Evidence for God from Science

I understand your point, wrain, but my problem with that statement is that pro-ID people tend to say "look at all the problems and religious aspects of evolution" but give nothing beyond that vague reference to potential issues with evolution. That's one of the problems my professors have raised about those who would bash evolution, that rarely do you see anyone give a serious list or description of why evolution isn't "good enough" to be taught in schools.

The way I see it, evolution has a few areas that currently it does not fully explain or predict scientifically. But that doesn't make it a philosophy on it's own, because technically science can't really prove anything. Even the Theory of Gravity has flaws as physicists find strange astrological phenomena that would seem to contradict gravity and how we describe it currently. That is why science is constantly working to improve itself and research ways to alter or improve on it's theories. Still, both volution and gravity are the best and most universally accepted explanations in science for what they explain.

So again, my question is more of a "what about evolution makes it too philosophical or unscientific to teach in public schools?" Just saying it has issues isn't really helpful to the discussion. Not trying to make this an argument or debate, I'd just like to have a more concrete idea of what the anti-evolution side has to say, because that's the side I don't have much information to work with.

Ivellious wrote:So again, my question is more of a "what about evolution makes it too philosophical or unscientific to teach in public schools?" Just saying it has issues isn't really helpful to the discussion. Not trying to make this an argument or debate, I'd just like to have a more concrete idea of what the anti-evolution side has to say, because that's the side I don't have much information to work with.

There are problems posed on this website. But what about evolution makes it too philosophical? It is a bigger problem that is projected in ID vs. Evolution. Even irreligious Thomas Paine saw it in the curriculum:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=81

In a speech he delivered in Paris on January 16, 1797, Thomas Paine harshly criticized what the French were then teaching in their science classes-especially the philosophy they were using. Interestingly, that same science philosophy of which Thomas Paine was so critical is identical to that used in our public schools today. Paine's indictment of that philosophy is particularly significant in light of the fact that all historians today concede that Thomas Paine was one of the very least religious of our Founders. Yet, even Paine could not abide teaching science, which excluded God's work and hand in the creation of the world and of all scientific phenomena. Below is an excerpt from that speech.

"It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.

When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them form the Being who is the author of them. . . .

The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter; and jump over all the rest, by saying that matter is eternal."


Science can only be taught with a prior reigning philosophy to base the teaching. And when it came to picking either supernatural philosophy or purely naturalistic philosophy, naturalistic philosophy was chosen for whatever reason. Now these two philosophies are fighting and it is projected as ID vs. evolution. Separation of church and state favours the secular philosophy of teaching. This is what makes Evolution philisophical: because with such ambiguous truth it portrays, much of the naturalistic philosophy fills in the gaps for it. For example, is evolution intended or guided or is it all pure chance? The naturalistic philosophy instead of true fact comes in at this point to answer the question.

I understand your point, but that still doesn't explain much as far as why evolution is too philosophical to teach in schools. All science is a philosophy to some degree, yes. Science is called science because it follows a set list of criteria (the philosophy of science, I guess). But saying that we can't teach any type of philosophy in school would then mean we couldn't teach any religion, and science, or frankly anything other than history and practical skills. Because everything else has some root in philosophy.

But science class is there to teach that philosophy of science, yes? Science is, by today's standards, the way of explaining the natural world through observation, hypothesis, experimentation and repeating those steps (and sometimes other steps) until a consensus is reached. So why shouldn't something that fits that criteria of science wholly not be taught in a class that teaches science?

Ivellious wrote:I understand your point, but that still doesn't explain much as far as why evolution is too philosophical to teach in schools. All science is a philosophy to some degree, yes. Science is called science because it follows a set list of criteria (the philosophy of science, I guess). But saying that we can't teach any type of philosophy in school would then mean we couldn't teach any religion, and science, or frankly anything other than history and practical skills. Because everything else has some root in philosophy.

But science class is there to teach that philosophy of science, yes? Science is, by today's standards, the way of explaining the natural world through observation, hypothesis, experimentation and repeating those steps (and sometimes other steps) until a consensus is reached. So why shouldn't something that fits that criteria of science wholly not be taught in a class that teaches science?

I cannot answer sorry.

Ivellious wrote:I understand your point, but that still doesn't explain much as far as why evolution is too philosophical to teach in schools.

No one is saying that evolution is too philosophical to teach in schools.. No one.

Ivellious wrote:All science is a philosophy to some degree, yes. Science is called science because it follows a set list of criteria (the philosophy of science, I guess).

It depends on how you define science.. Also can all science be observed via complete naturalistic ways?

Ivellious wrote:But saying that we can't teach any type of philosophy in school would then mean we couldn't teach any religion, and science, or frankly anything other than history and practical skills. Because everything else has some root in philosophy.

No one is saying that science and philosophy can't be taught together. Just that it should be labeled as such..

Ivellious wrote:But science class is there to teach that philosophy of science, yes? Science is, by today's standards, the way of explaining the natural world through observation, hypothesis, experimentation and repeating those steps (and sometimes other steps) until a consensus is reached. So why shouldn't something that fits that criteria of science wholly not be taught in a class that teaches science?

But can natural facts explain everything? Can the natural world be explained and understood only in natural terms? If so, then we must have some indication that it is possible. So far science can't do that, especially if we look at origins.

wrain62 wrote: Even irreligious Thomas Paine saw it in the curriculum:

Paine wanted religion taught in schools. His religion could only be derived from study of the natural world [entire speech? at http://www.readme.it/libri/Letteratura% ... 0GOD.shtml].
He would probably be an ID proponent today.
But that is just one man's (however gifted - a wide range of talents apparently, see wikipedia) opinion. Science today (no longer referred to as "natural philosophy") is the study of the material world. Religion, even of Paine's variety, is outside the scope of science.

