Evidence for God from Science

August: To expound:

God has implemented many natural systems that require no personal intervention. Our core biological processes seem to work under laws of nature that do not need constant attendance.

Evolution is just one of those processes. Natural selection and mutation inevitably will bring about changes in the gene pool. Gravity inevitably brings objects with mass together. These processes do not need to be directly guided; they appear to be pre-packaged to bring about certain results.

Other subject: The New Testament and the New Law are completely different ways of presenting God's Word. The New Testament is far more historical in nature and involves (minus Jesus) far fewer miraculous events. It's methodology of presentation gives far more confidence in the historicity of listed events and phenomena.

Matthew_O wrote:I agree that it should not be blindly accepted. However, I disagree that the scientific problems with evolution be discussed in class. There is a primary reason for this: the criticisms of evolutionary theory in peer-reviewed literature deal only with specific mechanisms. Often these deal more with balances, influence percentages, etc.. They are not criticisms about the soundness of common ancestory. Pragmatically, it seems that passing on common understanding is difficult enough for educators. To try and include high-level criticism seems a bit utopian.

I agree the issue essentially involve "specific mechanisms" and one of these mechanisms being those advocated within Darwinian evolution of gradualistic changes through natural selection acting on random mutations. For example, Kennith Miller himself admitted at the Denver "pointed to “enormous controversy within evolutionary theory on the relative values and weights to give to forces such as natural selection…" (http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID. ... detail.asp) I believe someone as prominant as Eugene Scott is also one who questions such a mechansim as being able to "fully" explain what we see (but can't find where I read that). I see these things as really big issues, and if such concepts can't be taught with some sort of balance then we have indoctrination. Additionally, I think an important question to ask is 'what is being taught as "evolution" if noone fully understands what it is or how it works?' It just becomes a term begging us to believe we arose by natural processes somehow without offering up an explanation as to how or why we should believe such a thing.

Matthew wrote:I also realize that ID gets smeared in the popular press. However, Behe is acting in a case where ID is being offered as an alternative within public schools. So if this is his view, he should not in good conscience be a defense witness. And if the Discovery Institute really agrees with this statement, they should disassociate from Michael Behe.

Behe is likely acting in the case because distorted statements are being made about ID, and as previously mentioned, the ACLU wants to censor classroom discussion of intelligent design. That is, they aren't going to trial to have it stopped from being taught (for indeed, there would be no real ID theory to teach), they are going to court to censor even its mere mention. It additionally wants to censor discussion that critically analyses Darwinian evolution supported by ID proponents. The Discovery Institute (which Behe is apart of and I believe represented) was against the statement introduced by the board, and is against ID being taught in classes. Yet, they are "also strongly [opposed to] the ACLU's attempt to censor classroom discussion of intelligent design." To quote their position futher:

"Discovery Institute strongly opposes the ACLU's effort to make discussions of intelligent design illegal. At the same time, we disagree with efforts to get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design. Misguided policies like the one adopted by the Dover School District are likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design among scholars and within the scientific community, points we have made repeatedly since we first learned about the Dover policy in 2004. Furthermore, most teachers currently do not know enough about intelligent design or have sufficient curriculum materials to teach about it accurately and objectively.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=2847

Kurieuo

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

MichelleAnn wrote:It doesn't matter if ID proponents want it taught. There is a trial going on in Pennsylvania regarding this issue, so what proponents want is besides the point. SOMEONE wants it taught or there wouldn't be an issue.

There is an issue because the ACLU wants to censor any discussion of intelligent design fullstop. It wants to censor any discussion that Darwinian evolution may have flaws, since ID proponents predominantly want the scientific criticisms both for and against Darwinian evolution taught. Not every scientist, for example, accepts that natural selection acting on random mutations can account for what we see. Even if "evolution" (however you define it) is said to be the most accept theory by scientists for life's diversity, many believe something different on what evolution is, and as to how it works. Given this "evolution" just becomes a meaningless word, undefined, and yet believed in. And students receive a hackneyed education regarding the divergence of opinions. Yet, I can't think it can be stressed enough that Behe tends to accept common descent, and he is a main player within the ID camp perhaps since his book Darwin's Black Box.

