Evidence for God from Science

Thanks Zoegirl, I appreciate your obvious scientific expertise. I really am not refuting one scientific method over another, I really am stating questions that, to my knowledge, haven't been explicitly answered by any of the sciences. Rhetoric and theories can be thrown around but the simple questions still remain unanswered. As far as the animals question is concerned, I am suggesting that it is odd where we are the only mammal who has evolved in such rapid succession and I am surprised we haven't seen if happen elsewhere in the animal kingdom. It almost seems stagnant which, to me, seems odd.

Robyn, I think you've hit some good points on IC.. Rich gives further input on design from his article The Incredible Design of the Earth and Our Solar System.

Other articles on the subject are at Evidence for God from Science Christian Apologetics Evolution vs Design Is the Universe a Cosmic Accident or Does it Display Intelligent Design?

Enjoy...

Thank you so much Gman, I just looked at Rich's article and it is awesome to say the least. I am very glad I came across this forum today. I look forward to more correspondance.

Welcome Robyn.

Others have addressed your points well so I'll just add my welcome and hope that you'll stick around and participate.

As has been mentioned, science is limited to determining questions of how things happened or could have happened and is limited to the mechanisms. Intelligent design is an attempt to try and move from that to interpretting some of that evidence in the terms of probabilities as to whether it is indicative of chance and natural selection or whether some form of discriminating intelligence (God to most proponents) can be seen as more probable.

I'm not convinced the approach is valid as I've observed that in practice it is not entirely kept within the scientific framework that it claims. But, I do think there is value in the attempt and interaction as, as a Christian, I believe that reality is comprised of more than just the material universe and therefore am not limited to science in drawing my world view or final conclusions on many of the questions science is used to address.

blessings,

bart

A few quick thoughts on your questions:

>>I definitely used the wrong verbage there. Instead of desire, let me rephrase the question to state, why did the first cell have machinery to replicate itself? Why, since the earliest cells, are organisms programmed to live and survive. Not how, but why?

The quick answers is: "if there weren't, they wouldn't proliferate". That is, only molecules capable of self replication coupled with variation would and could be favored by natural selection. Under most models of abiogenesis, macromolecules formed from abiotic precursors. But carbohydrates weren't favored by natural selection as the first pseudo-living organisms because they weren't capable of self-replication. RNA is, and that is why it is likely the first "kind of living" organism acted upon by natural selection. Does this make sense? Quite simply, evolution favors organisms that are better able to pass on the genetics compared to others. So life had to "programmed" to survive - that's' what selection favors.

>>My question is since humans have advanced to find a more efficient means of survival, wouldn't it seem due time that animals might be working on a system that would save their place in the food chain?

Well, humans are rather unique among animals in terms of their intellect and ability to manipulate their environment. Other animals don't sit around scheming ways to ensure their survival. However, one could argue that they are always getting better at surviving (after all, that's what adaptations are). Or else they go extinct. So they don't cognizantly try to work out systems for survival; instead, natural selection - ever the blind watchmaker - favors those that are better at surviving and passing on their genes.

>>I understand that it encourages sperm production, but once again I am stuck asking why this inherant need to reproduce and live?

Again, without this "need" to reproduce and live, species go extinct. Imagine an organism that inherits a mutation that causes it to lose its instinct to breed. That organism's fitness becomes zero and that gene dies out with the organism possessing it. On the other hand, any mutation that increases an individual's ability to successfully procreate will quickly spread in a population.

>>Why are we the only mammal that laughs or cries and how does science theorize the need for laughter?

Rule #1 in behavioral ecology is never to anthropomorphize. That said, it is hard to imagine that other animals don't grieve, or rejoice, or feel anger. I've seen my dogs do this, and more. As for laughter - I am certain there are hypotheses to explain its existence, I'm just no expert. Likely something to do with reinforcing human social behaviors - sort of like why yawns are contagious.

>>See above corny poem. It does make me wonder.

