Evidence for God from Science

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:It seems somewhat odd that he would say that-when science was started in earnest by Christians. I think they'd be good examples that Christianity does not in fact say abandon reason.

RobertT.Pennock wrote:Furthermore, it is NOT supported by the evidence. Let biologist Jerry Coyne speak about this topic: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne05 ... index.html

Also I think the tone of Dr. Coyne would explain why most scientists are not embracing Christianity. He deems Christianity a religion which abandons rational inquiry to believe in a fantasy not supported by empirical evidence. Although, this is not directly expressed by Dr. Coyne, I derived the conclusion from the article.

I'm sorry to say, but Coyne doesn't appear to understand what Intelligent Design is and only regurgitates misinformation. Rather than detail the many "strawmen" he gets into by associating ID with Creationism, I would recommend reading a response by Wells at the Discovery Institute which sets a fair bit of Coyne's misinformation straight: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=2933

RobertT.Pennock wrote:

I'm sorry to say, but Coyne doesn't appear to understand what Intelligent Design is and only regurgitates misinformation. Rather than detail the many "strawmen" he gets into by associating ID with Creationism, I would recommend reading a response by Wells at the Discovery Institute which sets a fair bit of Coyne's misinformation straight: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=2933

I concur with you Kurieuo. Dr. Coyne does commit the fallacy of equivocation in his article when he does assail the strawman of creationism by associating it with intelligent design. But one has to admit he does an excellent job at debunking the idea that there is not a unbroken continunity in which all life could be traced to a common ancestory. I do not want any dissent challenging common descent in science classrooms because that prediction by Darwin is well supported by the evidence.

RobertT.Pennock wrote:

I'm sorry to say, but Coyne doesn't appear to understand what Intelligent Design is and only regurgitates misinformation. Rather than detail the many "strawmen" he gets into by associating ID with Creationism, I would recommend reading a response by Wells at the Discovery Institute which sets a fair bit of Coyne's misinformation straight: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=2933

I concur with you Kurieuo. Dr. Coyne does commit the fallacy of equivocation in his article when he does assail the strawman of creationism by associating it with intelligent design. But one has to admit he does an excellent job at debunking the idea that there is not a unbroken continunity in which all life could be traced to a common ancestory. I do not want any dissent challenging common descent in science classrooms because that prediction by Darwin is well supported by the evidence. Moreover, Michael Behe actually does believe in common descent (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Wor ... ture.shtml).

... note Coyne's choice of words: "all" of the evidence supports common ancestry, which is as much a "fact" as gravity, so "we know" that it's true.

Contrast this with the observations of Henry Gee, another Darwinist and a science writer for the journal Nature. In his 1999 book In Search of Deep Time, Gee wrote: "No fossil is buried with its birth certificate." It's hard enough, with written records, to trace a human lineage back a few hundred years, and "the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." Gee concluded: "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."

Gee doesn't doubt common ancestry, but since it's impossible to infer it from the fossil evidence he acknowledges that it's an assumption. Why, then, does Coyne claim that common ancestry is on a par with gravity? If I pick up something and then let it fall to the ground, am I assuming gravity or watching it in action? If no one can possibly observe ancestry and descent in fossil species, how can common ancestry be as "factual" as something all of us can observe with our own eyes? Only by an impressive leap of faith.

Behe also took aim at scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, which have spoken out against teaching intelligent design in science classes.

“The National Academy of Sciences treats intelligent design in a way what I consider utterly misleading. Talk about scholarly malfeasance!” Behe complained.

He disputed the academy's statement that the intelligent-design concept attributed the complexity of nature to “the hand of God.”

“I advocated none of those ideas,” Behe said. “I take this as a political statement unsupported by any references.”

Behe also accused the AAAS of issuing a “political document” when it stated that intelligent design should not be taught in high-school science classes.

The school board is defending its decision a year ago to require students to hear a statement on intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and it refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information about the concept.

Observation rather than religion
Behe said intelligent design relies on observing the natural world, not on religious belief.

"Intelligent design requires no tenet of any specific religion," he said, "It does not rely on religious texts, messages from religious leaders or any such thing."

Behe claimed that teaching intelligent design would clear up what he said were students' misconceptions that evolution is fact and not a theory. Intelligent design, he said, provides students with another way of looking at the facts.

Intelligent-design backer fires back at critics
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9741900/

Gee concluded: "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."

Gee doesn't doubt common ancestry, but since it's impossible to infer it from the fossil evidence he acknowledges that it's an assumption. Why, then, does Coyne claim that common ancestry is on a par with gravity? If I pick up something and then let it fall to the ground, am I assuming gravity or watching it in action?