Evidence for God from Science

ncooty wrote:OK, so irrespective of the religious affiliation of the creator, is the creator necessarily supernatural?

That depends on whether the ID proponent is examining a biological specimen, in which case the designer could be material aliens who seeded earth with lifeforms created in their labs, or examining the universe and its fine tuning, in which case the designer must be supernatural. Most design arguments seem to center on the former.

ncooty wrote:I think any single-chromosome genetic mutation should suffice to disprove assumption 1, given that a tRNA or RNAi discrepancy from the DNA would result in a phenotypic anomoly of the offspring.

The "would" in that sentence should be changed to "might". The point remains, but I didn't want someone to freak out because of the word change. The fact that it might only manifest genotypically is irrelevant to the point. The fact that phenotypic manifestation is possible constitutes the rebuttal.

Sorry if that confused anyone.

ncooty wrote: Evolution is not sentient and does not have a goal (not A), therefore, irreducibly complex systems cannot be made via evolution (not B).

This is not a logical fallacy but there are assumptions involved:
1) It is highly unlikely that all the essential parts will independently develop and then fall into place as a functioning object of irreducible complexity.
2) That any precursors to an object of irreducible complexity with some function would not have any value.

sandy_mcd wrote:

ncooty wrote:OK, so irrespective of the religious affiliation of the creator, is the creator necessarily supernatural?

That depends on whether the ID proponent is examining a biological specimen, in which case the designer could be material aliens who seeded earth with lifeforms created in their labs, or examining the universe and its fine tuning, in which case the designer must be supernatural. Most design arguments seem to center on the former.

I might not understand you correctly, but the argument about the physical, intelligent designers seems to be one of infinite regress. That is, if the designers are complex, they too must have been intelligently designed, so who designed them? The only escape from that argument seems to be that the original designer (the "unmoved mover") had to be supernatural. After all, the theory of intelligent design is not that sentient beings can purposefully create things, it's that something purposefully created the universe.

So again:

How complex is too complex for evolution to explain? Is there anything that is not too complex for evolution to explain?

ncooty wrote:That is, if the designers are complex, they too must have been intelligently designed, so who designed them? The only escape from that argument seems to be that the original designer (the "unmoved mover") had to be supernatural.

Ah, but now you're bringing up religion. If we are the laboratory products of an alien race and did not all evolve as evolution posits, then it is okay to teach that design explains the facts on earth better than straight evolution. And so far only the development of life on earth is being taught in science class.

Prior to your quote, I reviewed the other component of the argument's antecedent, which you omitted:

Quoting that post:
I may have this wrong, but it seems that now you've presented another logical fallacy: denial of the antecedent. If A then B. Not A, therefore not B. That argument is logically unsound. It seems in your response that you've stated: If evolution were sentient and had a goal (A), then irreducibly complex systems could be made through it (B).

sandy_mcd wrote:

ncooty wrote: Evolution is not sentient and does not have a goal (not A), therefore, irreducibly complex systems cannot be made via evolution (not B).

This is not a logical fallacy but there are assumptions involved:
1) It is highly unlikely that all the essential parts will independently develop and then fall into place as a functioning object of irreducible complexity.
2) That any precursors to an object of irreducible complexity with some function would not have any value.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see how the argument I quoted does not fit the template of denial of the antecedent, which is a logically unsound form of argument, also called a logical fallacy. I wrote it out as plainly as I could, so please explain how the argument is different from: If A, then B. Not A, therefore not B. (If you are unfamiliar with formal logic, there are any number of references available online. I don't mean that pedantically or patronizingly.)

As for the assumptions, the first assumption makes the fallacy worse. Now you're saying that an intelligent designer isn't necessary for irreducible complexity, just that you think without one, irreducible complexity has a low probability. The thing is, there are unquantifiable numbers of genotypic mutations that have not persisted or resulted in phenotypic manifestations. The probability doesn't need to be large at all. It's unlikely that any one person will win the lottery. Just because someone wins doesn't mean that a supernatural power made a large deposit to that person's bank account. We don't need a supernatural explanation for something that has a low probability.

I think the second assumption was addressed in an earlier post of mine:

Quoting my earlier post:

It seems to me that your point makes two distinct assumptions:

1) individual mutations couldn't be worthwhile in and of themselves

and

2) organisms with mutations can't procreate.