For the religious folks in the audience, I would be emphatically clear about this: if you believe were are a special part of god's creation, I would never submit an argument to diminish this belief. So take this with a grain of salt: from a purely biological perspective, we are not finely tuned. Quite the opposite in many instances. I can provide examples from my own perspective to support this, but that's not really important.

>>Evolution is a naturally occurring process of change which produces increasing complexity in the universe. Evolutionists believe that life began billions of years ago with simple forms of life which became more complex through time. In other words, single-celled creatures evolved into multicellular creatures and ultimately into fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.

Perhaps you found this from another website, but when I Googled this, I got a link to what appears to be an anti-evolution page. Again, evolutionary biologists don't define evolution this way (in fact, they are often careful to state that this is patently untrue of the way evolution works), and the literature is replete with examples of organisms decreasing complexity (again, depending on your definition).

>>The eye

Not irreducibly complex. Eyes in virtually all transitional forms exist for extant species of molluscs. http://www.weichtiere.at/english/mollusca/eyes.html and http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-me ... F00EE8.jpg

>>Cilia

I assume you mean flagella - again, studies indicate this is not IC http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/res ... agella.htm

>>All internal systems, digestive, circulatory etc

Again, I think these are complex, but they don't technically fit the definition of irreducibly complex as I understand it.

>>They all seem to have to be in place in order to form one function...sustaining life.

I agree. The Earth seems rather unusual (but again, not likely unique) in its capacity to sustain life. The theistic response might be along the lines "and so god intended it". The evolutionary response might along the lines of "given its capacity to sustain life, it unsurprising that life has existed and changed with the Earth throughout most of its history". I think I can guess which you'd choose!

Cheers
Al

Zoegirl -

>>Sexual reproduction allows for more diversity. But this to me is still very unsatisying: it's not as if the asexual single cell organisms knew that meiosis would allow for more diversity.

It's a trade-off. Your fitness is always higher if you reproduce asexually - 100% compared to 50% or less with sexual reproduction. In rapidly dividing, short lived species like bacteria, asexual reproduction seems to work just fine (they are, after all, much more successful than we are in lots of ways and haven't made the switch to sex!). But in long lived slowly reproducing species where the environment is unpredictable, the variation in the offspring produced by sexual reproduction offsets the reduction in fitness. And of course there are several species of lizards and fish which revert to parthenogenesis and asexual reproduction when the risk of parasitism is low or non-existent.

And you know ( because I know you know!) that asexually reproducing bacteria didn't "know" that meiosis would generate more diversity and therefore opt for it. But as the common ancestor to some protists developed systems that would lead to alternation of generations found, variants on this scheme that enhanced fitness would be favored by selection ultimately leading to sexual reproduction....

Cheers!
Al

Canuckster1127 wrote:As has been mentioned, science is limited to determining questions of how things happened or could have happened and is limited to the mechanisms. Intelligent design is an attempt to try and move from that to interpretting some of that evidence in the terms of probabilities as to whether it is indicative of chance and natural selection or whether some form of discriminating intelligence (God to most proponents) can be seen as more probable.

The problem I have with science and the evoloution debate is that in certain important aspects, the other scientists are just as philosophical as the ID scientists, as far as I can see (reading various people on the same subject often invokes a "throw my hands up in the air moment"). If we have never observed one species changing into another, then imagining that it would happen, or saying it is probable that it would happen, is still not the same as saying in a scientific sense that it did happen. So to me, on this particular subject, the ID people and the scientific establishment are on the same level.

It's true that I don't keep up with a large amount of literature in this area - evolutionary science - but it's because of what I already said. People don't agree and much seems like speculation anyway, so how to know? Part of my dismay is finding out that things are presented in text books as if they were fact, when they are not; one starts to doubt the objectivity of science. *shrugs* It's hard enough to stay within the will of God, let alone try to decipher what might have happened over the course of millions and millions of years. Lol; that's just how I think about it right now and I don't mean to cause any rancor.

