Evidence for God from Science

adocus wrote:The title of this thread is "Evolution and Intelligent Design", GMan. I don't see anything there about "The Origin of Life" - so I'm not sure what you are even trying to say. And as much as some people would like to think that science and religion are two completely separate things, they are not. There is an entire branch of philosophy, the philosophy of science, which does two things, really - it describes, in pragmatic terms, how science is done, and it attempts to investigate how we know what we think we know about the material universe. Both things are worth thinking about for any scientist worthy of the title.

You apparently aren't reading Pierson5's posts... This is what he stated about "origin of life" and science.

Pierson5 wrote: "I agree, evolution doesn't address the origin of life. It does, however, conflict with certain creation stories which influence individual's reasons for denying it.

I would disagree that science isn't into asking ultimate questions. Why are we here, where did we come from, etc... The very site we are having these discussions is "using science" to justify the existence of a deity. Life origins research is going on all the time and is a fascinating field. Nothing wrong with mixing philosophy and science, so long as the philosophy doesn't get in the way of the evidence."

I think, if you'd like to pursue such an argument, DayAge, you'd need first to cite your evidence that what you claim is the case, and then tell us why vertebrates "should" have evolved later.

What you cite from Pierson5's post does not contradcit what I said, GMan. You seem a tad confused.

adocus wrote:What you cite from Pierson5's post does not contradcit what I said, GMan. You seem a tad confused.

Ok.. Then how does your god create life? Show us how...

Now that was a particularly childish reply, GMan.

First of all, although I believe that there is a higher power in the Universe, it certainly isn't "my" God - it isn't particular to me, nor do I apprehend anything about that power that no one else apprehends. I am an evolutionary biologist, and as such, the question of the origin of life does not interest me - that is a field for the chemists and molecular biologists to worry about. My concern is with life once it arose on Earth - its history, the changes , the diversification....

I am more than content to accept the viewpoint of that famous 19th century theologian:

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. (OOS, 6th Edition, 1872) .

It is the evolution, not the origin, which fascinates me.

adocus wrote:Now that was a particularly childish reply, GMan.

Like yours? When are we going to talk about science? I thought you had an answer for us...

adocus wrote:First of all, although I believe that there is a higher power in the Universe, it certainly isn't "my" God - it isn't particular to me, nor do I apprehend anything about that power that no one else apprehends.

Sure you do... Your god creates doesn't it? When it comes to the particulars of evolutionary theory, faith is required in each case, and Darwinian evolution has other religious aspects as well. Evolutionary theory has its own creator "gods" (time, chance, matter, natural selection), its own faith in the miraculous, its own creeds, altars, and heresies. Even Darwin himself referred to "my deity, Natural Selection."

So everything is chemicals? Please explain how chemicals created you. In detail please..

adocus wrote:I am an evolutionary biologist, and as such, the question of the origin of life does not interest me - that is a field for the chemists and molecular biologists to worry about. My concern is with life once it arose on Earth - its history, the changes , the diversification....

I am more than content to accept the viewpoint of that famous 19th century theologian:

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. (OOS, 6th Edition, 1872) .

It is the evolution, not the origin, which fascinates me.

Don't look at me, you are the one claiming that science can be explained through pragmatic terms.. So explain how your god created life then.

adocus,

I assume you do not mean that you did not know vertebrates are in the earliest layers of the Cambrian.

I'm simply going to link to two articles on the subject, because I do not have the time right now, but you should know that vertebrates (from an evolutionary view) have to evolve from "simpler" chordates. Instead they all show up at "the same time."

http://www.reasons.org/articles/chordat ... oil-theory
http://www.reasons.org/articles/pikaia- ... y-paradigm

Ad,

Would you do us a favor.
Would you please give us a specific definition of the term, 'evolution,' and then would you pledge that when you use that term on this forum you will always use it consistent with that definition?

jlay asks that I define "evolution" for him/her.

Gladly

Evolution is change in gene frequencies in populations of animals and plants through time. It implies two mechanisms: Natural selection and descent with modification.

I have always, and will always, use the word in that sense.

I will also not engage in any debate about whether that is evolution or not. That is my definition; you are free to take it or leave it. But if you wish to discus the topic of evolutionary biology, you have no choice but to accept it; otherwise you simply aren't talking about evolutionary biology.

Adocus

GMan, when you can come to the discussion table without pitching childish tantrums and insisting on the use of terms which you have been told are inaccurate, I will address your posts. Until then, there is nothing worth saying in response to you.

You wish to talk about evolution, and have that be an evidence-based didactic, fine. I'll be here when that time arrives.

Adocus

I will also not engage in any debate about whether that is evolution or not.

The word evolution is used in various ways, so I want to make sure, for consistency, that when I read the word evolution I know exactly what you mean.

For example, here is a popular definition.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
FWIW, I have a huge issue with this definition. Perhaps you do as well, since you define it different.

For example, we could both agree that natural selection is happening. And so, we might both say, "evolution (change) is happening." But this only explains how losing info produces something different. For example why we see green beetles disappear from a population. It doesn't however explain at all, how the genetic info for green beetles came to be in the first place. So, we might disagree with what is capable of happening over time due to NS and DWM. And so, we might also disagree that evolution versus Evolution is happening.

It is often said this way. "Of course Evolution (Darwinism, that gets us from single cells to complex functioning systems) is happening, we see it (NS & DWM) all the time. This is called the fallacy of equivocation. It conflates one use of the word to another. In this example the word 'Evolution', which is describing everything encompassed and claimed by the Theory of Evolution, is conflated with the pronoun "it." The pronoun should refer back to the proper usage of Evolution. But the reality is that IT doesn't. It refers to a much more narrow usage of the term evolution. Of course, as you've said you would never do this. And that is good to know.

