Evidence for God from Science

DannyM wrote:Let us get this clear, people. If we are not the result of an intelligent cause, then we are the result of an unintelligent cause. Or does anyone wish to posit a semi-intelligent cause…? Let us get back on the podium and explore this. Anyone claiming to be “of science” who wishes to contradict us here, bring it on! Let us get down to it and breath life into this debate right here…

DannyM,

I'm not an evolutionist but it appears to me that manofscience is being somewhat pushed into a position I didn't see him advocate, in this thread anyway.

Evolution is a means or a mechanism of change. It doesn't necessarily preclude an intelligent designer or force working through the process (and of course it doesn't require one either and is the primary option for which those who deny the existence of God appeal in terms of our origins.)

Thiestic evolution is a viable position to consider (and I'm not a theistic evolutionist either.) Most forms of old earth creationism recognize the role of evolution at varying levels depending upon the exact view taken.

Many people don't realize it, but ironically, young earth creation in many forms actually relies more upon evolution at a remarkable rate that is much faster and more pronounced than anything mainstream science has put forth to explan the diversity of geographically based speciation given their much shorter time frame for this to happen.

Evolution, like many other terms in these discussions, is a very loaded term and it's good to be reminded, I think, that there is a very narrow and precise definition for it in the context of pure science. It takes on a much broader meaning outside of the context in terms of how it is used in the realm of philosophy and religious belief and much confusion is caused by switching back and forth between those meanings in a given conversation.

Evolution as a scientific definition and theory is a very well supported and observed phenomenon. The question we face mostly in the context of the discussion of this board is the scope and duration of its impact.

blessings,

bart

DannyM,

I didn't make an argument, as such; I merely pointed out that the alternative solution (to the problem addressed by Gman), evolution, does not equate to "chance". (Chance can be discounted as a potential solution to the problem, as the probability of it being the solution is extraordinarily low.)

ManOfScience wrote:DannyM,

I didn't make an argument, as such; I merely pointed out that the alternative solution (to the problem addressed by Gman), evolution, does not equate to "chance". (Chance can be discounted as a potential solution to the problem, as the probability of it being the solution is extraordinarily low.)

How does evolution not equate to chance?

If you want to claim that "natural selection" is proof that it is not chance, then please show:
1. How the result of evolution is down to natural selection specifically and not just gene drift (How to differentiate between the two mechanisms, and ascribe the result to either one)
2. Why natural selection is not undone by random mutation all the time

ManOfScience wrote:DannyM,

I didn't make an argument, as such; I merely pointed out that the alternative solution (to the problem addressed by Gman), evolution, does not equate to "chance". (Chance can be discounted as a potential solution to the problem, as the probability of it being the solution is extraordinarily low.)

ManofScience,

I'm just curious, According to your profile, you're not a christian (and you're welcome as long as you understand the purpose of our board and discussion guidelines and can abide by them.)

Could you expand a little bit on what you mean here? I think I understand that you're saying that evolution as a process is not simply random but in the absence of some teleological design or a designer then chance indeed is a major component of many elements of evolution. Probability is always a somewhat loaded question to ask. I look at it this way. If you have a plane flying from Los Angeles to Hawaii, and it goes down, the probability of the plane hitting any one small patch of ocean is infintisimally small from one point of view, but the chances of the plane hitting the ocean as a whole is 100%. How you frame the question in many ways determines the conclusion. Is what you're saying something along these lines, or are you arguing more generally for the possibility of a creator/designer at some level?

thanks,

bart

Canuckster1127 wrote: I'm not an evolutionist but it appears to me that manofscience is being somewhat pushed into a position I didn't see him advocate, in this thread anyway.

Evolution is a means or a mechanism of change. It doesn't necessarily preclude an intelligent designer or force working through the process (and of course it doesn't require one either and is the primary option for which those who deny the existence of God appeal in terms of our origins.)

Thiestic evolution is a viable position to consider (and I'm not a theistic evolutionist either.) Most forms of old earth creationism recognize the role of evolution at varying levels depending upon the exact view taken.

Many people don't realize it, but ironically, young earth creation in many forms actually relies more upon evolution at a remarkable rate that is much faster and more pronounced than anything mainstream science has put forth to explan the diversity of geographically based speciation given their much shorter time frame for this to happen.

Evolution, like many other terms in these discussions, is a very loaded term and it's good to be reminded, I think, that there is a very narrow and precise definition for it in the context of pure science. It takes on a much broader meaning outside of the context in terms of how it is used in the realm of philosophy and religious belief and much confusion is caused by switching back and forth between those meanings in a given conversation.

