Evidence for God from Science

I pose that science is not at odds with Christianity.

Let's first agree. Yes.

Every new discovery will be covered because there are no limitations to the designer. This explanation can and will predict any and all outcomes. And this explanation does nothing to foster any new discoveries or practical purposes other than reconcile Christianity with science.

I don't see how your statement here is true by a longshot. Biological evolution is not the beginning and end of all sciences now, nor does the acceptance of an intelligent agent preclude practical applications of science. How would science be practically any different? The fact that we accept intelligent cause does not mean we have a full understanding of the behavior of the physical world, because we remain finite humans. No conflict there.

Or how do you see it differently?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You really don't know what you're talkling about. Astronomy is operational science, evolution and ID are origin science. Also, ID isn't made out of ignorance, it's made out of what we currently know (such as the fact that mutation rates don't allow for rapid evolution...and their is no reason to say it happenned either.

Evolution is not necessarily origins science. It only theorizes on the origins of life. It is the explanation of the causes of evolution. Before a few decades ago we did not even know of mutation rates. Who is to say there is no biological or genetic response to rapid propagation/absent competition. High mutation rates are not the only cause of radical speciation.

I never called ID ignorant.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You really don't know what you're talkling about. Astronomy is operational science, evolution and ID are origin science. Also, ID isn't made out of ignorance, it's made out of what we currently know (such as the fact that mutation rates don't allow for rapid evolution...and their is no reason to say it happenned either.

Evolution is not necessarily origins science. It only theorizes on the origins of life. It is the explanation of the causes of evolution. Before a few decades ago we did not even know of mutation rates. Who is to say there is no biological or genetic response to rapid propagation/absent competition. High mutation rates are not the only cause of radical speciation.

I never called ID ignorant.

SHOOT ME...*BANG*

August wrote:
Or how do you see it differently?

I do because ID is trying to conform existing beliefs with those discovered through scientific processes.

The discoveries made through these processes are an outcome of unbiased observation.

I do because ID is trying to conform existing beliefs with those discovered through scientific processes.

The discoveries made through these processes are an outcome of unbiased observation.

Sorry, observation was not unbiased, it was biased towards the ToE for the last 100 or so years. And you have still not shown how this bias can influence practical science, like medicine etc?

August wrote:

I do because ID is trying to conform existing beliefs with those discovered through scientific processes.

The discoveries made through these processes are an outcome of unbiased observation.

Sorry, observation was not unbiased, it was biased towards the ToE for the last 100 or so years. And you have still not shown how this bias can influence practical science, like medicine etc?

I am sorry, I don't remember you asking me that.
And what is ToE?

I am not sure how medicine can be biased with our current understanding, however at one point people beleived that purification came from with in. Pastuer beleived that microorganisms present in the air contaminated products such as milk and this was the cause of illnesses.
He was of course right.

We need this process of building upon knowledge to further our understanding of creation.

And what is ToE?

The Theory of Evolution, sorry.

We need this process of building upon knowledge to further our understanding of creation.

Agreed.

Such things as rapid evolution and irreducible complexity are merely limitations to current understanding.
It may point to a god but science cannot say for sure that it is God who is the cause.

Science cannot be conducted with promises of unknown mechanisms being unveiled in the future-you come to conclusions on what you know. That's why the idea of how light acts has changed from "it acts like a particle" to "it acts like a wave"-conclusions were based on the current evidence and knowledge. So, if you want to shut down Intelligent Design with this excuse...you'd shut down the entire field of science.

BGood-you're saying we're supposed to know everything before coming to conclusions-but how are we supposed to know everything first? LOL You are like a man who falls into a hole, and finding he can't get out, goes and gets a ladder.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I do because ID is trying to conform existing beliefs with those discovered through scientific processes.

The discoveries made through these processes are an outcome of unbiased observation.

BGood, be good (just kidding).

Are you saying that science has already contradicted ID? At least that's what I read from your comments. And if so, where, when and how did that exactly happen?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:You cannot Debunk Intelligent Design, if you think you can you do not understand science.