When we use the term 'descent with modification,' (DWM) 'Descent,' refers to going from higher to lower, and more to less. Darwin I believed coined the term, and it refers to a trait becoming more common. Here is a link to Berkley, and I find it an adequate definition. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... cent.shtml One trait increases at the expense of another. Info is lost. Yet, it seems to me that Darwinists are implying that a descent, given enough time, will somehow actually result in an increase. You are welcome to expand on how you see this.

Evolution is change in gene frequencies in populations of animals and plants through time. It implies two mechanisms: Natural selection and descent with modification.

So, do you feel that this summerizes the Theory of Evolution. And that this definition is able to explain how we get from single cells to functioning eyes, cardio-vascular systems, etc.?
The reason I ask is I doubt anyone here would argue with NS, and DWM. Those are things that act on existing information. So, I'm curiuos how this definition accounts for increases, and new info. How did we get from goo to you?

But if you wish to discus the topic of evolutionary biology, you have no choice but to accept it; otherwise you simply aren't talking about evolutionary biology.

I just can't help but ask, based on your definition, who is accepting what.

Pierson5 wrote:There are a couple people here who deny evolution and believe it's some kind of fairy tale. What it can and can't do is an excellent question. Much of modern medicine is based upon the theory of evolution.

I don't see what evolution has to do with medicine. It can only hinder it, IMO, by declaring functional organs "vestigial" (evolution-of-the-gaps), for instance. If a patient has pneumonia, the doctor won't tell him to spend time underwater so that his descendants can be born with gills instead of lungs. Germ mutations, like antibiotic resistance, aren't evolution.

Pierson5 wrote:Nothing wrong with mixing philosophy and science, so long as the philosophy doesn't get in the way of the evidence.

In other words, if philosophy doesn't get in the way of the "accepted" way of thinking.

adocus wrote:I read through this thread, expecting to need to weigh in to correct the standard Creationist fallacies and miscomprehensions.

Please, tell me more about how we creationists are ignorant and mentally challenged.

adocus wrote:The title of this thread is "Evolution and Intelligent Design", GMan. I don't see anything there about "The Origin of Life"

The common ancestor of all life forms had to come from somewhere, right? I would be surprised if evolutionary scientists weren't interested in how it all started. Evolutionists often ignore the whole issue however, I guess it's because the evidence doesn't really support the possibility of abiogenesis.

adocus wrote:Evolution is change in gene frequencies in populations of animals and plants through time. It implies two mechanisms: Natural selection and descent with modification.

I have always, and will always, use the word in that sense.

I will also not engage in any debate about whether that is evolution or not. That is my definition; you are free to take it or leave it. But if you wish to discus the topic of evolutionary biology, you have no choice but to accept it; otherwise you simply aren't talking about evolutionary biology.

Thanks for letting me know. I wanted to question if any type of change, including genetic diseases, could be classified as "evolution", but since you won't debate about it, fine. I'm sorry for wasting the time of your superior intellect, adocus. I'll try to refrain from doing so in the future.

adocus wrote:GMan, when you can come to the discussion table without pitching childish tantrums and insisting on the use of terms which you have been told are inaccurate, I will address your posts. Until then, there is nothing worth saying in response to you.

You wish to talk about evolution, and have that be an evidence-based didactic, fine. I'll be here when that time arrives.

Adocus

I've obviously hit a nerve with you.. I'm sorry you are unable to answer my questions. But that is ok,. because I already knew you couldn't answer them.. You see, we are really not talking about science or evidence here anyways. In fact, you have already admitted that philosophy and your science go together. So, why don't you move your talk to the philosophy section?

Enjoy... By the way ad hominem attacks are not welcome here. You call me childish? Then answer my questions...

GMan,

You will find that I am not the usual sort of evolution supporter that you are perhaps used to here. I'm much better schooled, both in evolutionary biology, and in Biblical and theological studies, than most.

To take your last point first, if you are going to try to impress us with your knowledge of Latin tems for logical fallacies, then at least you ought to know what those fallacies are. Simply calling your behaviour childish is not an ad hominem argument. There is no such think in logic as an ad hominem attack - there is only an ad hominem argument. If you don't know the difference, and it is obvious that you do not, then spend some time looking it up so you'll be better prepared in the future, and not look so foolish here.

You continue to try to ask a question which by its very nature has no meaning - every time you refer to "my" god, you reveal your wilfull ignorance. I've explained that I have no God - and why. You don't like that answer, so you pretend I haven't answered. You keep asking about the origin of life, and I've told you two times so far that I don't give a rat's ass about the origin of life - I am concerned with the evolution of life once it arose on Earth - as are all evolutionary biologists. That you can't seem to understand that fairly obvious point would seem to say that you are blind to anything other than pushing your particular agenda. You claim to want to talk about evolution. Then do so. Until then, you have no right to expect respect from me.

Once again, and in bullet-point form so you won't miss it, here are my two answers:

• I have no God, so I can't explain how "my God" created life; and
  The origin of life is not the subject with which evolution deals. By definition, evolution is about the change in populations over time.

Adocus

adocus wrote: You will find that I am not the usual sort of evolution supporter that you are perhaps used to here.

adocus wrote:Pierson5: ...
I'm a vertebrate paleontologist, and I'll stand by: if you need me, just holler!

Yes, most of the evolution supporters here tend to be more knowledgable, more polite, and better able to construct logical arguments. I'm glad you read Pierson5's comments; I think you can learn a lot from him.