Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:What metaphysical claims does evolution make?

Omnipotent chance?

What do you mean?

Which part don't you understand, the omnipotent part or the chance part?

sandy_mcd wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:What metaphysical claims does evolution make?

Omnipotent chance?

What do you mean?

That if we don't presently know the mechanism for how something happens, then it must be by random chance rather than some other mechanism which may be figured out in the future ?

I think Sandy, you would agree with me in the following statement.

A scientist with the knowledge we have thus far is only left with the questions, not the answer.

In other words, strictly speaking as a scientist, can't we just say we don't know?

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:What metaphysical claims does evolution make?

Omnipotent chance?

What do you mean?

Which part don't you understand, the omnipotent part or the chance part?

I understand the words, but if you could spell it out a bit more, so I can understand what you're trying to say a bit more clearly.

Thanks.
=)

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:What metaphysical claims does evolution make?

Omnipotent chance?

What do you mean?

That if we don't presently know the mechanism for how something happens, then it must be by random chance rather than some other mechanism which may be figured out in the future ?

I think Sandy, you would agree with me in the following statement.

A scientist with the knowledge we have thus far is only left with the questions, not the answer.

In other words, strictly speaking as a scientist, can't we just say we don't know?

Yet you claim that we "know" evolution is true...I don't get your dichotomy

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I think Sandy, you would agree with me in the following statement.

A scientist with the knowledge we have thus far is only left with the questions, not the answer.

In other words, strictly speaking as a scientist, can't we just say we don't know?

Yet you claim that we "know" evolution is true...I don't get your dichotomy

Hmmm, given all the observations we have, what do you supposed happened?

And how do you explain the variety of life on earth?
What do you make of the extinct forms?
And what do you make of the lack of modern forms in the fossil record?
What about the results of comparative analysis on genetic material between organisms?
Why do we more than fish in the ocean?
Why do protozoa and human cells work essentially the same?
Why are they not exactly the same.
Why don't we look exactly like our parents?
Did dogs really come from wolves?
Where did the dinosaurs go?
How do bacteria become drug resistant?
Why do we get cancer?
Etc etc.

By tackling each question we come to the realization that lifeforms change over time.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I think Sandy, you would agree with me in the following statement.

A scientist with the knowledge we have thus far is only left with the questions, not the answer.

In other words, strictly speaking as a scientist, can't we just say we don't know?

Yet you claim that we "know" evolution is true...I don't get your dichotomy

Hmmm, given all the observations we have, what do you supposed happened?

And how do you explain the variety of life on earth?
What do you make of the extinct forms?
And what do you make of the lack of modern forms in the fossil record?
What about the results of comparative analysis on genetic material between organisms?
Why do we more than fish in the ocean?
Why do protozoa and human cells work essentially the same?
Why are they not exactly the same.
Why don't we look exactly like our parents?
Did dogs really come from wolves?
Where did the dinosaurs go?
How do bacteria become drug resistant?
Why do we get cancer?
Etc etc.

By tackling each question we come to the realization that lifeforms change over time.

No it won't BGood...this is called begging the question...you come to that conclusion because you START with that conclusion (based on how great you believe lifeforms have chagned)

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:A scientist with the knowledge we have thus far is only left with the questions, not the answer.
In other words, strictly speaking as a scientist, can't we just say we don't know?

I agree wholeheartedly. If we have a physical question and don't know the answer, do we
1) research the problem and try to find a natural solution, or
2) give up and say it must be a direct intervention by God ?

For example, it has been believed for many years that cigarettes cause cancer; that is, that there is a strong correlation between smoking and getting lung cancer even when correcting for other variables. But according to this undated website

http://medicineworld.org/cancer/page14.html wrote:Even though we know that smoking causes lung cancer, the exact mechanism by which smoke causes lung cancer is unknown. Nicotine and other chemicals present in the cigarettes plays an important role in the development of lung cancer. But how exactly the chemicals contained in the smoke brings changes that lead to the development of cancer is not clearly understood.

