Evidence for God from Science

>>ATP synthase structures haven't been duplicated yet in a lab under natural conditions<<

That's not surprising. Test tube synthesis is used for a few proteins, but these are huge and cumbersome molecules. Most are synthesized with the eager help of genetically modified bacteria. Most test tube syntheses are for molecules of less than 50 amino acid units, but occasionally up to 300.

David Blacklock wrote:>>ATP synthase structures haven't been duplicated yet in a lab under natural conditions.. Good luck with that one<<I>>to teach evolutionary theory...automatically entangles one in philosophical and theological issues<<

You can find theological issues in a can of Campbell's soup if that's what you want to do with class time. That's why ID should be taught in a theology or philosophy class.

I'll work through the other comments as I get time.

No David... You omitted my part about Darwinian evolution. Pick up his book "Origin of Species" and count how many times he used the word "creator" there. Where do you think the theory of evolution stems from?

In many cases his book "Origin of Species" can't even be used in a classroom because it talks about a creator. Why all the censorship?

I've argued many times that I believe that Intelligent Design isn't pure science and in the end does reduce to theology and philosophy.

The issue in my mind is there are many elements of evolution where that is entirely true as well.

There is Hard science, Soft science and then there is philosophy extrapolated from science. At its extreme, you have methodological naturalism, which is a philosophy that claims to limit itself to only that which rests upon the scientific method and that which can be experienced or confirmed through the 5 senses, solely in the realm of the natural.

What I find problematic is not that Intelligent design is rejected as science by those who believe that it contains elements other than that which can be confirmed by hard science. What is problematic to me is that these same people often times then assert their presumptions underlying their scientific philosophy and don't recognize that similar elements reside in their claims.

The issue for me is not arguing whether ID meets the standard of objective science. It's whether that standard will be enforced and recognized equally from both directions.

Pick one and then be consistent.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The issue for me is not arguing whether ID meets the standard of objective science. It's whether that standard will be enforced and recognized equally from both directions.

Pick one and then be consistent.

Yes, that also seems to point to tax dollars. Since most of the people in the U.S. and Canada believe in ID. But it is still against the law to teach it in schools. That is why you won't find it in the science books... Except for those in Dover PA who made a policy about it I guess.

But to enforce it, many still don't think ID meets the standard of objective science. I think part of the problem here for that is funding. Too many people are too threatened about it and don't want to funnel funds into it.

Gman wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:The issue for me is not arguing whether ID meets the standard of objective science. It's whether that standard will be enforced and recognized equally from both directions.

Pick one and then be consistent.

Yes, that also seems to point to tax dollars. Since most of the people in the U.S. and Canada believe in ID. But it is still against the law to teach it in schools. That is why you won't find it in the science books... Except for those in Dover PA who made a policy about it I guess.

But to enforce it, many still don't think ID meets the standard of objective science. I think part of the problem here for that is funding. Too many people are too threatened about it and don't want to funnel funds into it.

The Dover PA case wasn't about textbooks.

The issue there was that the schoolboard voted to put an ID book in the school library and then require classes that taught evolution to announce that the book was there for any student who wished to voluntarily take a look at it for a different perspective.

The district court ruled it violated the establishment of religion clause and that ID in this instance was just creationism in a different guise.

Canuckster1127 wrote:What I find problematic is not that Intelligent design is rejected as science by those who believe that it contains elements other than that which can be confirmed by hard science. What is problematic to me is that these same people often times then assert their presumptions underlying their scientific philosophy and don't recognize that similar elements reside in their claims.

After reading this a few more times, I think you made an excellent point there Bart...

Canuckster1127 wrote:The Dover PA case wasn't about textbooks.

The issue there was that the schoolboard voted to put an ID book in the school library and then require classes that taught evolution to announce that the book was there for any student who wished to voluntarily take a look at it for a different perspective.

The district court ruled it violated the establishment of religion clause and that ID in this instance was just creationism in a different guise.

Ok, I thought the school policy said that teachers must say that evolution is only a theory and not a fact. Whether the books needed to be changed is another issue, at least to my understanding before.

This all happened last year, so I don't know what happened after that...

Gman wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:The Dover PA case wasn't about textbooks.

