Evidence for God from Science

touchingcloth wrote:

Gman wrote: And what about the Darwinian myth? It is not science...

Care to elaborate on that?

Darwinian evolution is not science.. It's a religious philosophy. Science is not in the business of ultimate explanations. That's not what it does.. It works on specific things, it advances theories, but it never makes a claim about everything. People make the claims. People that are committed to Darwin's theory in advance lose sight of the difference between the theory and the facts and hence they present it as unquestionably true.

Gman wrote: Darwinian evolution is not science.. It's a religious philosophy. Science is not in the business of ultimate explanations. That's not what it does.. It works on specific things, it advances theories, but it never makes a claim about everything. People make the claims. People that are committed to Darwin's theory in advance lose sight of the difference between the theory and the facts and hence they present it as unquestionably true.

It's manifestly not a religious philosophy. Science - broadly speaking - examines evidence then generates and tests hypotheses. Well tested hypotheses reach the level of theories.

Darwinian evolution makes no claim to be an "ultimate explanation"; it suggests that all life could be related to a common ancestor, then makes hypotheses (i.e. things that would have to be true, given the initial assertion), then tests these hypotheses. This is scientific. The sheer number of tests that evolutionary theory has undergone, and the sheer weight of evidence from multiple (and very different) disciplines, elevates it to it's current status as one of the most remarkable and illuminating scientific theories we have.

It has been catapulted very far indeed from being a philisophy or a religion (i assume by religion you mean a faith issue?).

touchingcloth wrote:It's manifestly not a religious philosophy. Science - broadly speaking - examines evidence then generates and tests hypotheses. Well tested hypotheses reach the level of theories.

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world and develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts.. The burden of proof is put forth on the person with the hypothesis. So where is the empirical evidence for your hypothesis as it relates to marco-evolution?

touchingcloth wrote:Darwinian evolution makes no claim to be an "ultimate explanation"; it suggests that all life could be related to a common ancestor, then makes hypotheses (i.e. things that would have to be true, given the initial assertion), then tests these hypotheses. This is scientific. The sheer number of tests that evolutionary theory has undergone, and the sheer weight of evidence from multiple (and very different) disciplines, elevates it to it's current status as one of the most remarkable and illuminating scientific theories we have.

It has been catapulted very far indeed from being a philisophy or a religion (i assume by religion you mean a faith issue?).

Science etymologically, comes from the word to know. Science is about knowing. Darwinism is basically materialism or the philosophy that matter is all that there is. So yes, it is trying to claim ultimate explanations...

Life must have arisen by purposeless chemical evolution because there is no alternative. And after all Darwin explained that once you get live jump stated, you can carry it up to complex plants and animals and human beings. And if anyone says that is not true, then they must be wrong because that is the only thing that could have happened. In other words this is a philosophical difference.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:It's manifestly not a religious philosophy. Science - broadly speaking - examines evidence then generates and tests hypotheses. Well tested hypotheses reach the level of theories.

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world and develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts.. The burden of proof is put forth on the person with the hypothesis. So where is the empirical evidence for your hypothesis as it relates to marco-evolution?

Which hypothesis of mine, sorry? And is marco-evolution different from Darwinian evolution (it's not a term I'm familiar with sorry)?

Gman wrote: Science etymologically, comes from the word to know. Science is about knowing. Darwinism is basically materialism or the philosophy that matter is all that there is. So yes, it is trying to claim ultimate explanations...

Life must have arisen by purposeless chemical evolution because there is no alternative. And after all Darwin explained that once you get live jump stated, you can carry it up to complex plants and animals and human beings. And if anyone says that is not true, then they must be wrong because that is the only thing that could have happened. In other words this is a philosophical difference.

The science of evolutionary development says nothing about origins. If you have inferred that it does then that's not unreasonable, but it doesn't follow necessarily from the science. The first self-replicating molecules don't have to have been generated by purposeless chemical evolution.

touchingcloth wrote:Which hypothesis of mine, sorry? And is marco-evolution different from Darwinian evolution (it's not a term I'm familiar with sorry)?

