Evidence for God from Science

Forum Monk wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Yet, many who disagree with evolution, that is a Neo-Darwinian form of evolution, are doing so on scientific grounds and not necessarily religious.

Such as...?
Are any non-christian or at least have any of them not written a book advocating a christian world-view?

FM,

Do you really wish to commit the genetic fallacy?

I believe the main proponents behind ID raise valid points and as a programmer I can see many dilemmas biological evolution faces with DNA, for example, being able to produce great amount of "new" genetic code required to transition from one species to another, not to mention how the code itself evolved. Then there are issues such as the large leaps required or transitional gaps in complete fossil records we have as published in Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's landmark paper where they introduce punctuated equilibrium. Other limitations are no doubt also covered in Behe's book frank mentions.

I wish to head off debating the validity of evolution as I personally don't care much about it any more. If it means a lot to you then by all means believe it. I don't however, and I have no issue with Christians who do. I do want to pose a question though which I see should be quite easy to answer if true. That is, what is the agreed consensus amongst scientists of the mechanism(s) by which speciation happened? Without a proven and accepted mechanism for speciation then there is nothing to believe except an idea - a story as told by those who adhere to metaphysical naturalism and those they have convinced.

To: Zoegirl

Ever since the late 1700's the naturalist have modified the path of science. It used to be that science was a careful examination of the world around us. The data gathered would be thought about and used to project a better understanding of our world. No limits were placed on the discussion and theology and science existed side by side with no problems. Most people believe that when science uncovered deep aspects of nature that a split occured and theology cast off science. That is not the case. As the wave of naturalism spread across the elites of the world in the late 1700's and early 1800's it became fashionable to limit ones discussion to just nature and cast off anything to do with metaphysics as old school. Science as a group adopted this view and has held it ever since. It is science that has a limited view of reality and must shoehorn data into preformed opinions. Many scientific theories today are a complete twisting of the data to fit a preconceived view of the universe. It is not the duty of a Christian to trend lightly so science will accept us. We are to become a bullhorn of openness to unlock the data gathered over the last 200 years and show the world the wonders of creation and seamless inclusion of the natural world.

Kurieuo,

I have to agree with you, I have lost my need to discuss evolution except when I see someone using it to pry someone from a belief in God. I do a lot of reading to maintain a somewhat current understanding of the subject but I consider the topic closed as to the creation. My general feeling is that God created the world to run in a natural sense that needs little intervention. In looking at the creation I see pines trees, everyone the same so I know it is a pine tree. Yet all of them are unique. The mechanism to accomplish this has been distorted by some people into something it is not. The jump from one species to another has no mechanism. Waving ones arms and saying millions of years to me is the same as saying "I don't have a clue".

The mutation card that is played by Darwinist is random and follows pretty clear rules. Mutations by copy errors or cosmic rays, and background radiation are found in nature and for the most part kill the host. Rarely do they allow the host to survive. In all cases information is lost not found. The closest thing to a true benefit is the fish in very cold waters have developed a form of antifreeze in their blood. It is a defective protein that actually does good for the fish. Is this an accident, I think so. Just how many fish did it take to develope this protein? Billions or trillions I would think. It can happen. But to take this and extend it to generating a new species is absurd. The populations of host and the time required (even at 15 billion years) is not available. The mechanism fails to produce anything in the allotted time frame. This is why the big bang was fought against. Providing a start and a limit on time killed the mechanism of the naturalist. Oh, by the way I believe the earth is but 7700 years old.

There are many good Christians and nonbelievers that believe in evolution. I in no way want to change that. I do however want to make clear what it can and cannot do. I also want to uncover the false statements made by Darwinist and atheist.

But to take this and extend it to generating a new species is absurd. The populations of host and the time required (even at 15 billion years) is not available. The mechanism fails to produce anything in the allotted time frame.

You don't need that much time to generate a new species. I'm talking in evolutionist time here but there are numerous species pairs of fish and invertebrates (Caribbean and Pacific Panama) that look almost identical on the outside but are different species. This has been confirmed by genetic tests which showed that they diverged into species only in the last 3.5 million years. This conincides with the closure of the Panamanian Isthmus at that same time. This type of allopatric (separated by a barrier) speciation is widely known and accepted as the main driving force behind speciation. Phylogenetic studies today are proving these close relationships.
And since mutations are truly random (and they are mostly neutral, not bad or good), you cannot assume that the Icefish took billions of generations to get that beneficial mutation. It is equally likely it happened in one generation since the probability never changes from birth to birth. Species of the same genus and even family are so similar genetically that a minor change is enough to create a new species. We share ~95% of our genes with chimps and look how different we are!

