Evidence for God from Science

sandy_mcd wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-briefs22.3aug22,1,4137023.story wrote: IN BRIEF / VATICAN CITY
'Intelligent Design' Foe Replaced at Observatory
From Times Wire Reports

August 22, 2006

Pope Benedict XVI has appointed a new director of the Vatican Observatory, replacing the Rev. George Coyne, a vocal opponent of "intelligent design" theory who had held the post since 1978.

It was unclear whether the move reflected disapproval over Coyne's opposition to the theory that the world is too complex to have been created by natural events alone. He has attacked the theory as a "religious movement" lacking scientific merit. He could not be reached for comment.

There was no mention of Coyne in a brief Vatican statement Saturday announcing the appointment of a new director, the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes.

Sounds fraught with possibilities.

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features
of the universe and of living things are best explained by an
intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural
selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of
evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an
illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design
detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause
for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific
fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain
the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the
search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that
certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent
cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily
test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather
than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe
science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the
implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins
science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and
because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic,
meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of
any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the
“messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule
out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the
adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and
diversity of life.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of [...],
the lack of any known law that can explain [...].

ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings.

Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.

tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation

angel wrote:While of course everybody knows that it is not random mutations providing evolution but (natural) selection.
This is particularly clear searching some material about adaptative mutations on the web (I should have some links if you need them).

Evolution is not ruled by chance. Selection is what force new information into the system.
We are doing the same thing by breeding and farming in the last thousands years.
We produced better grain without interfering with the mutation mechanism (of course I refer of the farming before GMO) just interfering with selection.
We force evolution of grain towards better productivity, strength against parassites, etc.


This should partially answer Turgonian as well.

Natural selection kills the weak. It cannot 'force new information into the system'.

By farming / breeding, we do not increase genetic information.

However, natural selection doesn't work towards results. It presses letters at random, to extend your analogy.

Now, 'Th' is not more meaningful than 'T', so it's destroyed before it has a chance of developing further.

Take wings, for instance. Natural selection might have stood a chance if it slowly worked toward producing wings for certain beings, 'knowing' that this would be a benefit and therefore 'ignoring' the stages wings would have to go through to develop (slowing down running without being of any use, for instance). But natural selection, being a blind process, does not have goals it works toward. It would only 'see' the inconvenience of unformed wings and eradicate them.

Ironically it sounds quite strange to complain about the media rendering of ID as a negative argument and then posting a definition ending with:

Quote:

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of [...],
the lack of any known law that can explain [...].

How could the lack of something be a positive evidence?

I also have to say that if I had to report on media about ID I would add to:
Quote:

ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings.

that recently the proponents (Behe) of ID testifies (in court) that according to his definition of theory "astrology" is a theory.
Just to set the context of this claim they were discussing the meaning of "theory " in relation with which scientific theories should be thought in public schools during science class.

I just think that there is absolutely no evidence that biological systems are the same.
On the contrary every time I asked
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 3184#33184
I have got no answer.
I'm starting to think there is no possible answer.

Besides, I believe that your definition also shows a major misunderstanding (by the author, not you) of what evolution is. In particular when he says:
Quote:

tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation

he seems to consider chance as the main actor in evolution.

Evolution is not ruled by chance. Selection is what force new information into the system.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Note the removal of Coyne, the former Chief Astronomer. I knew he was an evolutionist but I thought he was somewhat theistic to some degree. His comments in this article would indicate otherwise and in any event, he's been the most outspoken advocate quoted in the press.
Coyne wasn't even diplomatic. Here's a quote from him, “God isn't a designer and life is the fruit of billions of attempts.”
Benedict XVI appears to be poising to bring things in line with his inaugral comments, " “We are not the accidental product, without meaning, of evolution”.

8. As a long-standing member of the Board of the Vatican Observatory Foundation, and even longer-term friend of Fr. Coyne, I can assure readers that the appointment of his successor, Fr. Funes, is part of normal succession planning which the Board has been discussing for several years. After a well-deserved sabbatical, Fr.Coyne will continue his association with the Observatory and the Foundation, assisting the Board and Fr. Funes.
— Charles Currie, S.J. Aug 23, 03:23 PM

And in June, an Argentinean Jesuit priest told an international conference in Rome that he believes "extraterrestrials exist and are our brothers." Jose Funes also is an astrophysicist and said he thinks the odds are in favor of extraterrestrial life because of the multitude of stars in multiple galaxies. "In a typical galaxy there can exist a multiplicity of planets similar to our Earth, and with living beings like ourselves. If it is as I believe, they must be considered our brothers in creation," said Funes. He made the comments during a Vatican Observatory conference in which more than 250 discussed the theological implications of the galaxies in the universe. (Cosmiverse, June 19, 2000).

angel wrote:

However, natural selection doesn't work towards results. It presses letters at random, to extend your analogy.

First phrase: correct. No analogy is perfect.
However the second claim is wrong.
Selection does not pass letters "at random", it passes the best letters for that place.
Which is exactly what I did. Ok I could render it a bit more carefully, but I don't think it will change anything substantial.