You are not familiar with marco-evolution? Microevolution deals with changes in the gene pool of a single population. Macroevoution simply “considers” broad patterns of evolutionary change over long periods of time and includes the origin of new groups.

Is your claim that Darwin did not imply evolutionary change over long periods of time and includes the origin of new groups??

touchingcloth wrote:The science of evolutionary development says nothing about origins. If you have inferred that it does then that's not unreasonable, but it doesn't follow necessarily from the science. The first self-replicating molecules don't have to have been generated by purposeless chemical evolution.

Your statement is incorrect....

Darwinism is the theory that concerns us.. Our origin.. So it stands out from other scientific theories.. It's about our literal existence.

Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is a materialist philosophy. Which is a worldview based on the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its current form by impersonal chance. Whenever you take science and question the meaning or origin of life like Darwin did in his book “Origin of Species” and others, then you are making a belief system out of science (abiogenesis), the answer for everything, your concerns, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. You are making a religious philosophy..

You've raised a few different things here so I'll go point-by-point

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Which hypothesis of mine, sorry? And is marco-evolution different from Darwinian evolution (it's not a term I'm familiar with sorry)?

You are not familiar with marco-evolution? Microevolution deals with changes in the gene pool of a single population. Macroevoution simply “considers” broad patterns of evolutionary change over long periods of time and includes the origin of new groups.

Is your claim that Darwin did not imply evolutionary change over long periods of time and includes the origin of new groups??

Evolution is best described as the change in gene frequencies in a population/populations over time. That's not, strictly speaking, Darwinian evolution as the field of genetics wasn't established until after his death.
I've not seen the distinction between micro/macro evolution before, but going by your definition one leads on from the other (with an arbitrary split between them). Gene frequencies shift over time, which results in what you term broad patterns of evolutionary change (i.e. changes you might "notice"). This would imply new groups (species, genuses, phyla, etc.), yes.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:The science of evolutionary development says nothing about origins. If you have inferred that it does then that's not unreasonable, but it doesn't follow necessarily from the science. The first self-replicating molecules don't have to have been generated by purposeless chemical evolution.

Your statement is incorrect....

Darwinism is the theory that concerns us.. Our origin.. So it stands out from other scientific theories.. It's about our literal existence.

Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is a materialist philosophy. Which is a worldview based on the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its current form by impersonal chance.

Can I ask if you are creating a distinction here between Darwinism as a philosophy, & evolutionary theory as a science?

If you are, then Darwinism I guess could include philosophies such as Social Darwinism (e.g. let sickly people die, let mentally unwell people fall behind educationally, let the poor stay poor). The worldview you state of "impersonal matter...impersonal chance" could also be termed Darwinism, but that stands separately from the Darwinian processes described in the theory of evolution.

Evolutionary theory is, as you have stated, the shifting in gene frequencies in a population over time. It's a fact that this happens, so if you're implying that it's a "worldview based on the final reality..." then that's somewhat of a non sequitur.

Gman wrote: Whenever you take science and question the meaning or origin of life like Darwin did in his book “Origin of Species” and others, then you are making a belief system out of science (abiogenesis), the answer for everything, your concerns, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. You are making a religious philosophy..

First off - abiogenesis does not mean "making a belief system out of science". Abiogenesis is, as far as I understand, the study into the origin of life from non-life.

In the Origin of Species Darwin is questioning neither the meaning nor the origin of life. To question meaning of life in a scientific way would be, well, daft.
To question the origin of life wouldn't be a belief system unless you came to a conclusion and said "Life definitely came from a primordial soup" or "Life definitely came from god" or "Life definitely came from aliens of the planet Zog". It's a question that could certainly be addressed in a scientific manner though, even if an answer or even the first hint of an answer eludes us forever.