Evolution as a scientific definition and theory is a very well supported and observed phenomenon. The question we face mostly in the context of the discussion of this board is the scope and duration of its impact.

blessings,

bart

Bart,

I am neither anti-evolution nor pro young earth... I am a simple being who can distinguish between chance and nessecity; I need no PhD nor Degree to hold this position. I am TIRED of hearing that the atheistic scientist holds the position of REASON: HE DOES NOT!!

Let the "scientist" come to me with factual evidence of Chance--capital C-- !! THAT IS ALL I ASK...a coherent argument instead of a " You're thick...You're a creationist" kind of childish argument...

Dan

Mutations, both gene and chromosomal, are genetic drift are random processes. Selection is a mechanism that is not random, since the organisms that best fit the environment and reproduce more will contribute more genes to the next generation.

Fundamentally, then, the challenge is whether those two random processes above are sufficient to provide the necessary amount of variations within populations to produce large scale speciation.

ManOfScience wrote:DannyM,

I didn't make an argument, as such; I merely pointed out that the alternative solution (to the problem addressed by Gman), evolution, does not equate to "chance". (Chance can be discounted as a potential solution to the problem, as the probability of it being the solution is extraordinarily low.)

Indeed, you discounted nessecity while positing NOTHING. If evolution is not purposeless then please tell me what it is...? if there is no purposer, then how does purpose have any backing...? Please be as philosophical as you please...

DannyM,

zoegirl has already done a good job of concisely pointing out where the random (i.e., chance) element of evolution lies: in the genetic mutations that lead to change. As she also points out, natural selection is a non-random (i.e., directed) process.

I will not be coming to you with evidence of chance (as the mechanism responsible for the diversity of life on Earth); as I've already stated, evolutionary theory does not claim chance as the driving force behind our existence, behind diversification, etc. (Though, as I've already said (in backing up zoegirl's post), there is randomness involved in the process.)

Clearly, I haven't said nothing, else you wouldn't be getting so wound up over it. However, I do believe you're reading things into my posts that I simply didn't say. At no point did I mention "purpose", for example.

August,

To answer your two points: Evolution is clearly the result of natural selection, as populations become more and more suited to the environment in which they live (for the reason pointed out by none other than zoegirl). We don't see creatures wildly "misadapted" to their environment! (A fish without gills simply wouldn't survive. This is obvious.) Natural selection is not undone by random mutation for this very reason: mutations that benefit the population will be selected; those that prove to be a disadvantage will be swiftly "deselected".

Canuckster1127 wrote:Could you expand a little bit on what you mean here? I think I understand that you're saying that evolution as a process is not simply random but in the absence of some teleological design or a designer then chance indeed is a major component of many elements of evolution.

Indeed. The genetic change that leads, for example, to a very slightly longer middle finger in the aye-aye initially comes about via random mutation. However, if that mutation benefits that individual in feeding, and subsequently in reproduction (this individual aye-aye eats better than the average aye-aye, and therefore fathers more offspring), then the longer-middle-finger trait will become more common in the population.

So, the initial mutation comes about via chance; but the change remains within the population due to selection. (Conversely, a mutation that led to a shorter finger would not be selected.)

Did I answer the question?

ManOfScience wrote:DannyM,

zoegirl has already done a good job of concisely pointing out where the random (i.e., chance) element of evolution lies: in the genetic mutations that lead to change. As she also points out, natural selection is a non-random (i.e., directed) process.

I will not be coming to you with evidence of chance (as the mechanism responsible for the diversity of life on Earth); as I've already stated, evolutionary theory does not claim chance as the driving force behind our existence, behind diversification, etc. (Though, as I've already said (in backing up zoegirl's post), there is randomness involved in the process.)

Clearly, I haven't said nothing, else you wouldn't be getting so wound up over it. However, I do believe you're reading things into my posts that I simply didn't say. At no point did I mention "purpose", for example.

Great! So if not Chance then all you need posit is your brand of Vodka...? Don't be shy, give it a try...

zoegirl wrote:Mutations, both gene and chromosomal, are genetic drift are random processes. Selection is a mechanism that is not random, since the organisms that best fit the environment and reproduce more will contribute more genes to the next generation.

Fundamentally, then, the challenge is whether those two random processes above are sufficient to provide the necessary amount of variations within populations to produce large scale speciation.

If these processes were purely random then you and I wouldn't be here. Simple. Sorry.

I understand what you're saying.