Kurieuo

What exactly are these flaws in the theory you are refering to again?

Point proven.

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

MichelleAnn wrote:It doesn't matter if ID proponents want it taught. There is a trial going on in Pennsylvania regarding this issue, so what proponents want is besides the point. SOMEONE wants it taught or there wouldn't be an issue.

There is an issue because the ACLU wants to censor any discussion of intelligent design fullstop. It wants to censor any discussion that Darwinian evolution may have flaws, since ID proponents predominantly want the scientific criticisms both for and against Darwinian evolution taught. Not every scientist, for example, accepts that natural selection acting on random mutations can account for what we see. Even if "evolution" (however you define it) is said to be the most accept theory by scientists for life's diversity, many believe something different on what evolution is, and as to how it works. Given this "evolution" just becomes a meaningless word, undefined, and yet believed in. And students receive a hackneyed education regarding the divergence of opinions. Yet, I can't think it can be stressed enough that Behe tends to accept common descent, and he is a main player within the ID camp perhaps since his book Darwin's Black Box.

Kurieuo

What exactly are these flaws in the theory you are refering to again?

Point proven.

?
I am just asking a question. I am not saying there aren't any.

Because if you want an open discussion of these flaws we can do so. That is what you want right?

God has implemented many natural systems that require no personal intervention. Our core biological processes seem to work under laws of nature that do not need constant attendance.

How do you know that?

Evolution is just one of those processes. Natural selection and mutation inevitably will bring about changes in the gene pool.

Why do we need God then, if these processes run all by themselves, and is responsible for the diversity of life we see today?

These processes do not need to be directly guided; they appear to be pre-packaged to bring about certain results.

Same question, why do we need God then? If they were pre-packaged by God, why could they not have come about by chance?

The New Testament and the New Law are completely different ways of presenting God's Word.

What is the "New Law"?

The New Testament is far more historical in nature and involves (minus Jesus) far fewer miraculous events. It's methodology of presentation gives far more confidence in the historicity of listed events and phenomena.

So you exclude Jesus to start with, and then based on that, say that because there are fewer miracles, it is more accurate? Is Jesus not the central theme of the NT? What do you achieve by removing Him from it? How is the methodology of presentation different from the OT?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I am just asking a question. I am not saying there aren't any. Because if you want an open discussion of these flaws we can do so. That is what you want right?

No. What I want is for people to be properly informed about ID and the true position it takes on the matters being discussed. There is a lot of misinformation continually tossed around, the main purpose of which I believe is to try discredit ID as being religious rather than scientific.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I am just asking a question. I am not saying there aren't any. Because if you want an open discussion of these flaws we can do so. That is what you want right?

No. What I want is for people to be properly informed about ID and the true position it takes on the matters being discussed. There is a lot of misinformation continually tossed around, the main purpose of which I believe is to try discredit ID as being religious rather than scientific.

Kurieuo

But again how is it scientific if it assumes a designer? What basis is there to assume a designer, and what is there to be gained from it? How will assuming a designer help us to understand what causes cancer or congenital defects? How will assuming a designer help us to use comparative gene analysis to help find new methods of detecting or curing disease? How will assuming a designer help us to understand effects of deforestation and population decimation?

How is irreducible complexity proven?
How do you prove specified complexity?

MichelleAnn wrote:Ooh, I like you. You sound smart and logical. Good for you!

I completely agree with you. I feel that if ID were being taught in lieu of evolution, science classes would be completely missing the point and science itself would be completely undermined.

I'm sorry...it's 11:35 PM, and that sounds extremely hilarious to me. He agrees with your views, so of course he's logical and makes tons of sense...

August:

Do I know this? No, I'm just offering what I think, because you had asked.

I think you need God to set the system up, or there would be no system to begin with.