Darwin questioned and studied the origin of species. That's something you can make hypotheses about; it's something you can gather evidence about; it's something you can apply logic to. It is science by any reasonable measure. It's not a "religious philosophy" as it's based on evidence and reasoning, rather than beliefs about the "cause and purpose of the universe" (it's certainly about the "nature" of the universe though, just like the theory of electromagnetism).

touchingcloth wrote:Evolution is best described as the change in gene frequencies in a population/populations over time. That's not, strictly speaking, Darwinian evolution as the field of genetics wasn't established until after his death.
I've not seen the distinction between micro/macro evolution before, but going by your definition one leads on from the other (with an arbitrary split between them).

Darwin obviously did not address genetics..

You have not seen the distinction between micro/macro evolution before? Oh,that is an old trick, deny the evidence.. Perhaps you would like to debate these evolutionary scientists.. Apparently to them it does exist..

"Experience seems to show, however, that there is no way toward an understanding of the mechanisms of macroevolutionary changes, which require time on a geological scale, other than through a full comprehension of the microevolutionary processes observable within the span of a human lifetime and often controlled by man's will. For this reason we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of micro- and macroevolution, and proceeding on this assumption, to push our investigations as far ahead as this working hypothesis will permit.” - Theodosius Dobzhansky

“Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.” - Douglas H. Erwin (2000)

“Traditional microevolutionary theory is not usable for treatment of the molecular mechanism by which evolution of the animal body plans has occurred.” And “Contrary to classic evolution theory, the processes that drive the same changes observed as species diverge cannot be taken as models for evolution of the body plans of animals.. These are as apples and oranges, so to speak, and that is why it is necessary to apply new principles.. - Caltech developmental and evolutionary biologist Eric Davidson (2006, 192), (2006, 195)

touchingcloth wrote:Gene frequencies shift over time, which results in what you term broad patterns of evolutionary change (i.e. changes you might "notice"). This would imply new groups (species, genuses, phyla, etc.), yes.

Imply new groups? Can you demonstrate the change for us, let's say in a lab?

touchingcloth wrote:EIf you are, then Darwinism I guess could include philosophies such as Social Darwinism (e.g. let sickly people die, let mentally unwell people fall behind educationally, let the poor stay poor). The worldview you state of "impersonal matter...impersonal chance" could also be termed Darwinism, but that stands separately from the Darwinian processes described in the theory of evolution.

Evolutionary theory is, as you have stated, the shifting in gene frequencies in a population over time. It's a fact that this happens, so if you're implying that it's a "worldview based on the final reality..." then that's somewhat of a non sequitur.

Not exactly... Again are you denying that evolution “considers” broad patterns of evolutionary change over long periods of time and includes the origin of new groups or species? Answer the question please...

touchingcloth wrote:First off - abiogenesis does not mean "making a belief system out of science". Abiogenesis is, as far as I understand, the study into the origin of life from non-life.

Again, whenever you question the origin of life (in this case abiogenesis), you are making for yourself a philosophy.. Everyone knows that it is trying to explain the origins of life through naturalistic means...

touchingcloth wrote:In the Origin of Species Darwin is questioning neither the meaning nor the origin of life. To question meaning of life in a scientific way would be, well, daft.

Incorrect...

Darwin evidently recognized how serious the Abiogenesis problem was for his theory, and once even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life “by the Creator” Here are the relevant quotations from the Conclusion from the “Origin of Species.”

“Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype.”

“Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”

"The whole history of the world, as at present known, ... will hereafter be recognized as a mere fragment of time, compared with the ages which have elapsed since the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created."

"When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

touchingcloth wrote:To question the origin of life wouldn't be a belief system unless you came to a conclusion and said "Life definitely came from a primordial soup" or "Life definitely came from god" or "Life definitely came from aliens of the planet Zog". It's a question that could certainly be addressed in a scientific manner though, even if an answer or even the first hint of an answer eludes us forever.