Now, 'Th' is not more meaningful than 'T', so it's destroyed before it has a chance of developing further.

you are wrong again.
th represent the DNA chain, while fit or meaningful is something which is tested on the corresponding coded proteins.

If you want, let us also consider this modified example.
You have a million strings of ten letters.
At random you start inserting random typos on them and sometimes
you join two of them.
At each step you evaluate how close the sound to a meaningful word/phrase/paragraph/book.
And you drop the less meaningful and copy the most meaningfull.
Is the information of the population increase or decrease?
I could try to implement it if you trust the example.

Take wings, for instance. Natural selection might have stood a chance if it slowly worked toward producing wings for certain beings, 'knowing' that this would be a benefit and therefore 'ignoring' the stages wings would have to go through to develop (slowing down running without being of any use, for instance). But natural selection, being a blind process, does not have goals it works toward. It would only 'see' the inconvenience of unformed wings and eradicate them.

We have dozens of spieces which benefit from quasi-wings (bats, some monkeys, some kangoroos, some fishes, ...)
I would benefit by reading mind or flying. Ask your designer if he can plug the ability in me or my next son.
This would be an evidence against evolution.
________________

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20348721-5005962,00.html wrote:
Pope, former students ponder evolution

By Tom Heneghan in Paris

September 04, 2006 02:45am
Article from: Reuters

POPE Benedict and his former doctoral students spent a weekend pondering evolution without discussing controversies over intelligent design and creationism raging in the United States, a participant said.

The three-day closed-door meeting at the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo outside Rome ended as planned without drawing any conclusions but the group plans to publish its discussion papers, said Father Joseph Fessio.

Media speculation had said the debate might shift Vatican policy to embrace "intelligent design," which claims to prove scientifically that life could not have simply evolved, or even the "creationist" view that God created the world in six days.

"It wasn't that at all," Fr Fessio, who is provost of Ave Maria University in Florida, said. The Pope's session with 39 former students was "a meeting of friends with some scholars to discuss an interesting theme".

"We did not really speak much about intelligent design," said Fr Fessio, whose Ignatius Press publishes the Pope's books in English. "In fact, that particular controversy did not arise."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=2392285 wrote: Pope's debate group to publish evolution talks
Reuters

PARIS - Pope Benedict and his former doctoral students plan to publish the proceedings of their weekend seminar on evolution to promote a dialogue between faith and science on the origins of life, participants said.

The minutes, to be issued later this year, will show how Catholic theologians see no contradiction between their belief in divine creation and the scientific theory of evolution, they said after the annual closed-door meeting ended on Sunday.

The theory of evolution has long been controversial in the United States, where conservative Christians oppose teaching it in public schools and promote rival views such as "intelligent design" that scientists reject as religion in disguise.

Benedict and some aides have joined the debate in the past year, arguing for evolution as a scientific theory but against "evolutionism" -- which he calls a "fundamental philosophy ... intended to explain the whole of reality" without God.

"He said this meeting could be an impulse to revive the discussion between theologians and evolutionists," said Father Stephan Horn, who organizes the sessions for top students the then Professor Joseph Ratzinger mentored in the 1960s and 1970s.

"He's been concerned for a long time, and especially now that he is pope, about fostering a discussion between faith and reason," Horn said by telephone from Rome.

"He probably believes there is not enough public discussion about this, so that's why he wants to revive it."

PHILOSOPHY, NOT SCIENCE

Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, the papal associate most active in presenting the Catholic view of evolution in public, said the proceedings could be published in November.

"It was an important meeting at the highest academic level," Schoenborn, who addressed the gathering at the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo, told Austria's Kathpress agency.

Advance media speculation had said the debate might shift Vatican policy to embrace "intelligent design," which claims to prove scientifically that life could not have simply evolved, or the "creationist" view that God created the world in six days.

"It wasn't that at all," Father Joseph Fessio S.J., provost of Ave Maria University in Florida, told Reuters. The Pope's session with 39 former students was "a meeting of friends with some scholars to discuss an interesting theme."

Unlike creationists who oppose the theory of evolution, the Catholic Church does not read literally the Biblical account of God creating the world in six days.

Benedict and Schoenborn have said several times over the past year that intelligence in the form of God's will played a part in creation and that neo-Darwinists who deny God any role are drawing an ideological conclusion not proven by the theory.

They say they use philosophical reasoning to conclude that God created the world, not arguments which intelligent design supporters claim can be proven scientifically.

"There's a controversy in the United States because there is a lack of awareness of a thing called philosophy," said Fessio, whose Ignatius Press publishes Benedict's books in English.

"Evangelicals and creationists generally lack it and Catholics have it," he said.

"When you look at the world and see what appears to be order and design, the conclusion that there is a designer is not a scientific conclusion, it's a philosophical one."

Copyright 2006 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

"When you look at the world and see what appears to be order and design, the conclusion that there is a designer is not a scientific conclusion, it's a philosophical one."

Advance media speculation had said the debate might shift Vatican policy to embrace "intelligent design," which claims to prove scientifically that life could not have simply evolved, or the "creationist" view that God created the world in six days.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Sandy, is the point you're trying to make that the arguments for evolution are so bankrupt, that the final bastion of defense is the ad hominem attack?