The issue there was that the schoolboard voted to put an ID book in the school library and then require classes that taught evolution to announce that the book was there for any student who wished to voluntarily take a look at it for a different perspective.

The district court ruled it violated the establishment of religion clause and that ID in this instance was just creationism in a different guise.

Ok, I thought the school policy said that teachers must say that evolution is only a theory and not a fact. Whether the books needed to be changed is another issue, at least to my understanding before.

This all happened last year, so I don't know what happened after that...

Well, maybe I'm missing something and I could go look it up. I think I'm remembering right though.

Thanks for the affirmation on the ID vs Evolutionary philosophy point. I've seen people practically implode into hissy fits when I push that thought outside of this board. Apparently its heresy of some form to suggest that evolution at the higher levels has non-scientific elements or presuppositions involved with it.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Thanks for the affirmation on the ID vs Evolutionary philosophy point. I've seen people practically implode into hissy fits when I push that thought outside of this board. Apparently its heresy of some form to suggest that evolution at the higher levels has non-scientific elements or presuppositions involved with it.

Yes... I think people tend to forget that evolutional theory is soaked in theology and to truly understand it one needs to raise questions that involve ID..

>>Pick up his book "Origin of Species" and count how many times he used the word "creator" there<<

I thought he didn't use it at all in the original edition. Then in following editions, he softened things a little here and there, inserting the word "Creator" in the last paragraph of the book once only. But I could be wrong.

>> Where do you think the theory of evolution stems from?<<

Charles Darwin?

David Blacklock wrote:>>Pick up his book "Origin of Species" and count how many times he used the word "creator" there<<

I thought he didn't use it at all in the original edition. Then in following editions, he softened things a little here and there, inserting the word "Creator" in the last paragraph of the book once only. But I could be wrong.

>> Where do you think the theory of evolution stems from?<<

Charles Darwin?

Evolution goes back well before Darwin. Darwin's contribution was providing the mechanism of natural selection as a viable explanation for how evolution progresses.

David Blacklock wrote:Pick up his book "Origin of Species" and count how many times he used the word "creator" there<<

I thought he didn't use it at all in the original edition. Then in following editions, he softened things a little here and there, inserting the word "Creator" in the last paragraph of the book once only. But I could be wrong.

Thanks for mentioning that. That helps... Yes, in that instance he was putting "Creator" toward the end of his book to wrap up his theological conclusion.. Just do a word search on the word "Creator" on "The Origin of Species." You should get about a dozen or more hits on the word "Creator." They are in chapter's 6, 14 and 15...

http://www.online-literature.com/

David Blacklock wrote:Pick up his book "Origin of Species" and count how many times he used the word "creator" there<<I quote="David Blacklock">>Pick up his book "Origin of Species" and count how many times he used the word "creator" there<<I quote="David Blacklock">> Where do you think the theory of evolution stems from?

Charles Darwin?

Nope... According to your last post, Darwin made a theological claim or conclusion about origins...

Last paragraph of "Origin of Species" chapter 15...

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."

Gman wrote:...Yes, in that instance he [Darwin] was putting "Creator" toward the end of his book to wrap up his theological conclusion.. ... According to your [Blacklock] last post, Darwin made a theological claim or conclusion about origins...

Last paragraph of "Origin of Species" chapter 15...

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."

Is this any different from saying that the Creator impressed the law of gravity on matter? Would teaching physics then be theological as well? I had thought that earlier Gman was saying that theology is inextricably entangled with evolution; now the involvement seems more peripheral, as in theistic evolution, which is not a well-attended position here.

Hi Sandy,

We haven't specifically addressed physics yet.. Just evolution as it pertains to origins and theologies.. I guess you could say that it would address physics in some sense to origins..

On October 18, 2004, the school board voted 6—3 to add the following statement to their biology curriculum:

Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught.

On November 19, 2004, the Dover Area School District issued a press release stating that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth-grade biology class at Dover High School:

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

Three of the school board members in the minority of the vote resigned in protest, and science teachers in the district refused to read the statement to their ninth-grade students, citing the Pennsylvania code of education, which states that teachers cannot present information they believe to be false. Instead, the statement was read to students by a school administrator.