Evidence for God from Science

Inductively.

Kurieuo.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/ ... 7083.shtml

Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.

VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM

God created humans in present form

All Americans
55%

Kerry voters
47%

Bush voters
67%

Humans evolved, God guided the process

All Americans
27%

Kerry voters
28%

Bush voters
22%

Humans evolved, God did not guide process

All Americans
13%

Kerry voters
21%

Bush voters
6%

FAVOR SCHOOLS TEACHING…

Creationism and evolution

All Americans
65%

Kerry voters
56%

Bush voters
71%

Creationism instead of evolution

All Americans
37%

Kerry voters
24%

Bush voters
45%

60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.

http://www.time.com

What exactly is their critique of Darwin? Much of it revolves around the appealing idea that living things are simply too exquisitely complex to have evolved by a combination of chance mutations and natural selection. The dean of that school of thought is Lehigh University biologist and Discovery Institute senior fellow Michael Behe, author of the 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, a seminal work on intelligent design. Behe's main argument points to the fact that living organisms contain such ingenious structures as the eye and systems like the mechanism for clotting blood, which involves at least 20 interacting proteins. He calls such phenomena "irreducibly complex" because removing or altering any part invalidates the whole. Behe claims they could not have arisen through the gradual fits and starts of evolution, which, he says, "has been oversold to the public." Although his writing is couched in the language of science, Behe, a practicing Catholic who home schools his nine children, believes the hand of the designer is self-evident. "That's why most people disbelieve Darwinian evolution," he says. "People go out and look at the trees and say, 'Nah.'"

Other arguments in this new brand of anti-Darwinism focus on missing pieces in the fossil record, particularly the Cambrian period, when there was an explosion of novel species. Still other advocates, including mathematician, philosopher and theologian William Dembski, who is heading up a new center for intelligent design at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, use the mathematics of probability to try to show that chance mutations and natural selection cannot account for nature's complexity. In contrast to earlier opponents to Darwin, many proponents of intelligent design accept some role for evolution--heresy to some creationists. They are also careful not to bring God into the discussion (another sore point for hard-line creationists), preferring to keep primarily to the language of science. This may also help them avoid the legal and political pitfalls of teaching creationism.

http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp2no7.htm

What kind of evolution would be taught in the poll questions? I have no problem with teaching about the theory of evolution-the problem comes when you present evolution as if it's 1) a fact and 2) generally supported by scientific findings.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:What kind of evolution would be taught in the poll questions?

What poll?

VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM

God created humans in present form

All Americans
55%

Kerry voters
47%

Bush voters
67%

Humans evolved, God guided the process

All Americans
27%

Kerry voters
28%

Bush voters
22%

Humans evolved, God did not guide process

All Americans
13%

Kerry voters
21%

Bush voters
6%

FAVOR SCHOOLS TEACHING…

Creationism and evolution

All Americans
65%

Kerry voters
56%

Bush voters
71%

Creationism instead of evolution

All Americans
37%

Kerry voters
24%

Bush voters
45%

60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.

The polls that got these results boy wonder

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: The polls that got these results boy wonder

The questions are self-explanatory, so I don't see what you're asking.

I have no problem with evolution being taught, as long as it is taught as a theory not a law.

If they taught the Scientific evidence for and against, then I would be accepting of this. Yet, many on the evolution side of things aren't even wanting that (as has been revealed in Kansas). Therefore I think we have clear evidence that evolution has been taught dogmatically.

Kurieuo.

I guess we're switching from the actual creation to evolution.

I don't think creation should be taught in the science classroom. I have no problem if it is discussed in other areas (could be history, philosophy, or someplace else).

But evolution IS generally supported by scienctific findings. I'll only address what has already been said here. 1) Behe's 'it's just too complex to have happened naturally' argument (as presented above). There is no evidence that nature is restricted to 'simple' creations - this appeals to people emotionally I think. 2) Fossil gap. Maybe nature's complexity isn't probable, maybe it is, but probability doesn't get us closer to an answer. If evolution is right, then as they find fossils to fill the gap, those fossils should fall in as generally predicted. If they don't. then the claim that it is wrong will be pretty strong (or they'll have to modify the theory). I have not seen any major claim of this sort, but that there are just gaps. To date, new fossils have filled the gap as predicted.

Incidentally, I have been reading lately on the flood. Evidence definitely supports localized floods, but I am having difficulty finding evidence for a worldwide flood. Does one have to interpret the bible version as being worldwide? If so, did it actually cover the entire earth entirely (meaning covering the highest peek including Mt Everest?) or could bits stick out? Anyone have a link that might help?

chocloateonly wrote: I don't think creation should be taught in the science classroom. I have no problem if it is discussed in other areas (could be history, philosophy, or someplace else).

Liberals don't want creationism or intelligent design to be taught, because they feel it's too religious. This isn't the case, because they teach that existence demonstrates that it was likely designed and created by something---it doesn't name Jesus, Zeus, Yaweh, Allah, Buddha, Ganesh, etc. Evolution and creationism/intelligent design should both be taught as theories. Students deserve to hear both sides.

chocloateonly wrote:Incidentally, I have been reading lately on the flood. Evidence definitely supports localized floods, but I am having difficulty finding evidence for a worldwide flood. Does one have to interpret the bible version as being worldwide? If so, did it actually cover the entire earth entirely (meaning covering the highest peek including Mt Everest?) or could bits stick out? Anyone have a link that might help?

If you haven't read it already, I'd recommend reading over the article at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html for an articulation of the local flood position.

Kurieuo.