This whole thread is starting to make me bleed out of my ears...

don;t know whether to apologize or just grin.

For Jad (not to be confused with JAD)

Can I be so bold as to ask what your world view is? Agnostic, Atheistic, Deist etc?

Well, it's all a rather deeply personal thing to me - sort of this - sort of that...how's that for an evasive, dodgy, not-sure-I-want-to-put-out-on-the-first-date kind of answer?

While I enjoy your reading (and others) I can't help but notice this discussion is heading towards a more philosophical route.

True. While not my specific area of expertise, it is all pretty relevant to many of the discussions involving ID, creationism, evolution and the nature of science. So it's kind of fun stuff to kick around - metaphysical navel gazing sort of stuff. Do you have some more hard science you'd like to discuss?

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.

I wasn't sensing any tension - but it wasn't my goal if there was. Tension can be caused by several things - animosity and acrimony for one (I don't think that is the case - or rather I hope it wasn't) - or maybe because we are flirting with issues that are challenging folks to plumb a little more deeply. That can be good tension. But if it's the former and not the latter, and I'm being a dillweed, please let me know...

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.

Well, yes, I did say that. I don't want to force my views on anyone - I hold no particular monopoly on truth. But I can bullheaded if you'd really like me to...

Gman wrote:

Jad wrote: 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
-

Ah, Ok... So we are basing our faith and science on the shape of an organic molecule?

Not me no. It does make for a good analogy though, as explained in the YouTube link.

zoegirl,

I see evidence for God everytime I open my eyes, or hear a sound, or touch anything. To me the creation is God's work and everytime I experience it in any fashion is a blessing. I stopped drowning in science some time ago. I still study alot but just don't take it as serious as I used to. I would still call myself a nerd because I study somethings and all of the tangents that go with it.

The molecule is a nice thing to view. Since I take all things as a fingerprint of God then this molecule is special. So is Saturn in my eyes, it is so wonderful to watch in the telescope.

ARWallace wrote:

K wrote:Don't you mean metaphysical naturalism? Methodological naturalism does not assume God or a creator do not exist so the Creationist variety of ID does not violate it. On the other hand, metaphysical naturalism rules out such from the get go and so would thus be incompatible.

No, I don't mean metaphysical naturalism which implies that supernatural beings do not exist. Methodological naturalism says nothing about the existence of the supernatural except that if they do exist, that the do not intervene in the operations of the natural universe. In other words, natural phenomena (such as the existence of bacterial flagella) have natural explanations (such as they arose by natural selection). The difference, while subtle, is important. For example, embracing metaphysical naturalism pretty much precludes one's ability to believe in god(s), while adopting methodological naturalism simply governs the way you practice science regardless of your religious beliefs.

Then perhaps science is limited then when it comes to the questions in life that really matter to us? Yet, I would still point out that you argue for too much. One can still consider something designed without answering the question of who did the designing. Any further assumptions about who did the designing just should be kept out of science which, wrongly or rightly, adheres to methodological naturalism.

ARWallace wrote:

K wrote:The core ID proponents (those central to the movement) however do not take this leap to suggest who the designer is with their science.

Respectfully, I disagree. The chief architects of ID have, at some point, stated who they think the intelligent designer is. And they universally agree that it is the Judeo-Christian God. Michael Behe "freely acknowledged that he believes the designer is God" on trial. Dembski states that "...no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life" (ref). And "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." (ref). Phillip Johnson said ""We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." (ref). So while they claim that ID makes no claims about the identify of the creator, they do have their opinions.

Sure. I have seen such people be quite open regarding their religious beliefs when talk enters of who the designer is. I have also seen that they often declare that such beliefs are outside the realms of science and ought not be taught as science. Thus, I was correct when as I quite carefully said that core ID proponents "do not take this leap to suggest who the designer is with their science." On the other hand, they are quite free to consider who the designer is outside the realm of science and in the realm of philosophy or theology. Surely you are not suggesting that science can only be practiced by those who do not believe in God or a creator of some sort?

On the other hand, many Creationist ID advocates want "who the designer is," specifically the God of the Bible and even in particular the creation position which says God created everything in six 24-hour days, taught in science classrooms. Science is just the wrong area for such issues to be taught and discussed.

ARWallace wrote:For Jad (not to be confused with JAD)

Can I be so bold as to ask what your world view is? Agnostic, Atheistic, Deist etc?

Well, it's all a rather deeply personal thing to me - sort of this - sort of that...how's that for an evasive, dodgy, not-sure-I-want-to-put-out-on-the-first-date kind of answer?

Haha ok. I'll have to work it out on my own then by reading everything you post.

So it's kind of fun stuff to kick around - metaphysical navel gazing sort of stuff. Do you have some more hard science you'd like to discuss?

Hehe yes but my expertise is in philosophy not science so I'd rather go down the philosophical path lol. How about for every hard science question you ask and I answer, you attempt the same with my philosophical questions? I'll let you go first.

I wasn't sensing any tension - but it wasn't my goal if there was. Tension can be caused by several things - animosity and acrimony for one (I don't think that is the case - or rather I hope it wasn't) - or maybe because we are flirting with issues that are challenging folks to plumb a little more deeply. That can be good tension. But if it's the former and not the latter, and I'm being a dillweed, please let me know...

Yeh good tension. Challenging folks to dig a little deeper can be a very good thing.

I hold no particular monopoly on truth.

That's a philosophical statement. Shame on you.