Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

waynes world wrote:evolutionists don't like ID because they're afraid it might expose evolution as being false. What they don't realze is that ID nowhere denies evolution except it doesn't believe we all have the same ancestors as the animals. Its like Norman Geisler said that evolution is the religion of a secularist that is being masqueraded as science.

Intelligent Design has its merits and is a legitimate topic for discussion and study, however it is not a legitamate science.

Science is
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science

You damn ID as well as evolution with that definition of science (WHICH IS STILL OPERATIONAL, NOT ORIGINS-it's playing with weighted dice to say that the explanation MUST be a natural cause) Because, ESPECIALLY with the Bang Bang-you CANNOT explain it using natural phenomena

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:My point was that the truth is beyond the scope of science, please read in context.

Which implies supernatural, "supernatural" meaning outside of nature, which is the realm of science. The ID proponents aren't making such claims.

roysr wrote:I did not imply supernatural. And therefore no strawman, in fact I was agreeing with you.
I just had to add that detecting design assumes a designer and therefore is beyond the realm of science.

You are taking the argument a step further then the ID proponents are. Explain to me how trying to find a "target or goal" in evolution proves the existence of a God or steps out of the realm of science or observable reality?

Using that same logic, I could say the big bang isn't a valid scientific theory because it implies a God or multiverse etc..

waynes world wrote:I have posted that site on Sean Hannity's website but nobody will read it and evolutionists insist that ID and creationism are one and the same thing. I don't see how ID argues at all ffor common ancestry for all of life, which I certainly don't agree with. If you notice above the site says it depends on what kind of evolution. Micro is certainly different from Macro, alothough the evolutionists think they're the same thing and are as committed to that as they are to ID being disguised creationism.

1: The ID proponents accept both macro and micro evolution. Evolutionists and ID proponents think of them as "facts" because they (not me) believe there is a lot of evidence that supports both. William Dembski and Michael Behe have even said so (Dembski did on national TV).

2: The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how the "facts" happened. The ID proponents are trying to provide an alternative to the current theory of evolution (neo-darwinism) which is random mutation + natural selection.

3: As far as athiests or ID-critics thinking ID and creationism are the same thing... I think it is just an easy way for them to "debunk" ID without a lot of effort. It makes for a good quick sound bite on the news etc.. and by implying ID is religious, they think it will help keep it out of schools.
They use the "who designed the designer" argument for similar reasons imo. It is a fallacious argument, but it is hard to respond to it quickly in a TV show format where time is limited. They hope the lack of a full response on the part of the ID proponent will leave the impression with the viewer that they don't have a good answer for it. Kind of like a debater trick. Anyhow, that is my 2 cents on the matter.

I definately agree that they're blind. IT seems real strange that evolutionists would rather hear creationists debate them than believers of ID because creationists insist on a 10,000 year old creation including the earth and the universe and that Noah's flood explains geology. Evolutionists have their minds made up that ID is the same thing as creationism and they won't read any sites I post.

Because atheist evolutionists are ...... beyond repair! They only resort to attack mode, truth hurts them, they just might need a band-aid!

roysr wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:My point was that the truth is beyond the scope of science, please read in context.

Which implies supernatural, "supernatural" meaning outside of nature, which is the realm of science. The ID proponents aren't making such claims.

It does not imply supernatural. Science can only reasonably prove what does not fit the evidence, i.e. rule out explanations.

roysr wrote:

I did not imply supernatural. And therefore no strawman, in fact I was agreeing with you.
I just had to add that detecting design assumes a designer and therefore is beyond the realm of science.

You are taking the argument a step further then the ID proponents are. Explain to me how trying to find a "target or goal" in evolution proves the existence of a God or steps out of the realm of science or observable reality?

Using that same logic, I could say the big bang isn't a valid scientific theory because it implies a God or multiverse etc..

Science should only follow a path of evidence without knowledge of a goal. To do so otherwise introduces bias.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:It does not imply supernatural. Science can only reasonably prove what does not fit the evidence, i.e. rule out explanations.

You said ID "is not a legitimate science" and then posted a definition of science that said "Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena " in the same post. That seems to imply you think ID deals with the supernatural.

Science should only follow a path of evidence without knowledge of a goal. To do so otherwise introduces bias.

If by "goal" you mean as a presupposition, you misunderstood my post.

roysr wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:It does not imply supernatural. Science can only reasonably prove what does not fit the evidence, i.e. rule out explanations.

You said ID "is not a legitimate science" and then posted a definition of science that said "Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena " in the same post. That seems to imply you think ID deals with the supernatural.

I am sorry I did not mean to make and implications. science is
observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

It begins with observation, not with theoretical explanation.

If all of that is true than ID IS science! If it isn't science than neither is evolution.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:It begins with observation, not with theoretical explanation.

The part you seem to be missing is that the concept of ID began with observation.

waynes world wrote: Evolutionists have their minds made up that ID is the same thing as creationism and they won't read any sites I post.

Well from my experience, many (not all) athiests have it set in their minds that any website/book that even questions evolution must be filled with "creationist lies". So they usually won't read them, and if they do, they are reading it with that mindset.

At the same time though, they tend to shamelessly post links to talkorigins (or similar sites) whenever it suits their purpose and expect the people debating with them to read it. While I don't mind looking at the talkorigins site, I kind of get annoyed when they try to use talkorigins as an "invincible authority" or "debate ender" whenever they post a link to it.

I want evolutionists to bite the bullet and attempt to attack ID itself. Many evolutionists seem to hide behind the definition of operational science...and then fight from there.

roysr wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:It begins with observation, not with theoretical explanation.

The part you seem to be missing is that the concept of ID began with observation.

And what is this observation?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: And what is this observation?

One of the observations would be Irreducible Complexity. Here is a pdf that explains what is meant by IC...

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_Irr ... 011404.pdf

Now I would like you to answer the following question (you seem to be avoiding it) If in the future "evolutionary mutations" are found to be non-random events and we are able to confirm it through successful predictions, would saying they aren't random be non-scientific?

roysr wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: And what is this observation?

One of the observations would be Irreducible Complexity. Here is a pdf that explains what is meant by IC...

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_Irr ... 011404.pdf

Now I would like you to answer the following question (you seem to be avoiding it) If in the future "evolutionary mutations" are found to be non-random events and we are able to confirm it through successful predictions, would saying they aren't random be non-scientific?

What is irreducible complexity, it is not an observation. The observation is complexity the conclusion is that it is irreducible.

This "fact" that it is irreducible is separate from the observations. It is indeed not an observation in itself.

I can say that the sunset is beautiful.

Indeed the sun set. The "fact" that it is beautiful is not objective.

If I have some magnets layed out at each end of a table and placed some paper on top. Then I threw some iron shavings onto the paper and tapped it a few time th shavings line up with the magnetic field. It forms a pattern. Complexity from chaos. But what is driving this order, well of course its the magnetic fields.

But what is the source of the magnetic fields and what is the source of the source. You can see that you can continue forever seeking the answer but never reaching it. Science cannot give you the answers. It is a flashlight which allows us only to see what is happening in the darkness of reality, not why.