So what is the appropriate reaction ? Say God really doesn't like smokers ? Look for a mechanism, such as

Mikhail F. Denissenko, Annie Pao, Moon-shong Tang, Gerd P. Pfeifer wrote:Science 18 October 1996:
Vol. 274. no. 5286, pp. 430 - 432
DOI: 10.1126/science.274.5286.430


Preferential Formation of Benzo[a]pyrene Adducts at Lung Cancer Mutational Hotspots in P53

Mikhail F. Denissenko, Annie Pao, Moon-shong Tang, Gerd P. Pfeifer

Cigarette smoke carcinogens such as benzo[a]pyrene are implicated in the development of lung cancer. The distribution of benzo[a]pyrene diol epoxide (BPDE) adducts along exons of the P53 gene in BPDE-treated HeLa cells and bronchial epithelial cells was mapped at nucleotide resolution. Strong and selective adduct formation occurred at guanine positions in codons 157, 248, and 273. These same positions are the major mutational hotspots in human lung cancers. Thus, targeted adduct formation rather than phenotypic selection appears to shape the P53 mutational spectrum in lung cancer. These results provide a direct etiological link between a defined chemical carcinogen and human cancer.

M. F. Denissenko and G. P. Pfeifer, Department of Biology, Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope, Duarte, CA 91010, USA.
A. Pao and M.-s. Tang, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Science Park, Smithville, TX 78957, USA.

What did the Wrong brothers say, "If God had meant for us to fly, He would have given us wings "?

But having said that, I do thing it is possible that life was created by God. There are just no data or models which can explain abiogenesis at the moment, but I see that as no reason to give up and say that God could not have used natural processes.

I agree wholeheartedly. If we have a physical question and don't know the answer, do we
1) research the problem and try to find a natural solution, or
2) give up and say it must be a direct intervention by God ?

What's with the annoying siren that's repeatedly saying "saying it must be designed is lazy and stupid!"

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly. If we have a physical question and don't know the answer, do we
1) research the problem and try to find a natural solution, or
2) give up and say it must be a direct intervention by God ?

What's with the annoying siren that's repeatedly saying "saying it must be designed is lazy and stupid!"

Saying it must be designed is lazy and stupid. Of course proving or showing it is quite likely that it is designed is a different issue. The concept of irreducible complexity, given how little we presently know of the natural world, smacks of arrogance and hubris. And worse are arguments based on a misunderstanding of science.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I don't see how something that demands for the 2ndlaw of thermodynamics to not hold true for several billion years on earth is impossible...not just improbable.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I think Sandy, you would agree with me in the following statement.

A scientist with the knowledge we have thus far is only left with the questions, not the answer.

In other words, strictly speaking as a scientist, can't we just say we don't know?

Yet you claim that we "know" evolution is true...I don't get your dichotomy

Hmmm, given all the observations we have, what do you supposed happened?

And how do you explain the variety of life on earth?
What do you make of the extinct forms?
And what do you make of the lack of modern forms in the fossil record?
What about the results of comparative analysis on genetic material between organisms?
Why do we more than fish in the ocean?
Why do protozoa and human cells work essentially the same?
Why are they not exactly the same.
Why don't we look exactly like our parents?
Did dogs really come from wolves?
Where did the dinosaurs go?
How do bacteria become drug resistant?
Why do we get cancer?
Etc etc.

By tackling each question we come to the realization that lifeforms change over time.

No it won't BGood...this is called begging the question...you come to that conclusion because you START with that conclusion (based on how great you believe lifeforms have chagned)

As usual you claim to know the answers, yet fail to provide them.

perhaps you missed it...

Given all the observations we have, what do you supposed happened?

sandy_mcd wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly. If we have a physical question and don't know the answer, do we
1) research the problem and try to find a natural solution, or
2) give up and say it must be a direct intervention by God ?

What's with the annoying siren that's repeatedly saying "saying it must be designed is lazy and stupid!"

Saying it must be designed is lazy and stupid. Of course proving or showing it is quite likely that it is designed is a different issue. The concept of irreducible complexity, given how little we presently know of the natural world, smacks of arrogance and hubris. And worse are arguments based on a misunderstanding of science.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I don't see how something that demands for the 2ndlaw of thermodynamics to not hold true for several billion years on earth is impossible...not just improbable.

And evolution smacks of overestimating the power of chance.

sandy_mcd wrote: And worse are arguments based on a misunderstanding of science.