Himantolophus,

It looks like you are a Darwinist from your post. You parrot back out of the song book and call it proof. I am sorry to say that unless you can prove a mechanism to do all of these wonderful things you describe then I can't take you seriously. People have been watching birds for centuries. Just how many birds have been found with a beneficial mutation in that time? Name one, just one, any one, any bird, at any time during the last two hundred years. You are so quick to judge that the fish had a lucky mutation in recent past not requiring any time or population. Are you saying that all birds can't have the same luck? How about mamals, same luck there as well? At some point just who is the unlucky one that requires chance? You can't have all this luck, and don't tell me we are here therefore it happened because that is verse two of your Darwin book. The Darwin argument is weak at best for changes within a species other than genes which was already shown hundreds of years before him.

A single neucleotide defect requires a billion host, a two neucleotide defect requires a trillion. The changes you are talking about require thousands if not millions of changes to the nuecleotides of the animals. If you want to be taken seriously then tell me how to build a species from another step by step using defects. Just name one step, from any species. Oh by the way each step must benefit the host or natural selection can't be used to make the next step. I know you can't. You will fall back on the tried old Darwin junk of waving your hands and saying the montra, millions and millions of years. It won't work any longer. That day is gone.

This is a friendly reminder to all to keep the discussion civil, respectful, and free of personal attacks, no matter what side of the divide each one happens to be sitting on. Let's not forget that most us here are God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians. We ought to serve as an example to others on how to conduct ourselves. In the absence of that the thread will be locked (a shame, but we'll be left with no choice).

God bless,

Byblos
Moderator

All I am saying is that no matter what data comes out, we need to be careful to limit the significance of that data with regards to it's usefulness in supernatural decisions.

If, for instance, they do find evidence of an incontroverible process of speciation. (For instance, there are salamanders in California that constitute a ring species) If these salamders cease to interbreed and they say that they have seen speciation in process, they will say that they have found evidence of a "natural" process without God.

But even with this supposed evidence they cannot dismiss the supernatural. At most what they have shown is the mechanism or the process that God would have used. In other words, finding evidence like this does not constitute evidence AGAINST the existence of God. (and yet, aren't they just using guidelines set down by us? "God would not have used evolution, God would not have used a long period of time..." But when they find some of these to be true, aren't they simply using what we insist are the rules in order to deny God?)

(Randomness was brought up in an earlier post....let me expound further. We throw around this word, random, a lot and yet as Christians we do not live by this idea. Things happen for a reason, we say.....God has a plan.....And of Course WE SHOULD! Scripture is clear that no plan of God's can be thwarted. So even supposedly random things like the lottery we attribute to God. The providential flip of a coin....SO if we can live with these two seemingly opposite ideas, statistical odds of a lottery and providential hand of God in life, why should we stop at the idea that a *Seemingly* random event like a mutation could be part of God's plan? )

Just some thoughts on the philosophy of the data.

The data that comes from science is filtered before it is given out to the general public. So it would be difficult to change my worldview with any new release of scientific data. There have been way too many false reports over the years. A couple of recent ones - a scientist at the UN admitted that the aids figures published the last few years were wrong and the people who knew better published them anyway. The spokesman said it was to get funding for scientist and that is a good thing. Another false report came from Korea where a scientist reported great results from embryonic stem cells. It was known to be false. Some false reports take years to uncover, take Piltdown man. The vast amount of scientific data can never be examined by any one individual. So we are left with having the "experts" look at it for us. The problem is that most of these peer reviewed experts do not hold the same worldview that I have. This means that the filter they have on the analysis of the data is backwards from the approach I would use. The Christian community has started many fine creation research groups and if you go there you normally get a fair presentation of the data.

So what are we supposed to do in this environment? That is a tough question. We are to teach our kids that science has changed over the years and this years answers will be on the discard pile soon enough. We are to develope faith in what matters which is not man. We are supposed to help our fellow man in his quest for the true meaning of life. We are to be amazed at God's creation and thank Him for our existence. I only came to this conclusion a few years ago after a major search of science.

frankbaginski wrote:The data that comes from science is filtered before it is given out to the general public. So it would be difficult to change my worldview with any new release of scientific data. There have been way too many false reports over the years. A couple of recent ones - a scientist at the UN admitted that the aids figures published the last few years were wrong and the people who knew better published them anyway. The spokesman said it was to get funding for scientist and that is a good thing. Another false report came from Korea where a scientist reported great results from embryonic stem cells. It was known to be false. Some false reports take years to uncover, take Piltdown man. The vast amount of scientific data can never be examined by any one individual. So we are left with having the "experts" look at it for us. The problem is that most of these peer reviewed experts do not hold the same worldview that I have. This means that the filter they have on the analysis of the data is backwards from the approach I would use. The Christian community has started many fine creation research groups and if you go there you normally get a fair presentation of the data.

So what are we supposed to do in this environment? That is a tough question. We are to teach our kids that science has changed over the years and this years answers will be on the discard pile soon enough. We are to develope faith in what matters which is not man. We are supposed to help our fellow man in his quest for the true meaning of life. We are to be amazed at God's creation and thank Him for our existence. I only came to this conclusion a few years ago after a major search of science.