Gman wrote:Can the natural world be explained and understood only in natural terms? If so, then we must have some indication that it is possible. So far science can't do that, especially if we look at origins.

That is the goal of science. The indicator of possibility is that it has worked so far. This of course does not mean that all of things currently unexplained by science can be explained by science. Origins of life have not been discovered (and may never be), but there is nothing in the concept which violates known physical laws. The origin of the universe (assuming there was one) I consider outside the scope of science.
The idea, as I grasp it, of old earth creationism, is that various species were, over time, created without evolution from predecessors. This idea will probably be difficult or impossible to disprove given the incompleteness of the fossil record. [The similarity of DNA etc can easily be explained as part of the creation implementation.]

That is the goal of science.

Just to clarify, science doesn't have goals. People do. Science is a process, not an individual or a collective.

sandy_mcd wrote:That is the goal of science. The indicator of possibility is that it has worked so far. This of course does not mean that all of things currently unexplained by science can be explained by science. Origins of life have not been discovered (and may never be), but there is nothing in the concept which violates known physical laws. The origin of the universe (assuming there was one) I consider outside the scope of science.
The idea, as I grasp it, of old earth creationism, is that various species were, over time, created without evolution from predecessors. This idea will probably be difficult or impossible to disprove given the incompleteness of the fossil record. [The similarity of DNA etc can easily be explained as part of the creation implementation.]

That maybe true but as Jlay pointed out... 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 many times lose sight of the difference between the theory and the facts and hence they present it as unquestionably true.

jlay wrote:Just to clarify, science doesn't have goals. People do. Science is a process, not an individual or a collective.

Point taken. Science is a process by which people model the observable.

Gman wrote: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 many times lose sight of the difference between the theory and the facts and hence they present it as unquestionably true.

I'm not sure what you mean here. [As jlay pointed out, science doesn't do anything, people do, through science.] But scientists are not supposed to present anything as unquestionably true, only as the best/simplest explanation. Even facts are subject to re-evaluation.

Where a biology education is compulsory then evolution should be part of it. It's one of the most influential theories of the past few hundred years, permeates much of biology and gives it a common language. The level of support for evolution within the scientific community is huge, most reports I've read have maybe one or two percent of scientists rejecting evolution, many of whom are not biologists. I don't think the dominant theory in biology should be ignored or that it should be taught on a equal footing to ID, on the other side it would be nice to see ID get a little unbiased coverage within the biology curriculum.

August wrote:

wrain62 wrote:

August wrote:"There is always a metaphysical motive to ID but not always in evolution."

That is untrue, sorry, there are many non-theists that hold to ID.

Unless the intelligent designer is an alien life force I suppose. Otherwise ID still puts a meta physical intelligent designer on the table.

ID is not about the designer. It is an informational theory about the science of design detection.

Could you, August, point me in the direction of some of these people? It's something I've not come across, it would be interesting to read some ID opinions which were't already heavily in the theistic frame of mind. Godslanguage had some excellent information regarding information theory and alternative methods of adaption via selection but most of what I recall was either theistic or if scientific then more focused upon the inadequacies of the current evolutionary model than non-theist proponents of ID but I haven't seen him post in some time.

Ivellious wrote:
1) Should evolution be part of the compulsory biology education system?
2) Should Intelligent Design, creationism, or any other counterpart/rival to evolution be taught in schools as a science alongside evolution?
3) If yes to 2, how should this be handled in schools? Should ID/creationism be taught as a possible alternative to evolution? Or perhaps another way?
4) Anything else you think is relevant to the subject.

1. Yes, for the same reasons Proinsias gave. I would add that reading Darwin's The Origen of Species and The Descent of Man should be required in the course.
2. No. None of that stuff is science.

FL

sandy_mcd wrote: I'm not sure what you mean here. [As jlay pointed out, science doesn't do anything, people do, through science.] But scientists are not supposed to present anything as unquestionably true, only as the best/simplest explanation. Even facts are subject to re-evaluation.

Yes, but the idea here is that sometimes those "facts" or what one would deem as facts can be mixed in with philosophy.. Why? Becuase many views on origins deal with the same thing but they try to understand it under different types of considerations.

[quote="Proinsias"]Where a biology education is compulsory then evolution should be part of it. It's one of the most influential theories of the past few hundred years, permeates much of biology and gives it a common language. The level of support for evolution within the scientific community is huge, most reports I've read have maybe one or two percent of scientists rejecting evolution, many of whom are not biologists. I don't think the dominant theory in biology should be ignored or that it should be taught on a equal footing to ID, on the other side it would be nice to see ID get a little unbiased coverage within the biology curriculum.

I agree with all these points, personally. I'd also like to point out that in the biology course I just finished at the University (in a heavily liberal state, mind you) we did have to learn quite a bit about ID. Was it unbiased? Of course not. All the students in the class are majoring in biological sciences, and the profs were biology professors. But I will say that we had to learn all the prevailing arguments for ID, and I have rarely heard an argument from anyone pushing ID that I did not learn in that class. So to be honest, while we learned ID as a clear many steps behind evolution, we did learn ID pretty much inside and out. The point, obviously, was to take evolution and ID, stack them next to each other, and easily see that the arguments both ways weigh heavily in favor of evolution.

Thanks for the help everyone! It's been enlightening as a whole. Feel free to keep posting if you'd like.

Ivellious wrote: The point, obviously, was to take evolution and ID, stack them next to each other, and easily see that the arguments both ways weigh heavily in favor of evolution.

Thanks for the help everyone! It's been enlightening as a whole. Feel free to keep posting if you'd like.

Well congrats because that is what the theory is suppose to do...

Wait, which theory is supposed to do what?