Can you then share what science is? If ID is not science, what is it? How are you qualified to assess whether something is a part of science or not? Have you read any books on the history and philosophy of science? Are you a scientist?

August wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: And worse are arguments based on a misunderstanding of science.

Can you then share what science is? If ID is not science, what is it? How are you qualified to assess whether something is a part of science or not? Have you read any books on the history and philosophy of science? Are you a scientist?

How can one compare the design in nature to that of humanity? It doesn't compare our technology falls miserably short.

And what is Intelligent design? Was anything created by man generated spontaneously, designed from the get go?

Lets take the outboard motor for instance.
It is commonly compared to the flagellum.
The motor actually already existed at the time of it's invention. It was simply modified by attaching a propellor.

Now you might say that it isn't analogous because boats prior to this did not have motors only cars did.

However to be completely analogous it is the technology of humanity which is evolving here, not the form of boats. Boats are not what is reproducing here. It is human technological ideas. So from this vantage point one can see how existing ideas are continually being modified and reused and changed.

Is specified complexity a result of design or a result of change which occurs under the pressure of specific rules? The english language has certain gramatical rules and communicative and anatomical restrictions. Did anyone sit down and design the language or is it a result of permutations and change, restricted by the previously mentioned rules?
As far as I can tell it seems to be the latter, due to the fact that the language has been in flux since history began.

Now besides our own experiences, what other frame of experience do we have to compare life to?

Musing about intelligent design is equivalent to musing about exterrestrial life. There is just no way to determine it's validity at this time.

They are both science fiction until observation show otherwise.

Now one can say that evolution did in fact occur, however life is so complex it required intelligent guidance. This seems to be one of the major forms of ID. This may indeed have been the case, however where is the empirical evidence for this? What is the mechanism by which this intelligent designer manipulated our development? And most importantly what kind of experiment or observation needs to be made to show this?

A similar but not identical situation in physics. The universe is expanding, however this expansion seems to be accelerating. To explain this some scientists have proposed dark matter. And others proposed vacuum energy to even reintroducing the cosmological constant. Now none of these ideas have any proof. It's all conjecture. However the difference is that the Universe is clearly accelerating its expansion.

Life is not clearly irreducibly complex, nor does specified complexity clearly point to intelligence.

Terms like specified complexity and irreducible complexity have no meaning with out a comparative basis. Plausable though these ideas may be, there is no scientific reason to embrace them, even if intellectually and philosophically one chooses to. You can have many observations saying something is complex, and have many quotes of scientists who say they don't know how it could have occured. But negative evidence is difficult to distinguish from lack of knowledge.

Here's an example of what I mean.
Einsteins theory of relativity worked on paper and even improved on Newtonion physics. However it was not untill an eclipse of the sun allowing the measurement of gravitational lensing, gave the empirical data necessary to accept the theory as a scientific one.

Now one may point out then, what about the origins of life, and the origin od DNA?

Well from the scientific perspective this is paramount to changing the subject. Lack of knowledge in those areas does not impact the progress made in how life has evolved. Life propogates and adapts and changes, we don't know where it came from or how but those are questions. Questions are what drive science.

Finally lets consider ID and it's impact on science.
Lets say that ID now becomes an acceptable explanation for natural phenomenon. The krebs cycle is now accepted as a result of intelligent intervention. But a young student might ask how? And for what reason? For instance if I found an artifact on eartch lets say a lighter, I might conclude that it was used to scratch one's back or light a campfire. But what is the reason for manipulation? And how was it done? Does it have any explanative power? What if somewhere down the line we discover how the krebs cycle evolved, what would this mean?

As you can see the mechanism for change is what we are looking for so ID needs to show how these changes are being made.

Bgood, you did not answer the questions. While interesting, I'm not seeing that your opinions or examples provided anything to answer the questions.

Both you and Sandy have repeatedly said that ID is not science. Now is the time for you to show what science is, why you say that is what science is, and why ID is not science, and we will take it from there.

August wrote:Both you and Sandy have repeatedly said that ID is not science.

Possibly, but given my faulty memory, I actually don't recall ever haven written that. So give me a brief summary of what you mean by ID and I will reply.