FIrst, you have brought up merely two or three examples amongst millions. And absolutely we should scrutinize. Scientists are human after all and are subject to the same greed and desire for fame and power as the rest of us. There is nothing perfect about the people involved. That being said, You read far too much into my statements. We should always challenge and challenge and challenge some more. But in the end, the data showing that the universe is old DOES NOT allow or provide atheists with ammunition to reject God.

Secondly, the whole IDEA of science is to revise and discover and refine hypothesis and theories....if there is no value is discovering things, then, hey let's forget about medicine, research into energy and fuel, research into genetics, research into ecology. See, all of these things were MADE by God, and it is honorable to search for HOW HE made them and the rules He established with regards to these things. YEs, mankind and atheists in particular do not honor GOd in their discoveries but that doesn't necessarilty rule out what they discover. And in so doing, broaden our abilities to heal and to love and to care for God's creation.

Anybody who disputes this merely has to listen to Ben Carson and understand that it is through understanding God's creation that allows Dr. Carson to operate on the brains of children and do so motivated by God to help and minister to his patients.

Is science perfect? Absolutely not. Does this allow us to dismiss things enitrely? Absolutely not.

Zoegirl,

There are many people in the world who have a vastly different view of science and history from my own. Most of these people are good people who have faith in God. Who am I to try and change any one of their views, I am just a worm with little understanding. I do have a pretty good background in a vast number of subjects. Of the things I suspect or have been exposed to I share my opinion not for a concensus but to spark debate on subjects I hold dear.

You did mention "old earth". You are of course right that which ever way you come down on this subject it may not interfere with your belief in God. But from a Bible study point of view I find it interesting to trace back the history as laid out in scripture. Using the Septuagent one can trace back to Adam and find out that the earth is but 7700 years old. Now I was not there and I can't be sure of that date. But I have found no evidence or data that would lead me to doubt it. You may ask why 7700 years ago and not 6500 like the King James version would suggest, or even the Torah which would lead to 5500 years. If anyone has interest I would be happy to describe the method used and the reasoning.

Kurieuo wrote:Do you really wish to commit the genetic fallacy?...If it means a lot to you then by all means believe it. I don't however, and I have no issue with Christians who do.

I have no idea what you mean by the "genetic fallacy" and I don't have the energy tonight to look it up.
I should have been clearer in my questioning. I don't believe in the major tenets of evolution. Abiogenis and speciation are major problems in my opinion. I am asking for who opposes the theory on scientific grounds so I may research their arguments to support my view when arguing with athiests, agnostics and some of my christian brothers who support theistic evolution (and yes progressive creationist as well, they know who they are ).

Behe has no credibility in many circles. I am looking for peer-reviewed science which presents viable alternatives.

Forum Monk,

If you go to the reference section of Behe's book you will find the peer reviewed articles you are looking for.

As for the comment about being accepted. In history we find many people who were rejected and killed for their words. Some of the prophets were killed because the King or the people did not like what they were hearing. We find their words in the Bible today. John the Baptist was killed for what he said. He was not accepted by his peers. Christ was killed by His peers. Truth does not need peer review of any kind. I have found some pretty good information from people who cannot get published.

On the other hand, they could be people who ignore perfectly reasonable data out of fear. YEC data is filled with examples of manipulating data and leaving out important variables in equations.

frankbaginski wrote:Himantolophus,

It looks like you are a Darwinist from your post. You parrot back out of the song book and call it proof. I am sorry to say that unless you can prove a mechanism to do all of these wonderful things you describe then I can't take you seriously. People have been watching birds for centuries. Just how many birds have been found with a beneficial mutation in that time? Name one, just one, any one, any bird, at any time during the last two hundred years...

Frank,

I think you overlooked an important detail in Himantolophus' post. Advantageous mutations are not required in order for speciation to occurr. Let me quote him for you.

Himantolophus wrote: there are numerous species pairs of fish and invertebrates (Caribbean and Pacific Panama) that look almost identical on the outside but are different species. This has been confirmed by genetic tests which showed that they diverged into species only in the last 3.5 million years. This conincides with the closure of the Panamanian Isthmus at that same time. This type of allopatric (separated by a barrier) speciation is widely known and accepted as the main driving force behind speciation.

This means the following.
Similar looking species are found on either side of the ithsmus of Panama.
They are different species despite the similarities.
We determine that they diverged ~3.5 million years ago based on calculations.
They are separate species because of genetic drift, and isolation. No advantageous mutations were required, the gene pool of each respective population simply changed over time.

frankbaginski wrote:If you go to the reference section of Behe's book you will find the peer reviewed articles you are looking for.

Well frankbaginsky, to be perfectly honest with you, those who know me also know I have been an ardent opponent to ID as well. My position is and has been, either God created life or he didn't. Don't give credit to some unidentified "intelligence". It was, imho, a political construct based mainly on criticism of evolution, presented easily refutable scientific theories and made no predictions. I'll look again but I really hope it has progressed with some real science.