CSLewis -

>>If we have never observed one species changing into another, then imagining that it would happen, or saying it is probable that it would happen, is still not the same as saying in a scientific sense that it did happen. So to me, on this particular subject, the ID people and the scientific establishment are on the same level.

Would your opinion change if we were to observe species forming? And would the changes observed in fossil lineages be considered sufficient evidence of speciation for you? What about results of phylogenetic analyses detailing the speciation events of a groups of closely related species (or kinds) as well as those showing deeper relationships (e.g. between phyla)?

Just curious -
Al

ARWallace wrote:Zoegirl -

>>Sexual reproduction allows for more diversity. But this to me is still very unsatisying: it's not as if the asexual single cell organisms knew that meiosis would allow for more diversity.

It's a trade-off. Your fitness is always higher if you reproduce asexually - 100% compared to 50% or less with sexual reproduction. In rapidly dividing, short lived species like bacteria, asexual reproduction seems to work just fine (they are, after all, much more successful than we are in lots of ways and haven't made the switch to sex!). But in long lived slowly reproducing species where the environment is unpredictable, the variation in the offspring produced by sexual reproduction offsets the reduction in fitness. And of course there are several species of lizards and fish which revert to parthenogenesis and asexual reproduction when the risk of parasitism is low or non-existent.

And you know ( because I know you know!) that asexually reproducing bacteria didn't "know" that meiosis would generate more diversity and therefore opt for it. But as the common ancestor to some protists developed systems that would lead to alternation of generations found, variants on this scheme that enhanced fitness would be favored by selection ultimately leading to sexual reproduction....

Cheers!
Al

Yep, thanks for clarifying...

I absolutely agree with CSlewis lover. There seem to be no absolutes when it comes to scientific theory, so science is as much faith based as religion (although I see the randomness as God's way of remaining anonymous for faith and free will reasons) but that is another discussion. But my point is science can explain how things came to be but still struggle with the why, and until that is exlplained, I think it is rash to base one's views on science alone. So many disagreeing theories out there, it definitely shares that with religion.

>>If we have never observed one species changing into another, then imagining that it would happen, or saying it is probable that it would happen, is still not the same as saying in a scientific sense that it did happen. So to me, on this particular subject, the ID people and the scientific establishment are on the same level.

Would your opinion change if we were to observe species forming? And would the changes observed in fossil lineages be considered sufficient evidence of speciation for you? What about results of phylogenetic analyses detailing the speciation events of a groups of closely related species (or kinds) as well as those showing deeper relationships (e.g. between phyla)?


Changes in fossil lineage, to my knowledge, have only further proven that there are no "in between" fossils. The ones attempted have been fakes. Also, I agree with micro evolution, changes within a species, that has been proven time and again, I have a problem with macro evolution, species changing into an entirely different species. Way to many holes in that theory. If you have links proving this as incorrect informaion, please add them.

robyn hill wrote:I absolutely agree with CSlewis lover. There seem to be no absolutes when it comes to scientific theory, so science is as much faith based as religion (although I see the randomness as God's way of remaining anonymous for faith and free will reasons) but that is another discussion. But my point is science can explain how things came to be but still struggle with the why, and until that is exlplained, I think it is rash to base one's views on science alone. So many disagreeing theories out there, it definitely shares that with religion.

Robyn, I agree completely as to not knowing the why, but that is not part of science, or rather, that is not a confident part of science. Whether we find out that God created sexual reproduction and designed it so that it maximizes diversity in my mind does not conflict with the how.

While there are hypothesis and models that disagree with each other, that is exactly the essence of observational science. Science should never claim to know everything and those that use it to establish their foundation for philosophical pursuits are in danger of overstepping the boundaries of science. The beauty of observational science is that is *does* allow us to test the natural world and establish what happens and what causes that to happen. Many people see contradicting models and hypotheses and see "divisiveness" ad interpret that to mean that science has failed, they need to realize that this is how the theories are tested.