Yes, exactly what Darwin said.. In his conclusion...

touchingcloth wrote:Darwin questioned and studied the origin of species. That's something you can make hypotheses about; it's something you can gather evidence about; it's something you can apply logic to. It is science by any reasonable measure. It's not a "religious philosophy" as it's based on evidence and reasoning, rather than beliefs about the "cause and purpose of the universe" (it's certainly about the "nature" of the universe though, just like the theory of electromagnetism).

Again... The burden of proof is put forth on the person with the hypothesis. So where is the empirical evidence for your hypothesis as it relates to marco-evolution? If you don't have any, then it's a "religious philosophy"..

The problem of the early evolution of life and the unfounded optimism of scientists was well put by Dawkins. He concluded that Earth's chemistry was different on our early, lifeless, planet, and that at this time there existed

...no life, no biology, only physics and chemistry, and the details of the Earth's chemistry were very different. Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea. Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying—a replicator. This may seem like a big stroke of luck... Freakish or not, this kind of luck does happen... [and] it had to happen only once... What is more, as far as we know, it may have happened on only one planet out of a billion billion planets in the universe. Of course many people think that it actually happened on lots and lots of planets, but we only have evidence that it happened on one planet, after a lapse of half a billion to a billion years. So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet—because here we are talking about it (Dawkins, 1996, pp. 282—283, emphasis in original).

There is allot of wishfull thinking in this statement - probability by Dawkins definition = luck. If that is not faith based then what is ?
note: bold and underline is mine

Gman wrote: Darwin obviously did not address genetics..

You have not seen the distinction between micro/macro evolution before? Oh,that is an old trick, deny the evidence.. Perhaps you would like to debate these evolutionary scientists.. Apparently to them it does exist..

Well even going by those quotes it still just looks to be 2 names for the same thing, but over different timescales.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Gene frequencies shift over time, which results in what you term broad patterns of evolutionary change (i.e. changes you might "notice"). This would imply new groups (species, genuses, phyla, etc.), yes.

Imply new groups? Can you demonstrate the change for us, let's say in a lab?

Is there something special about a lab? Can you demonstrate the fact that the holocaust happened, in a lab? Can you demonstrate the effect of an object of 10 solar masses on a light wave, in a lab?

Gman wrote: Not exactly... Again are you denying that evolution “considers” broad patterns of evolutionary change over long periods of time and includes the origin of new groups or species? Answer the question please...

Not at all. In fact that's a necessary conclusion given shifting gene frequencies and the isolation of populations.

Gman wrote: Again, whenever you question the origin of life (in this case abiogenesis), you are making for yourself a philosophy.. Everyone knows that it is trying to explain the origins of life through naturalistic means...

Abiogenesis is the study of ways in which life could have come about through naturalistic means. It doesn't become a philosophy until you start to hold beliefs outside of the evidence. I could hypothesise that all life came into being last Wednesday...I wouldn't be in the realms of philosophy until I started believing that, or acting under the assumption that it was true.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Darwin questioned and studied the origin of species. That's something you can make hypotheses about; it's something you can gather evidence about; it's something you can apply logic to. It is science by any reasonable measure. It's not a "religious philosophy" as it's based on evidence and reasoning, rather than beliefs about the "cause and purpose of the universe" (it's certainly about the "nature" of the universe though, just like the theory of electromagnetism).

Again... The burden of proof is put forth on the person with the hypothesis. So where is the empirical evidence for your hypothesis as it relates to marco-evolution? If you don't have any, then it's a "religious philosophy"..

Again, what is "my" hypothesis?
If you're talking about empirical evidence for evolution, speciation and the interrelatedness of all living species then, where would you like to start; paleantology? genetics? geographic distribution? anatomy? molecular chemistry?

Can one be, "born again" apart from a true knowledge of God? This would appear to be in conflict with your current position. Religious belief is not being born again.