If assumption 1 were true, no single mutation would be viable. I'll give you one genetic mutation that is viable in and of itself: the recessive sickle-cell trait. It's presence drastically reduces the likelihood of malaria infection. I think any single-chromosome genetic mutation should suffice to disprove assumption 1, given that a tRNA or RNAi discrepancy from the DNA would result in a phenotypic anomoly of the offspring.

If assumption 2 were true, none of us would be here. In fact, the mere fact that cancer spreads is likely sufficient to disprove assumption #2.

End quote.

Moreover, you are skipping a lot of important questions.

I'm willing to get on board with the ID stuff, but I just don't understand the logic or reasoning yet.

Again:

What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?

How complex is too complex for evolution to explain? Is there anything that is not too complex for evolution to explain?

sandy_mcd wrote:

ncooty wrote:That is, if the designers are complex, they too must have been intelligently designed, so who designed them? The only escape from that argument seems to be that the original designer (the "unmoved mover") had to be supernatural.

Ah, but now you're bringing up religion. If we are the laboratory products of an alien race and did not all evolve as evolution posits, then it is okay to teach that design explains the facts on earth better than straight evolution. And so far only the development of life on earth is being taught in science class.

An argument of infinite regress adds no explanatory power to anything. By failing to deal with the infinite regress problem, you have now apparently taken the position that aliens created Earth. So far, the only evidence of this that I've seen presented is that irreducible complexity has a low probability and I've already explained how irreducible complexity can be achieved easily and probably through genetic mutation. Heck, we know incremental genotypic mutations exist and are viable (useful to the organism). Just look at bacterial and viral mutation. Why do you think you need a flu vaccine every year? The virus mutates in such a way that it is more viable.

Surely there are better arguments for ID than this. If this many people believe in it, someone must have thought it through more than this.

Of course, this is all moot if the other questions are unanswered.

Again:

What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?

How complex is too complex for evolution to explain? Is there anything that is not too complex for evolution to explain?

Thinker wrote:

ncooty wrote:You really should work on easing off the assumption that curious people are attacking you.

It's happened too often here,

It doesn't matter how often it happins here. The point is it should not happin at all, but there is not one who is not guilty of it. But some people take the time to reread and read again. I thought Ncooty made some good points.
As someone with strong faith, the only problem with Evolution I have is that often it is taught in a way so that it comes across as a fact, which it is not.
I believe Evolution may have occured, but nothing will ever make be believe that the cause was not the Creator.
While Micro Evolution is a fact, macro is not.
Micro evolution fits creation. We should not think that supporting evolution means we turn our backs on G-d. it does not.

What if the universe didn't require creation?

I mean, if God (or aliens apparently) created the Universe, what did they do before that? I think we all agree that time is infinite, so why believe that the elements of the Universe had to be created? Why can't they just always have been here, such that we don't need a creator explanation?

Even the Big Bang theory doesn't suggest that something came from nothing. The conjecture is that the physical elements of the universe (again, I'll include energy and mass in that broad term) were confined to a small space. We know these dense masses exist. That's what a black hole is.

So, I don't understand why we need a creation explanation at all.

Then, it doesn't matter how small the odds are that complex systems would form, if time is infinite, it becomes a logical, mathematical necessity that complex systems would form.

I hope this doesn't detract from my other, more important questions, but I thought this was interesting.

ncooty wrote:I've noticed a disturbing trend in many arenas of social discussion: identification of others by their current beliefs. I have recently read pieces in which the authors use the term "Europhiles" to describe individuals who have at one time or another agreed with a point of view of a European. I have read (repeatedly) on this site the term "evolutionist" to describe those people who currently ascribe to the theory of evolution.

This is an interesting topic. Perhaps there are categories for different methods or modes of thought, or thought processes. Or if not, perhaps you could formulate your own system of categorization. Would make for an interesting thesis.

ncooty wrote:What if the universe didn't require creation?

I mean, if God (or aliens apparently) created the Universe, what did they do before that? I think we all agree that time is infinite, so why believe that the elements of the Universe had to be created? Why can't they just always have been here, such that we don't need a creator explanation?

