Evidence for God from Science

1over137 wrote:

Beanybag wrote: There's a lot that is harder to explain when you really dig in to the theory of gravity, and of course, you also then have to account for relativity to get accurate results - prior to relativity, I'd even go so far to say that evolution was a better understood theory than gravity was!

I would not go so far.

I actually retract that and would agree that gravity is generally going to be more acceptable (and progress in physics is generally easier than in biology). But, I think they are both so far along the line as to be functionally the same in terms of acceptability. They are both demonstrated to such high degrees of precision and certainty that they are beyond reasonable doubt in both cases.

PaulSacramento wrote:If gravity is harder to explain and we even have a mathematical formula for it, then good look with evolution, LOL !
In the end, I stand by my view on what science is based on : Observation and repeatability ( even if only in theory).
SO what do you think science is based on?

We do have functional formulas for evolution, but it's not as precise. I have a bit more to add to science. It's based on observation, forming hypothesis and falsifiable predictions, repeatable experiments, fallibility (a hypothesis must be disprovable) and falsifiability (falsifying a hypothesis leaves the truth remaining in available hypotheses), accounting for error and variables, and having skeptical peers review and critique your theories. All of these elements are necessary, and likely some more. Not having all these things leaves room for error.

We do have functional formulas for evolution, but it's not as precise. I have a bit more to add to science. It's based on observation, forming hypothesis and falsifiable predictions, repeatable experiments, fallibility (a hypothesis must be disprovable) and falsifiability (falsifying a hypothesis leaves the truth remaining in available hypotheses), accounting for error and variables, and having skeptical peers review and critique your theories. All of these elements are necessary, and likely some more. Not having all these things leaves room for error.

So, are you saying that a scientific theory MUST satisfy ALL these criteria?

PaulSacramento wrote:

We do have functional formulas for evolution, but it's not as precise. I have a bit more to add to science. It's based on observation, forming hypothesis and falsifiable predictions, repeatable experiments, fallibility (a hypothesis must be disprovable) and falsifiability (falsifying a hypothesis leaves the truth remaining in available hypotheses), accounting for error and variables, and having skeptical peers review and critique your theories. All of these elements are necessary, and likely some more. Not having all these things leaves room for error.

So, are you saying that a scientific theory MUST satisfy ALL these criteria?

Yes, and all of them do.

Beanybag wrote:They are both demonstrated to such high degrees of precision and certainty that they are beyond reasonable doubt in both cases.

You can teach me on evolution demonstrations. Ok?

1over137 wrote:

Beanybag wrote:They are both demonstrated to such high degrees of precision and certainty that they are beyond reasonable doubt in both cases.

You can teach me on evolution demonstrations. Ok?

Well, the general principle is grounded, and that much is easy to test through population model simulations. You can just run a genetic algorithm on a population model, and watch the population evolve as you introduce fitness contraints (and you can even introduce mutations at a given or variable rate). Demonstrating evolution without simulation is also doable (and has been done), but I'd rather let a biologist speak here. Or you're free to examine the scientific literature.

Beanybag wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Beanybag wrote:They are both demonstrated to such high degrees of precision and certainty that they are beyond reasonable doubt in both cases.

You can teach me on evolution demonstrations. Ok?

Well, the general principle is grounded, and that much is easy to test through population model simulations. You can just run a genetic algorithm on a population model, and watch the population evolve as you introduce fitness contraints (and you can even introduce mutations at a given or variable rate). Demonstrating evolution without simulation is also doable (and has been done), but I'd rather let a biologist speak here. Or you're free to examine the scientific literature.

The problem with that is that the parameters inputted into the programs are man-made.
In short, you are putting a "ghost into the machine" and that Ghost is Man.
Any computer driven model is only as good as the parameters that were put in and IF those parameters are based on what can be PROVEN to happen in nature, that is fine, but if those parameters are based on the scientist putting them there and in that way then they are artificial.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Beanybag wrote:They are both demonstrated to such high degrees of precision and certainty that they are beyond reasonable doubt in both cases.

You can teach me on evolution demonstrations. Ok?

Well, the general principle is grounded, and that much is easy to test through population model simulations. You can just run a genetic algorithm on a population model, and watch the population evolve as you introduce fitness contraints (and you can even introduce mutations at a given or variable rate). Demonstrating evolution without simulation is also doable (and has been done), but I'd rather let a biologist speak here. Or you're free to examine the scientific literature.

The problem with that is that the parameters inputted into the programs are man-made.
In short, you are putting a "ghost into the machine" and that Ghost is Man.
Any computer driven model is only as good as the parameters that were put in and IF those parameters are based on what can be PROVEN to happen in nature, that is fine, but if those parameters are based on the scientist putting them there and in that way then they are artificial.

Well.. sure. It rests on the ideas the genes are the primary determinant of expressed traits, that parents pass on genes to their children, the structure of genes and DNA, the way they are passed on, and so on. These ideas are very easy to reproduce and understand though, so, I don't see a problem. Climate models, population models, gravitational models, and so on are all very accurate, generally, due to the math and laws that operate in nature. They lead to very predictable results, so modelling tends to be accurate. I think it breaks down once more chaotic elements are introduced, like minds and probability.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Beanybag wrote:They are both demonstrated to such high degrees of precision and certainty that they are beyond reasonable doubt in both cases.

You can teach me on evolution demonstrations. Ok?