One can not "live a Christian life" apart from the Holy Spirit. If they could, then Jesus would have not had to die on the cross. If you were, "living the christian life," were you filled with the Holy Spirit, or were you instead following a religious prescription, which you believed to be "the Christian life?" My suspicion is either you were never really born again, or you are denying the proofs of God in your life. Although you are welcome to share more in regards to your "born again" experience.

Apparently I was not "born again" in the sense that those who were would describe. Maybe I was more going with the motions when "accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior". However, I undoubtedly felt something I can best describe as spiritual, but this was several years ago, and the basis behind my doubt lies in whether this feeling is attributable to Jesus Christ, or even a "god" at all. Also, because I am challenging the notion of Jesus Christ being god, I cannot blindly accept the idea of a holy spirit. As far as "the christian life" goes, there's definitely a variety of definitions of what that phrase means, and I shouldn't have used it so flippantly. However, while having a conviction about one specific interpretation of the christian life is necessary for maintaining one's belief system, I don't think making that assumption to a non-believer is very helpful for debate.

OK, the bible is not a scientific book, nor does it claim to be a scientific book.

The "word of God" is ultimately that which one should live their life by. It would seem to me that the bible (which I think we can agree does make that claim) should give us all we need in terms of understanding our natural world. Science is simply a vehicle by which we can gain greater understanding about the same world the bible speaks of. It's curious to me that a book that makes that claim doesn't make references to truths about our natural world that science has expounded upon in the past 2000 years. I am not claiming that the bible is not an important source of moral teachings and an overall remarkable book, but any book that claims to have been written by God, the ultimate creator, who created "heavens and the earth", one would think would make some reference to other parts of the cosmos that are as (if not more) awe inspiring and even spiritually moving.

touchingcloth wrote:Well even going by those quotes it still just looks to be 2 names for the same thing, but over different timescales.

Please stop denying macroevolution.. It's a relevant term used in biology.

touchingcloth wrote:Is there something special about a lab? Can you demonstrate the fact that the holocaust happened, in a lab? Can you demonstrate the effect of an object of 10 solar masses on a light wave, in a lab?

Why? Do labs scare you? You were the one claiming that Darwinian evolution is the most illuminating scientific theories we have. So prove it.. Labs would be a good start.. I want to see this weight of information. Also the holocaust is no comparison here. We have numerous pictures, videos, testimonials, and people that witnessed it, you can't do that with Darwin's ideas. It's an assumption, albeit a shaky one..

touchingcloth wrote:Not at all. In fact that's a necessary conclusion given shifting gene frequencies and the isolation of populations.

Good, so you finally agree with me that macroevolution exists.. Very good. Let's move on...

touchingcloth wrote:Abiogenesis is the study of ways in which life could have come about through naturalistic means. It doesn't become a philosophy until you start to hold beliefs outside of the evidence. I could hypothesise that all life came into being last Wednesday...I wouldn't be in the realms of philosophy until I started believing that, or acting under the assumption that it was true.

First and foremost, abiogeneis has nothing to do biology. Before life begins there is only chemistry (and some physics). Chemistry is repeatable and testable. Also abiogenesis is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly). Many groups of scientists insist that its simply a matter of time and anything can happen. So although it can't be proven, it is still woven into the evolutionary fabric as a foreseeable truth.

Earlier you stated that the sheer weight of evidence from multiple disciplines, elevates evolution to the current status as one of the most remarkable and illuminating scientific theories we have. But now you seem to be backing down from that statement.. Why? Where is this evidence?

touchingcloth wrote:Again, what is "my" hypothesis?
If you're talking about empirical evidence for evolution, speciation and the interrelatedness of all living species then, where would you like to start; paleantology? genetics? geographic distribution? anatomy? molecular chemistry?

Now don't panic.. Again, I want you to show me the proof for macroevolution. Show me where it has created something new.. Let's say a new species of animal then. Go for it.. Shock me.