Of course, that's the key to what Darwin did. The idea of evolution was not new or unique with Darwin, but it was the identification of the process of Natural Selection that preserved those chance changes within the population and those mutations, chance developments etc, that were genetically based and could be transmitted from generation to generation and which best suited a particular population to survival in their environment (which also could change and thereby change which traits subsequently would tend toward higher reproduction and survival).

I understand that. That understanding and theory in many ways removed what previously had been a primary argument for creation known as the God of the Gaps. The idea being that what couldn't be explained would never be explained and therefore God's existence was demonstrated by the need for His action. For the record, I think that's a flawed argument. Arguing conclusively from a position of ignorance of how something works, inherently begs the question if and when a plausible explanation is identified. The existence of God as a question is independent of these types of factors.

I am a creationist however, and I don't base my belief upon such a God of Gaps and further, I believe evolution and natural selection are not necessarily mutually exclusive of a belief in God, nor are they by definition, outside of the control, use and manipulation of God should He choose to operate through them or outside of them as the case might be.

ManOfScience wrote: Are you seriously unable to think of an alternative to creationism other than chance? Science doesn't claim that chance is an alternative to creation; this is a preposterous proposition. Adam and Eve weren't spontaneously created by a random breeze blowing through the Garden of Eden! Evolution is a gradual, directed process; I suggest you do a little research on how evolution differs from chance.

I've seen this argument before, and it makes no sense. Are you saying that it's possible to choose to believe in something? Even something that, to the potential believer, seems logically ridiculous?

ManOfScience, first off the way evolution is being taught in the public schools is completely devoid of any god. Case in point..

Implications Darwin saw in evolution by evolutionist William B. Provine.

1. Argument from design fails. No intelligent designers are visible in the natural world.
2. When mammals die, they are really and truly dead.
3. No ultimate foundation for ethics exists.
4. No ultimate meaning in life exists.
5. Free will is a human myth.

The key philosophical premises of the Darwinian paradigm are as follows:

1. Methodological naturalism: scientific theories must refer “only” to natural causes.
2. Biological sub optimality: organisms are demonstrably imperfect in structure and function.
3. Theological optimality: God (if he exists) would be an optimizing designer and creator.

Optimizing creator, meaning that God should have created things as good as they should be.. If we are talking about Darwinian evolution everyone knows that it is trying to explain the origins of life through naturalistic means...

Most evolutionists agree that Darwinian evolution is a naturalistic process when it comes to the explanation of origins... A process that does NOT involve any divine creator.. Theistic evolution, under the scientific explanations, is automatically considered unscientific because it involves a "god". Therefore it is void.

Second evolution, the way it is taught in schools, is clearly being taught as a chance process. Case in point...

According to biologists, chance events (blind luck chance) can be described in genetic drift, gene flow, and even mutation in microevolution. Natural selection (a blend of chance and sorting), however, is the only mechanism that consistently leads to adaptive evolution.

“Genetic drift, gene flow, and even mutation can cause microevolution. But these are chance events, and only blind luck could result in their improving a population's fit to its environment. Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, is a blend of chance and "sorting": chance in the random collection of genetic variation packaged in gametes and combined in offspring and sorting in that some alleles are favored over others. Because of this sorting effect, only natural selection consistently leads to adaptive evolution-evolution that results in a better fit between organisms and their environment.” Biology : Concepts and connections — Ch. 13.12, pg 269, 2008

Religion, on the other hand, is being taught as a belief in a god.. The question is, what is this statement doing in a college anthropology book?

“The relationship between science and religion has never been easy. While both serve, in their own ways, to explain phenomena, scientific explanations are based in data analysis and interpretation. Religion, meanwhile, is a system of beliefs not amenable to scientific testing and falsification; it is based in faith. “ page 39, Essentials of Physical Anthropology. 2008.

So what is going on here?? Scientific explanations are being turned into philosophical debates in the classrooms pure and simple......

In other words, evolution could be considered "neutral" to science... But people turn it into a philosophical debate.. In fact they must collide at some point, you can't escape it...

Now God could have used evolution (theistic evolution) for creation... That is true. But under the public "scientific" scrutiny. No....

ManOfScience wrote:DannyM,

I didn't make an argument, as such; I merely pointed out that the alternative solution (to the problem addressed by Gman), evolution, does not equate to "chance". (Chance can be discounted as a potential solution to the problem, as the probability of it being the solution is extraordinarily low.)

I totally disagree with your statement.... If you take away God from creation, as it is done in the public school systems, then all you are left with is chance.

Sorry..