Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:For more information, I recommend reading The "Wedge Document": So What?Kurieuo

Have they released a report on how successful they were in obtaining their 5-year objectives ?

The media is...stupid. I just saw a small blip by CNN, and there was a Bible in the background, and the phrase "God vs science"-and they were talking about Intelligent Design! They need a freakin' clue, stop setting up strawmen.

Yehren wrote:Said the judge: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

This is more of an indictment against IDers, than religion per se. However, it establishes that ID is legally a religion or a religious doctrine, which makes it unconstituional to teach in public schools.

Which means evolution goes out the window as well with it's religious implications.

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research."

1) Why must supernatural causes be ruled out apriori?
2) What flaws and illogical contrived dualism is employed for irreducible complexity-and it has not yet been refuted.
3) ID is not just a negative attack!

However why point out the flaws in evolution? Every science has unanswered questions, that's why we need scientists to do the studies and collect the data required to try to solve these problems.

Because there are flaws in it, and it's taught as true! My goodness...and it 's not just minor problems either. It's a lack of evidence, it's not falsifiable, and it's circular reasoning.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

However why point out the flaws in evolution? Every science has unanswered questions, that's why we need scientists to do the studies and collect the data required to try to solve these problems.

Because there are flaws in it, and it's taught as true! My goodness...and it 's not just minor problems either. It's a lack of evidence, it's not falsifiable, and it's circular reasoning.

It's taught as a scientific theory.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

However why point out the flaws in evolution? Every science has unanswered questions, that's why we need scientists to do the studies and collect the data required to try to solve these problems.

Because there are flaws in it, and it's taught as true! My goodness...and it 's not just minor problems either. It's a lack of evidence, it's not falsifiable, and it's circular reasoning.

It's taught as a scientific theory.

No it's not. It's taught as a fact.

(Yehren points out that ID's stated reliance on religious faith rules it out of science classes)

Which means evolution goes out the window as well with it's religious implications.

That's already been settled. It hasn't any religious implications.

Yehren wrote:(Yehren points out that ID's stated reliance on religious faith rules it out of science classes)

Which means evolution goes out the window as well with it's religious implications.

That's already been settled. It hasn't any religious implications.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... tions.html

• Evolution reduces the value of human life to be equal to that of animal life.
  Evolution reduces the value of human purpose to the passing on of one's genes.
  Evolution replaces the value of moral behavior with the concept of survival of the fittest. It says that moral (and immoral) behavior is an evolutionarily selected trait that improves the survivability of the species.

No it hasn't been.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/e ... carey.html

With a certain way of looking at the story of evolution, such as the one Dennett presents in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, much of traditional religion is lost, including our claim to being made in God's image and gifted with God's laws to govern our actions. Dennett makes clear that a belief in God is also not possible in light of what is known. The preservation of any part of the religious tradition as functional beliefs is presented in Darwin's Dangerous Idea as akin to denying, avoiding, and hiding from the truth (3 Dennett page 22). As the story of evolution is told by Dennett, the issue of a God with a hand in creation does appear to be lost to whatever kind of acid Darwin's story proves to be. To look at evolution in the way that Dennett asks the reader to look it requires that one look at it in a way that many do not wish to look at it.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: 1) Why must supernatural causes be ruled out apriori?

I was thinking the same thing. The judge is simply wrong to think that the supernatural has been outside of science for centuries. IT hasn't even been two centuries yet. And in fact the decision of inculding God in science or not is not a scientific one it is a philosophical one.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Evolution reduces the value of human life to be equal to that of animal life.

this is purely interpretation.

Evolution reduces the value of human purpose to the passing on of one's genes.

again, purely interpretation. you are able to do a lot more than just pass on your genes. think of all the people we view of as idols and heros in our history, people who have changed the course of humanity.

Evolution replaces the value of moral behavior with the concept of survival of the fittest. It says that moral (and immoral) behavior is an evolutionarily selected trait that improves the survivability of the species.

this actually supports what Jesus was preaching about. Evil, and Satan are associated with animal and primal behavior, that the strongest dominate over the weak. But, humans are adapting to work together, and that definately helps our probability of survival, wouldn't you say? Guided by the morals given to us by the son of God, we are able to reach another level in adaptation and survival.