In your own words you stated the following... "Science can tolerate faith, as long as people don't try to impose their faith upon science.... When such people try and replace proper science, with their statements of faith, then they cannot coexist."

So where is the science here? A hypothesis.. Is that all you have?

I won't get into to this too much, for now, still got to read over all this. But...

Gman wrote:First and foremost, abiogeneis has nothing to do biology. Before life begins there is only chemistry (and some physics). Chemistry is repeatable and testable.

Abiogeneis is metaphysical in nature, not testable or proveable, good job Gman. Take all the atoms you need to make a life form, put them together corectly, and they still won't just come to life.
I have been on and off reading this. Maybe more from me later after I finish reading my notes in biology, a subject which I love, and studied a lot.
God bless!
And remember I am watching you!

Gabrielman wrote:Take all the atoms you need to make a life form, put them together corectly, and they still won't just come to life.

Too true Gabrielman.. Now if that isn't faith related...

The "word of God" is ultimately that which one should live their life by. It would seem to me that the bible (which I think we can agree does make that claim) should give us all we need in terms of understanding our natural world.

Is it really fair to put such conditions on the Bible? "Well if the Bible had a concise definition of molecular biology, I'd beleive it."
Based on your earlier post it also seems you have some misinformed ideas of what the bible is saying about the natural world. Such as the earth being the center.

As far as "the christian life" goes, there's definitely a variety of definitions of what that phrase means, and I shouldn't have used it so flippantly. However, while having a conviction about one specific interpretation of the christian life is necessary for maintaining one's belief system, I don't think making that assumption to a non-believer is very helpful for debate.

The only definition that matters is the correct one. Making the assumption was necessary for one who claimed to be something they were most definately not.

topic says

would you care to inform me of your observation and reflection on morals with referance to Science. Your opening question puts values on Biology,Cosmology,Archeology, Paleontology and of coarse Historical Anthropology. Where does science speak of morals in an arbitrary (in the adjective context) capacity,especially within the evolutionary scale ?

I know my initial question is overwhelmingly broad; I suppose that's why I generalized it to "science". I'm not sure what you're asking, but I do know that there's extensive research on why humans (and even other animals) exhibit behaviors that we now consider moral. I'm not sure I completely swallow them myself, but the traditional references are to family altruism, and intra/interspecies altruism. From what I've read, bio-anthropoligists and other biologists still have a ways to go in these studies.

topic says

For myself the bible does not do this. The cannons and tenants of the bible are held in truth. What was then in the morals of man are no differant than they are today. This substance is without question. When as an observation you look at a subject in isolation ( as science also does for this is how theories develop ), if one looks at the bible in the same context, there is no contradiction. God is God and is never changing (an absolute). Christ is the climactic result of the constant. Science in no way comes close to these same assertions or under the same scrutiny.

The bible's truth is held as consistent and absolute because it would seem necessary to the integral maintenance of those truths, and christian faith generally. Although many who revere science as providing ultimate truths may give it more credit than it deserves, I think there's no question that true science is ever evolving by nature of the scientific method, for the purpose of improving our understanding. I think revisionism is in fact necessary for science to be good science. However, as far as the bible's moral tenets are concerned, a non-believer would argue that while there is a moral core that does not and should not be compromised (ie, no lying, killing, etc.), other tenets may be subject to reinterpretation, or even abandonment, based on the changing times and culture. As far as God himself never changing, if there is indeed a God, I do believe he is unchanging. However, much of what the bible asserts are just that, "assertions". Science should not and doesn't not have a monopoly on evidence. What many non-believers have a difficult time with is the lack of evidence (not necessarily scientific evidence) of either the existence of God, and even more so, the idea that jesus christ is our lord and savior. If the argument is of a subjective nature, ie, "one must be filled with the holy spirit, or "come to christ in their own spiritual walk", I don't reject these assertions, but I'm sure other religions say similar things, except the god is not jesus christ.