Evidence for God from Science

I disagree. I think this topic is quite useful, and have enjoyed the discussion so far. I honestly think James is just searching for answers K (I refuse to memorise that monster of a name). Just let the topic be.

All I want to see are peer-reviewed papers concluding intelligent design. This is the same standard to which evolution has been proven, so this standard obviously can be reached.

You have not answered my question, how can the ToE be falsified? If it is scientific, then this is one of the tests. As soon as evolution is held to any scrutiny, it looks decidely thin. The standard can only be reached by ID if there is not bias, which there is: If there is ID involved, then it cannot be science, so it will never get accepted by mainstream science in biology. In that case, believe what you will.

Perhaps, but at least evolution has been submitted for review in various papers and as a result of this review, has been accepted into mainstream science. But this discussion has nothing to do with evolution- it is to do with intelligent design. Disproving evolution does not prove intelligent design.

And because evolution is now mainstream science, nothing else can be. So what are the other ways life came into existence? It can only happen by chance or be created. This discussion has to do with both evolution and ID, as those are the two options out there, so the two will necessarily be compared. But logic also drives us to think that if one is not true, then the other must be. But ID is not about disproving evolution as such, it is about following the evidence where it leads, and it does not lead to evolution.

James, again, if you rely on what the scientific community tells you to decide for or against the existence of God, this conversation is an exercise in futility. You have to evaluate all the evidence for yourself, and not limit it to biology, but include history and cosmology for example too.

sweetie, if you want answers so badly why do you keep heckling everyone on this site? you don't really take us seriously do you? besides, most of us probably aren't scientists so we can't give you the answers you want.

a good way to start looking for your answers might be by reading some of the references i and others have given you. you might also want to read some of lee strobel's books ( i recommended them to you ages ago...if you were really so hungry for knowledge, i would have thought you would have read them by now). also, why don't you try contacting lee strobel...he has an email address.

finally, no, i don't agree.

Kurieuo wrote:if the probabilities for certain parameters have been calculated already by persons within the scientific community, then I do not see why an article calculating the probabilities needs to be published in a journal.

If the probabilities are used in further calculations to present a new conclusion (i.e. Intelligent Design), then of course the article must be presented for review. It is not the source probabilities which are being scrutinised, but the subsequent calculations and resulting "probability of life occurring by chance". Can I ask you, Kurieuo, what your scientific/mathematical background is exactly? As I would have thought that someone with such a background would know how the scientific process works.

Kurieuo wrote:To me such is the equivilant of desiring the probablity of obtaining heads on a coin three times in a row to be published before accepted. The mathematics involved isn't really that hard given the probabilities of individual parameters are accurate.

If coin tossing were to be presented as a scientific theory (which it has been) then a certain analysis (and conclusion) of the expected outcomes would be required. As for specific examples, like the three heads in a row example you give, the nature of coin tossing is very different to that of Intelligent Design. One is a very simple probabilistic calculation which would be rather pointless to publish, whereas the other has implications which could touch upon the meaning of the universe.

Kurieuo wrote:Also if you pay attention to the Naturalism vs. Design controversy, you might recall the paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, which did posit an intelligent designer, caused an uproar from those biased towards Naturalistic Scientism within the community .

Thank you Kurieuo, this is exactly what I asked for. I will read the article and any reviews on it when I have a few spare hours.

Kurieuo wrote:

James wrote:I am, however, questioning the scientific validity of the methods used to prove the existence of intelligent design (ID) in the universe.

Which you've already done with me, and most people here are aware to the controversy ID causes. Therefore there appears no point to your posts except to push an anti-ID agenda. Additionally, science isn't the only measure of truth, and I don't see what "Science" you're questioning. It looks like simple mathematics to me.

Anyway, this thread will likely close soon, so you might want to wrap things up.

Apparently other people want this discussion to continue. Think of it as an opportunity to "look inside an agnostic's mind". I would say that this is invaluable information for this "Answers for non-Christians" section of the board.

Mastermind wrote:I disagree. I think this topic is quite useful, and have enjoyed the discussion so far. I honestly think James is just searching for answers K (I refuse to memorise that monster of a name). Just let the topic be.

Thanks Mastermind - I certainly am looking for answers.

August wrote:You have not answered my question, how can the ToE be falsified? If it is scientific, then this is one of the tests. As soon as evolution is held to any scrutiny, it looks decidely thin.

If you look in any detailed scientific encyclopaedia you will find that the fundamental problem with the falsifiability requirement is the fact that NO scientific theory is decisively falsifiable. Here is a reference to an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy ... ifiability

August wrote:This discussion has to do with both evolution and ID, as those are the two options out there, so the two will necessarily be compared. But logic also drives us to think that if one is not true, then the other must be.

Again, evolution is not what should be being tested - Intelligent design also has the scientific burden of proof.
It would be ridiculously unscientific to suggest that, by disproving evolution one proves intelligent design by process of elimination. How do you know that these are the only two possibilities? Surely you would have to look into the future to check if there will be any further scientific discoveries, which I am pretty sure there will be.

August wrote:James, again, if you rely on what the scientific community tells you to decide for or against the existence of God, this conversation is an exercise in futility. You have to evaluate all the evidence for yourself, and not limit it to biology, but include history and cosmology for example too.

I do not think that the scientific community is trying to oppose religion, which is the impression I get from you. At least I would hope not. August, to clarify, are you saying that, by agreeing with evolution one is obliged to discount intelligent design as a theory?
I would also like to add that I did not limit the evidence to biology.

colors wrote:sweetie, if you want answers so badly why do you keep heckling everyone on this site? you don't really take us seriously do you? besides, most of us probably aren't scientist so we can't give you the answers you want.