I think you need God to help guide your life. However you are right in this respect, I think God could walk away and the Earth would continue to be a viable ecosystem.

I think mechanisms can't spontaneously form. Mechanisms are sets of rules of how this universe works. Now the products of the mechanisms could certainly be probabalistic.

The New Law is what Jesus provided to us, which supplemented and often replaced OT Law (like the dietary laws of Moses for example).

Kurieuo: I agree with you on most points save one. I don't think full understanding of a principle is required before it can be taught. There are a lot of atomic level happenings that we are not sure of, but that doesn't stop us from teaching atomic chemistry. And there, we gloss over the numerous problems without even a flinch...they are never mentioned.

BGood: ID is not trying to include the assumption of a designer. Secondly, many scientists make this assumption anyways in helping solidify their commitment to the epistemology.

Currently there are hypothetical models of how to test ID. It is possible considering there are numerous designed products around (and many products formed naturally).

However, at least for now, the tests are still just hypothetical. There is currently no ID test model that has any evidence to support it. That it gets as much attention as it does serves notice to the personal motivations of some of its benefactors.

However, at least for now, the tests are still just hypothetical. There is currently no ID test model that has any evidence to support it. That it gets as much attention as it does serves notice to the personal motivations of some of its benefactors.

Motivations don't make something wrong. I could use the same argument with evolution, thank you very much. But we'd get nowhere, so don't do it.

Matthew, thanks for the response, just trying to gain a better understanding of your position.

Do I know this? No, I'm just offering what I think, because you had asked.

Fair enough.

I think you need God to set the system up, or there would be no system to begin with.

I think you need God to help guide your life. However you are right in this respect, I think God could walk away and the Earth would continue to be a viable ecosystem.

Why would you believe that God sets up a system and then walks away, when He intervened in the progress of humanity on several occassions previously?

I think mechanisms can't spontaneously form. Mechanisms are sets of rules of how this universe works. Now the products of the mechanisms could certainly be probabalistic.

I don't quite get this. Natural selection for example, was created, but the results are probabalistic?

The New Law is what Jesus provided to us, which supplemented and often replaced OT Law (like the dietary laws of Moses for example).

Sorry, there is just one law, same in the NT and OT. Jesus abrogated the ceremonial and civil laws given to Israel by flawlessly fullfilling them, but the moral law remains the same.

Of course they do not make it wrong. Motivation is a key ingredient to any type of research, scientific or otherwise.

However, evolutionary models are well-known. You probably have heard of them in various forms: Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism. The difference is that you disagree with the evidence that supports the model.

Additionally, there is cross-cultural academic support for these models. So alleged motivations for the development of evolutionary theory that deal with metaphysical naturalism seem misguided, considering how many evolutionary biologists are theistic or deistic.

However, evolutionary models are well-known. You probably have heard of them in various forms: Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism. The difference is that you disagree with the evidence that supports the model.

What evidence that supports them.

Additionally, there is cross-cultural academic support for these models. So alleged motivations for the development of evolutionary theory that deal with metaphysical naturalism seem misguided, considering how many evolutionary biologists are theistic or deistic.

Same with Intelligent Design. And, if you knew what deist meant, you know that deists would in fact support evolution...because it supports their views that if there is a God, He had nothing to do with anything but maybe the first life...and that's bout it.

August:

Because I think that God intervenes personally in people's lives...but doesn't intervene past ordination of physical processes.

An example of a necessary probability:

The laws of gravity necessitate that if you take a small object like a die it will come down in a certain position. The probability of its landing position (given a flat surface) has been successfully iterated hundreds of millions of times. You can't predict the specific event but you can predict the pattern that will come about.

I disagree about the one Law. I think there is only one origin of the Law, but that this law has changed previously.

Kmart:

Evidence: Fossil record, homology, vestigal limbs, biogeography, and genetics. Each of these items has been used as evidence for evolution (and offered in a manner which can either lend creedence or criticism of evolutionary theory).

Deists are still not metaphysical naturalists.