Even the Big Bang theory doesn't suggest that something came from nothing. The conjecture is that the physical elements of the universe (again, I'll include energy and mass in that broad term) were confined to a small space. We know these dense masses exist. That's what a black hole is.

So, I don't understand why we need a creation explanation at all.

Then, it doesn't matter how small the odds are that complex systems would form, if time is infinite, it becomes a logical, mathematical necessity that complex systems would form.

I hope this doesn't detract from my other, more important questions, but I thought this was interesting.

If something like the universe is infinite, then how and why is it infinite, what caused it to be infinite? Did non-existent nature create nature? How does material of any kind form from nothing? The problem you seem to be having is that God had to be created, but we are told He wasn't in the Bible, also scripture says "do not lean on your own understanding". Yes that is easy to use to write tons of stuff off, but not for the science gurus. I'm sure you have heard this before, but seriously, how far do you have to go back for things to start to exist, like life exists, where did it come from?; then where did the earth come from?; where did the universe and everything in it come from?; if aliens created humans, where did they come from?; if the universe has alway existed, what initially jump started it to exist infinitely?; what then made that happen?; and that?; and that?; and that?; it would keep going forever. At some point, we need to know what the source was for creating such things which is unseen.

Ncooty I won't argue with you about this. With all honesty I can't. You would not beleive what I have to say. Creation is still going on, there are pictures on the net to prove it. One picture is of a new universe forming.

You might not need a creator explaination but your asking those like me to dismiss what they KNOW to be truth. If we did this we would not be truthfull. I can't explain why I know, I only know that I can not longer wonder if there is a G-d.

Why is it people like myself can come half way but people like you can't ?
You can dismiss the mere possability, and shrug it off as cockypop, that is your right. But you don't have the right to condem others for their beliefs.
many of us reconise we are now better people than we use to be. Not perfect but better.

ncooty wrote:I'm sorry, but I cannot see how the argument I quoted does not fit the template of denial of the antecedent, which is a logically unsound form of argument, also called a logical fallacy. I wrote it out as plainly as I could, so please explain how the argument is different from: If A, then B. Not A, therefore not B. (If you are unfamiliar with formal logic, there are any number of references available online. I don't mean that pedantically or patronizingly.)

Hey don't worry about being thought pedantic or patronizing; I am not smart enough to pick up on that.
I didn't quote the first part because it is irrelevant. In your effort to write things simply, you misstated the argument for ID. In your argument above [If A, then B. Not A, therefore not B. ] the second statement indeed does not follow logically from the first. But I did not claim that it did. The argument for ID would be that the random changes produced by evolution are highly unlikely to result in irreducibly complex objects. Since evolution does not have a purpose or goal, then it is more likely to conclude that there must be a designer.

The thing is, there are unquantifiable numbers of genotypic mutations that have not persisted or resulted in phenotypic manifestations. The probability doesn't need to be large at all. ... We don't need a supernatural explanation for something that has a low probability.

Perhaps you believe in this law, F=ma (force, mass, acceleration). You can't deny that there is an exceedingly low probability that this law does not hold but that instead there is some random relationship and it is just sheer coincidence that every time someone has checked it, that is the relationship. Why are you so quick to dismiss random chance in this case but not in another ?

What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?

I imagine that would depend to some extent on the particular person.

How complex is too complex for evolution to explain? Is there anything that is not too complex for evolution to explain?

Why do you insist on a specific boundary ? Where in the continuum from green to blue in the rainbow does the color change from green to blue ? Yet almost surely you won't argue that green and blue are the same color ?

ncooty wrote:Even the Big Bang theory doesn't suggest that something came from nothing. The conjecture is that the physical elements of the universe (again, I'll include energy and mass in that broad term) were confined to a small space. We know these dense masses exist. That's what a black hole is.

[You might want to stick with one topic at a time or open a new thread if you want to discuss the Big Bang.]
So are you saying above that the universe has always existed as a black hole and that at some point it expanded ? And that there are included in this expanded universe a number of black holes which by your preceeding statements may at some point expand into their own universes ? This sounds like an exciting new cosmology I am not familiar with. Do you have any published references ?

ncooty wrote:What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?
This is the fundamental pre-requisite of a scientific theory.

Could you give us non-philosophers an example ? What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in evolution?