I'm sorry to give the impression that I am heckling you or anyone else for that matter. Of course I take you guys seriously, I think religion is a very noble thing. Also, as this website is called godandscience.org, surely this would imply that there is at least one scientist around here.

colors wrote:finally, no, i don't agree.

I am sorry to hear that.

James

James wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Anyway, this thread will likely close soon, so you might want to wrap things up.

Apparently other people want this discussion to continue. Think of it as an opportunity to "look inside an agnostic's mind". I would say that this is invaluable information for this "Answers for non-Christians" section of the board.

There are many ways one can define Agnosticism. Are you a classical agnostic, thinking the existence of God is unanswerable? In what way are you agnostic?

In any case, I will leave this thread open for now. It seemed to me that it would go nowhere, but I will just monitor it for now to see where it leads. I would recommend however, that intellectual snobbery is very off-putting, so you might want to try to be less condescending.

Kurieuo.

perhaps you should look up the definition of heckling.

but, i'm glad you take us seriously. do you think you will read any of the books i've recommended?

colors wrote:perhaps you should look up the definition of heckling.

Ahh.. I always knew there was such a word. Thanks for adding it to my vocabulary.

Kurieuo.

I looked up the definition on Dictionary.com, and some of the phrases, when taken out of context sound... dirty. :p

James, I don't have anyhing more to add here. You want to continue to accept evolution to disprove ID, but as soon as it is turned around, you cry foul. Also, you keep on calling me narrow-minded when I quote the scientific options that are on the table today, namely that either life was designed or happened by chance. If you can think of anything else, be sure and let us and the scientific community know. I also don't make the rules around how the scientific community tests scientific theories. According to the link you sent, there is no way to test any scientific theory, all tests are flawed, so all can be true. By those standards, ID is absolutely and irrefutebly true. Darwin himself mentioned falsification as a way to test evolution, but you don't want to accept that, now that evolution has been proven, by using Darwins own test, to be at the very least incomplete, but more than likely false.

ID stands on its own legs really well as a scientific theory. We have suggested many references to confirm that, and the burden is now on you to check those instead of continuing to implore us to provide a comprehensive answer in an online discussion.

I am indeed saying that a large portion of the scientific community is biased against religion, with many quotes available to bear that out. Why do you think are we seeing numerous court cases across the USA to keep ID from being taught in government schools, other than the fact that scientists see ID as an extension of religion? And yes, one of the cornerstones of evolution is natural selection, which is the opposite of ID, so at least in my opinion, the two are mutually exlusive. The rabid attacks by evolutionists on ID would seem to confirm that, and I have not seen any literature that would imply that macro-evolution and ID are compatible on any level.

In closing, James, we seem to be going in circles here, so good luck in your search for the truth.

August wrote:I am indeed saying that a large portion of the scientific community is biased against religion, with many quotes available to bear that out.

In general, the scientific community may be biased in favour of evolution, but we must also remember that the Christian community is also biased towards human life by intelligent design.

I suppose what this discussion has shown is that we must look at the motivation for scientific theories. It is very much a case of assessing the motivation of a theory and deciding whether it was developed based on evidence with no alterior motive OR was the theory devised with the motive of proving (or maintaining) another point?

Thanks for the discussion and I hope it will remain on display here for others to view and perhaps contribute.

James

Why do evolution and ID clash? Apart from humans, the Bible does not state how God created any of the animals...

HI MM, not sure what you mean. The ToE states that all life evolved through natural selection, and does not address in any detail where the first life came from. The problem is that natural selection does not account for complex systems, both human and non-human. Evolution does take place inside species or kinds, but has not been proven to produce new species. Also, read Genesis 2:19, that is a short description of God creating animals.

What is your point? Humans are made by God but animals come from evolution?

Mastermind wrote:Why do evolution and ID clash?

I think that if evolution is accepted globally then intelligent design is not disproved, but it is devalued significantly - it shows that certain aspects of nature can be explained without the need for a supernatural creator. In my opinion, while proving evolution does not directly disprove ID as a possibility, it does not do ID any favours.

Mastermind wrote:Apart from humans, the Bible does not state how God created any of the animals...

This is an interesting idea: I am no expert on the Bible, but if it could account for evolution this would certainly improve its scientific credibility.

James

The famous Christian apologist C.S. Lewis held a belief in evolution... Theistic evolutionists also point out God created man from the earth, yet while certain aspects could be said to align with evolution, I do not see how evolution can be read into the full creation account unless one takes an entirely artistic literary approach to Scripture. That is, by such an approach, the purpose for the Genesis creation isn't meant to be taken in a scientific literal sense (just like one isn't meant to take Shakespeare's words literally), rather Moses' purpose was just in presenting the intimate and personal interest God has with humanity. So how Moses chose to reveal this was entirely up to him.

My greatest reason however for not agreeing with evolution, is not from the Bible, as I believe I could hold the two in tension. But I fail to be convinced on scientific grounds that evolution (macro) is possible. But that's for another thread perhaps.

Kurieuo.

James, I disagree. The odds for evolution occuring on its own are extremely ridiculous. With a creator, the odds become 100%. In fact, creationists have not come with a better explanation to the "how" than the sentence "God did it". "God did it" is the "why", not the how. On the other hand, Evolutionists have some less than reliable ways to measure dates, still cannot explain the rather irritating problems that keep popping up in terms of probability, and can't come up with a better "why" than "we got lucky". I find both sides extremely lacking, but if we put them together, we would have one hell of a theory.