Well, the general principle is grounded, and that much is easy to test through population model simulations. You can just run a genetic algorithm on a population model, and watch the population evolve as you introduce fitness contraints (and you can even introduce mutations at a given or variable rate). Demonstrating evolution without simulation is also doable (and has been done), but I'd rather let a biologist speak here. Or you're free to examine the scientific literature.

The problem with that is that the parameters inputted into the programs are man-made.
In short, you are putting a "ghost into the machine" and that Ghost is Man.
Any computer driven model is only as good as the parameters that were put in and IF those parameters are based on what can be PROVEN to happen in nature, that is fine, but if those parameters are based on the scientist putting them there and in that way then they are artificial.

Well.. sure. It rests on the ideas the genes are the primary determinant of expressed traits, that parents pass on genes to their children, the structure of genes and DNA, the way they are passed on, and so on. These ideas are very easy to reproduce and understand though, so, I don't see a problem. Climate models, population models, gravitational models, and so on are all very accurate, generally, due to the math and laws that operate in nature. They lead to very predictable results, so modelling tends to be accurate. I think it breaks down once more chaotic elements are introduced, like minds and probability.

I agree, just pointing out that there is always a possibility for "getting the results you want' based on putting in the data you need.
And one must be very careful of that.

Beanybag wrote:We do have functional formulas for evolution, but it's not as precise {as for gravity}.

Gravity and evolutionary study represent two different levels of science. Gravity is a basic force; evolutionary results are a consequence of basic laws. Evolution must obey the basic forces. A better comparison for evolution would be the solar system. The arrangement of the components of the solar system must obey the law of gravity. But the law of gravity in and of itself does not predict the layout of the solar system. The solar system is in many ways a lot simpler than biology but it is similar in being the result of basic forces rather than an inherent property of natural law.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Beanybag wrote:We do have functional formulas for evolution, but it's not as precise {as for gravity}.

Gravity and evolutionary study represent two different levels of science. Gravity is a basic force; evolutionary results are a consequence of basic laws. Evolution must obey the basic forces. A better comparison for evolution would be the solar system. The arrangement of the components of the solar system must obey the law of gravity. But the law of gravity in and of itself does not predict the layout of the solar system. The solar system is in many ways a lot simpler than biology but it is similar in being the result of basic forces rather than an inherent property of natural law.

I suppose that's a good point. It's also a good example when you consider that gravity is the result of other causes too, though, but I'd still say it's more basic.

Understanding the meaning of evolution

A typical definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:
...evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

This is the meaning that most evolutionists will put forth as the basic meaning of evolution and as such it leaves no room to argue against because it is not really scientific even though it is asserted to be a precise definition. This definition is really just a description of what has been observed and not why the effect occurs. Evolutionists and most everyone else know that alleles change from generation to generation and if the meaning of evolution was simply that then there would be nothing to discuss.

However, the description given does not define the cause and effect mechanism required by proper scientific inquiry. The scientific method requires that a hypothesis / theory specify the cause for an effect and not simply define the effect. If it was possible to make a scientific assertion on effect alone then the Theory of tides would simply state that ocean levels rise and fall twice daily.

When pushed for a more scientific answer the typical evolutionist answer encompasses two mechanisms;

Random Mutation
For quite some time the effect of naturally occuring random mutations of DNA in the same way that any code can have copying errors with no discernable pattern. This was as far as observable evidence would allow them to suppose. However, the observable evidence is now changing as hot spots of mutations are being discerned and they are trying to redefine this mechanism as simply mutation without any definable reference to its randomness or pattern. Evolutionists have no scientifically definable explanation for how changes occur they just know that the alleles do change. The defining of this part of the system as simply mutation is no better at providing a scientific explanation than saying "any change in... alleles".

Natural selection
Is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are more favoured than less beneficial traits.

This is a typical given conceptual understanding in nearly anything where competition is an environmental variable. However, This mechanism of choice making can only conceptually have a definite effect at the point where the competition would occur during life.
Evolutionist try to take this initial understanding and infer that in living systems NS has a limiting effect on what can actually be produced in order to compete. The asserted effect is not scientifically backed by empirical evidence since they can't show that a particular trait once eliminated from a living population will also eliminate it from the system that formed the organism in the first place. This conceptual mechanism of control is not defined as to how it specifically affects the origination of forms by a scientific method, it is entirely assumed to work the way they believe it does on lifes replication system.

Evolutionists have asserted these two proposed mechanisms of control (RM+NS) which they 'believe' is a scientific explaination for the physical process of evolution as the cause of all the formations of life including all their systems and functions in our environment. This explanation can be simplied in one simple sentence "Life varries and its variability is controlled by its rate of replication."

Is this explanation scientific to you?

The scientific method requires that a hypothesis / theory specify the cause for an effect and not simply define the effect.

This is ironic, coming from an ID supporter, who routinely says that ID is scientific despite saying that cause/effect is an irrelevant area of study.

KBCid wrote: The scientific method requires that a hypothesis / theory specify the cause for an effect and not simply define the effect.

Ivellious wrote: This is ironic, coming from an ID supporter, who routinely says that ID is scientific despite saying that cause/effect is an irrelevant area of study.

Only ironic if you have not heard 'and' understood the arguement.

So what you are saying, is that you hold evolution to a certain set of standards, but ID has an argument for weaseling out of those standards and still being legitimate?

Ivellious wrote:So what you are saying, is that you hold evolution to a certain set of standards, but ID has an argument for weaseling out of those standards and still being legitimate?

It appears that you are saying that.

Ever noticed how a question about proper use of scientific method in the evolutionary hypothesis is immediately applied to anything other that evolution? And of course no answer to the original post.