Zoegirl, . Unfortunately there are people that believe science is the answer to everything and if science can't prove it, it must not exist. Science isn't rock solid either and I agree that science is wonderful and I am a teacher also and love it very much. The problem is that when we teach these theories, or discuss them, some discredit creationism right away because it is not scientificly observable according to many in the scientific community. What a shame that we would be so closed minded.

R -

>>Changes in fossil lineage, to my knowledge, have only further proven that there are no "in between" fossils. The ones attempted have been fakes. Also, I agree with micro evolution, changes within a species, that has been proven time and again, I have a problem with macro evolution, species changing into an entirely different species. Way to many holes in that theory. If you have links proving this as incorrect informaion, please add them.

Well, this may come down to evidence that you accept as opposed to evidence the scientific community accepts. It is not my intention to persuade you one way or the other, but I can answer this from the perspective of the scientific community: first, transitional fossils do exist. In great abundance. While the fossil record is admittedly incomplete, there transitional fossils that do exist (e.g. numerous ones for the dinosaur to bird transition) as well as fairly complete fossil series for some organisms (e.g. horses and humans). They are not fakes - they are real. But again, it may boil down to whether you, or others accept them as transitionals.

Second, there are (from a scientific perspective) many instances of speciation (see here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html).

Third, phylogenetic analyses (efforts to reconstruct the evolutionary history of groups of organisms) are remarkably accurate when comparing closely related species. For example, it works for groups of birds like owls or thrushes that have recently branched from common ancestors (as I understand it, within their "kind"). So this poses no problem for strict YECs. But the problem is that the analyses continue to work in ways that are consistent with the ToE and in ways that support the organisms' evolutionary history based on other kinds of evidences once you look deeper than purported Biblical "kinds". A thrush's closest ancestor is a thrush-like bird, not an owl or chicken or mammal or bacteria. In short, I find it remarkable that the patterns of microevolution are reconstructed with the same clarity and accuracy a macro-evolutionary events. It's a curious observation to me.

Cheers!
Al

ARWallace wrote:Would your opinion change if we were to observe species forming? And would the changes observed in fossil lineages be considered sufficient evidence of speciation for you? What about results of phylogenetic analyses detailing the speciation events of a groups of closely related species (or kinds) as well as those showing deeper relationships (e.g. between phyla)?

From what I've read, and even heard recently (from a debate) by an evolutionist, there are no instances where we can say a species change has occurred. So whom am I to believe? Here's a short article on human evolution, but the point is the chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)

This chart shows a relatively big list of Homo (genus) species. There are a number of them that are based on few examples, maybe even one example (like a skull). I look at that and think, "Huh?" I would bet that that skull isn't all that different from other Homo skulls. Why give it a different species designation? I'd have to research all the Homo species and decide for myself. I used to be quite interested in this, taking classes in paleontolgy, but changed my major emphasis (to archaeology). There were always arguments about this type of thing in class and in the literature. There is so much variety within the human species today, one wonders if you gave a paleonotologist 10 different skulls if they would come up with 10 different species. Lol, I'm just saying. And if it's like this in paleontology, it's very likely like this in other fields.

I'm slightly jaded too, when it comes to new finds. Scientists want to make a name for themselves and get funding. Making things a little more new and exciting than they ought to be might prove a temptation many can't resist. (This was a criticism of LUCY and Donald Johannsen.) And others that know this, tend to avert their eyes.

This is an example of an interesting article too, that just goes to show - yes, there is disagreement - things aren't as clear-cut as many in the public are made to think. It's just a short article, sort-of like a summary.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 170623.htm

I like what he says here (emphasis mine):

"However, it is not only the current molecular theory that intrigues Schwartz, but the failure of the scientific community to question an idea that is more than 40 years old: "The history of organ life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else," says Schwartz."

Scientists haven't observed the animals in the fossil record, so they cannot know for sure about transitions. It seems odd to call guesstimates regarding fossils science in the same way that lab science is called science. It isn't as objective, since it can't be. I'm not saying they're right or wrong on a lot of them; I'd need to study it more myself, and I don't think it's worth my time.