With a certain way of looking at the story of evolution, such as the one Dennett presents in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, much of traditional religion is lost, including our claim to being made in God's image and gifted with God's laws to govern our actions. Dennett makes clear that a belief in God is also not possible in light of what is known. The preservation of any part of the religious tradition as functional beliefs is presented in Darwin's Dangerous Idea as akin to denying, avoiding, and hiding from the truth (3 Dennett page 22). As the story of evolution is told by Dennett, the issue of a God with a hand in creation does appear to be lost to whatever kind of acid Darwin's story proves to be. To look at evolution in the way that Dennett asks the reader to look it requires that one look at it in a way that many do not wish to look at it.

Darwin happened to be smart enough to stumble upon one of God's mechanisms for creation, but that does not mean he knew that mechanism intimately. An entire lifetime of study would not bring a man a fraction of the wisdom contained in the universe, why do you expect so much from people? The main reason why most people think evolution does not allow for a god is because they don't really understand either notion. They believe in a self-manifested construct; each person's belief is their own and this causes them to disagree more readily with others. Rather than constantly trying to look for your own god, one should try to understand other's notions of reality.

Yes, the first release was not Johnson's statement. It was apparently not intended for distribution, but was accidentally sent out in a press packet.

The strategy was originally brought to the public's attention by a leaked fund raising tool, informally known as the Wedge Document, used by the Discovery Institute to raise money for its subsidiary charged with promoting its science and education agenda, the Center for Science and Culture, at the time called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC).
Wikepedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Jbuza wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: 1) Why must supernatural causes be ruled out apriori?

I was thinking the same thing. The judge is simply wrong to think that the supernatural has been outside of science for centuries. IT hasn't even been two centuries yet. And in fact the decision of inculding God in science or not is not a scientific one it is a philosophical one.

The judge's ruling goes into this in detail (also the other two issues). He spends 25 pages on why ID isn't science. Here's some excerpts about attributing phenomenom to supernatural causes specifically not being science. I've highlighted a few things.:

"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth. (9:21-22 (Haught); 1:63 (Miller)). In deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world. (9:21 (Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock))."

...

"This rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention. (1:63 (Miller); 5:29-31 (Pennock)). We are in agreement with Plaintiffs' lead expert Dr. Miller, that from a practical perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a “science stopper.” (3:14-15 (Miller)). As Dr. Miller explained, once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer."

...

"It is notable that defense experts' own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich))."

The judge is simply wrong to think that the supernatural has been outside of science for centuries. IT hasn't even been two centuries yet.

Hmmm... the last great scientist who included religious notions in his theories?

Far as I know it was Kepler, about 1650. And his great work, Kepler's laws came about precisely because he realized his religious ideas about the heavens were wrong.

Anyone know someone more recent?

Yehren wrote:

The judge is simply wrong to think that the supernatural has been outside of science for centuries. IT hasn't even been two centuries yet.

Hmmm... the last great scientist who included religious notions in his theories?

Far as I know it was Kepler, about 1650. And his great work, Kepler's laws came about precisely because he realized his religious ideas about the heavens were wrong.

Anyone know someone more recent?

Richard Dawkins:
In plain language, there came a moment in the evolution of hominids when God intervened and injected a human soul into a previously animal lineage (When? A million years ago? Two million years ago? Between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens? Between 'archaic' Homo sapiens and H. sapiens sapiens?). The sudden injection is necessary, of course, otherwise there would be no distinction upon which to base Catholic morality, which is speciesist to the core. You can kill adult animals for meat, but abortion and euthanasia are murder because human life is involved.

Catholicism's "net" is not limited to moral considerations, if only because Catholic morals have scientific implications. Catholic morality demands the presence of a great gulf between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom. Such a gulf is fundamentally anti-evolutionary. The sudden injection of an immortal soul in the time-line is an anti-evolutionary intrusion into the domain of science.

More generally it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims. You can't have it both ways: Irreconcilable differences? Skeptical Inquirer July 1999 pp.62-64

This, of course, implies that Dawkins is a great scientist.....