On the flip side, the reason Intelligent design cannot be discussed in a scientific journal is because of the same reason. You cannot disprove it so therefore it is not in the realm of scientific thinking. What you beleive is what you beleive no-one can dispute a beleif scientifically without concrete evidence.

The same is true of evolution, yet it is published, and accepted as "gospel". Just becuase it can't be disproved doesn't mean that it can't be argued and theorized using science. Can gravity be disproved? Creation explains things and it has equal validity as a theory of origins. Some say that all the evidence points to evolution, and that is not shocking considering the majority of scientists presuppose evolution, and that is why the current theory of evolution has no weight when it comes to debunking anything. Faulty methods.

Science or the logic process is designed to confirm existing beliefs is it not. Should one just accept anything that comes along without testing it? If I believe that creation is true, is there something wrong with examining it, and looking at evidence, and testing it by reason and logic to see if it has validity? In fact the very accepted method of science requires a presupposition, and it is called a hypothesis.

One may say that both views presuppose and both views are trying to confirm beliefs. One for the prescense of God and one to prove he doesn't exist. OF course their is the whole feel good can't we all be right creation/evolution mix.

God having set the natural processes in order doesn't make them less scientific. Science works the same on a evolved world as it does on the one God created.

JBuza wrote:OF course their is the whole feel good can't we all be right creation/evolution mix.

You say it as if it were a compromise, yet it is the simplest, most plausible answer we have. When employing scientific rules, it is said that one should always look for the simplest and most obvious answers as in most cases they tend to be correct. Well there it is.

God having set the natural processes in order doesn't make them less scientific. Science works the same on a evolved world as it does on the one God created.

Exactly. But somehow that contradicts your earlier statement as a secondary, feel-good choice.

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I do because ID is trying to conform existing beliefs with those discovered through scientific processes.

The discoveries made through these processes are an outcome of unbiased observation.

BGood, be good (just kidding).

Are you saying that science has already contradicted ID? At least that's what I read from your comments. And if so, where, when and how did that exactly happen?

No, ID contradicts science. And not in the way you are implying, it is not that intelligent design is wrong. Intelligent design assumes a designer first and then looks for evidence to support this assumption.

Its a hypothesis not based on observations but based on beliefs.

Jbuza wrote: The same is true of evolution, yet it is published, and accepted as "gospel". Just becuase it can't be disproved doesn't mean that it can't be argued and theorized using science. Can gravity be disproved? Creation explains things and it has equal validity as a theory of origins. Some say that all the evidence points to evolution, and that is not shocking considering the majority of scientists presuppose evolution, and that is why the current theory of evolution has no weight when it comes to debunking anything. Faulty methods.

Science or the logic process is designed to confirm existing beliefs is it not. Should one just accept anything that comes along without testing it? If I believe that creation is true, is there something wrong with examining it, and looking at evidence, and testing it by reason and logic to see if it has validity? In fact the very accepted method of science requires a presupposition, and it is called a hypothesis.

The theory of evolution has strong explanative power to reconcile many observations made. It continues to help biochemists and geneticists make sence of new discoveries and applications. (The theory thus has been exhaustively tested.) It may be a scientific theory but you are using the word theory in the colloquial manor.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I do because ID is trying to conform existing beliefs with those discovered through scientific processes.

The discoveries made through these processes are an outcome of unbiased observation.

BGood, be good (just kidding).

Are you saying that science has already contradicted ID? At least that's what I read from your comments. And if so, where, when and how did that exactly happen?

No, ID contradicts science. And not in the way you are implying, it is not that intelligent design is wrong. Intelligent design assumes a designer first and then looks for evidence to support this assumption.

Its a hypothesis not based on observations but based on beliefs.

And how has the evolutionary science proven the origin of the universe? I don't mean how it evolved but rather how it came to be. I think the answer is self-evident as evolution does not in any way offer a testable observation but a mere theory. And what makes that theory any better than ID?