Evidence for God from Science

Callisto wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Some tend to confuse evolution with "darwinisim".
Evolution means that living organisims change ( evolve) to adapt to imposed demands of their environment.
We see examples of it "every" day.
Darwinisim is the view that these changes are "random" and "unguided" by anything other than "natural selection".
Or something like that.

Agree. In any case evolution still points toward a Designer. And atheistic naturalism has never solved the problem of biogenesis and can't. We can't take non-life and make life out of it, we can only take life and make more life out of it. Anything that would be done in a test tube would be of that sort.

Correct, and the odds that have been given here of life arising from non life make it virtually I possible to happen that way.

Scientists can fit evidence into their paradigm and call it evidence for their paradigm. It's easy to do for anything and anyone. For example, even if there are a lot of genetic similarities between us and apes, one can just say "ah hah! macro Evolution is proven!" Yet, one needs to also ask the question "how many differences in our genes would disprove the theory?" Yet, you don't hear people talk about that too often.

Also, remember, Darwin borrowed the idea of survival of the fittest from a prominent sociologist and pushed it upon biology. What was originally a sociological phenomenon became forced upon biology and has stuck ever since for the sake of the advancement of "Naturalism". That is why naturalists hate intelligent design so much, because it threatens naturalistic evolution. Naturalism is the new secular religion of the lat 200 years and it is at stake when Evolution is challenged. Yet look at the correlation of being taught that we came from apes to our society digressing into relativism, materialism, individualism, and greater selfishness. God us using these ideologies as a curse. When we trade the glory of God for idols we becomes foolish like the idols.

I digress. You'll have to read ID literature to get the actual facts about how many scientists actually are suspect of Evolution and/or reject it. Also, remember, the origin of species already assumes life. Evolution deals with the origin of the species, NOT the origin of life. ID deals more consistently with the origin of life, as we know that only morality comes from morality, only life comes from life, only intelligence comes from intelligence, only purpose comes from purpose, and only the personal comes from the personal.

Cameron

solaphyde wrote:Scientists can fit evidence into their paradigm and call it evidence for their paradigm. It's easy to do for anything and anyone. For example, even if there are a lot of genetic similarities between us and apes, one can just say "ah hah! macro Evolution is proven!" Yet, one needs to also ask the question "how many differences in our genes would disprove the theory?" Yet, you don't hear people talk about that too often.

Also, remember, Darwin borrowed the idea of survival of the fittest from a prominent sociologist and pushed it upon biology. What was originally a sociological phenomenon became forced upon biology and has stuck ever since for the sake of the advancement of "Naturalism". That is why naturalists hate intelligent design so much, because it threatens naturalistic evolution. Naturalism is the new secular religion of the lat 200 years and it is at stake when Evolution is challenged. Yet look at the correlation of being taught that we came from apes to our society digressing into relativism, materialism, individualism, and greater selfishness. God us using these ideologies as a curse. When we trade the glory of God for idols we becomes foolish like the idols.

I digress. You'll have to read ID literature to get the actual facts about how many scientists actually are suspect of Evolution and/or reject it. Also, remember, the origin of species already assumes life. Evolution deals with the origin of the species, NOT the origin of life. ID deals more consistently with the origin of life, as we know that only morality comes from morality, only life comes from life, only intelligence comes from intelligence, only purpose comes from purpose, and only the personal comes from the personal.

Cameron

exactly Sola, evolution doesnt have an answer for how life begin because of the extraordinary odds of it coming about through unguided processes whether it came naturally or supernaturally. It is when they claim to know this that they are smuggling their worldview philosophy into science , which itself isnt scientific but philosophical.

And then they call ID religion masked behind science, even though ID doesnt say the identity of the designer, just that we believe that there is one behind the intricate processes within the cell.
I was a theistic evolutionist and still wouldnt have a problem being one and a Christian, its just I see ID as being more plausible.