Evidence for God from Science

frankbaginski wrote:zoegirl,

I see evidence for God everytime I open my eyes, or hear a sound, or touch anything. To me the creation is God's work and everytime I experience it in any fashion is a blessing. I stopped drowning in science some time ago. I still study alot but just don't take it as serious as I used to. I would still call myself a nerd because I study somethings and all of the tangents that go with it.

The molecule is a nice thing to view. Since I take all things as a fingerprint of God then this molecule is special. So is Saturn in my eyes, it is so wonderful to watch in the telescope.

Oh, I would agree that I see God everytime I open my eyes, just not because this particular molecule is in the shape of a cross. I mean, don't get me wrong, it is neat, but moreso I think in its shape and form and how this form dictates its function.

ARWallace,

I am not playing stump the evo. What I am doing is to show that at some level a belief in Darwinian evolution is just that a belief. To prove Darwin right requires a time machine and a science lab. Even if you could line up two species DNA and associated proteins and show a step by step, neucleotide by neucleotide, benefit by benefit of one species to another it would still not change my beliefs one bit. My beliefs have nothing to do with any process on earth. I would recommend that everyone should not be tied to any descriptive process on earth. I know there are many processes that could do this or might do that. And as time goes on I am sure more will be found. To me they are a curiosity and may lead to some benefit for man.

I welcome all views and models of processes on earth. I also like to learn about different models of the past. I enjoy geology and physics. I can tell you that the models I like are not widely accepted by people. That is OK by me because like I said I a not tied to any of them.

I have been involved in the science creation debate for some years and know that it all boils down to world views. The data means nothing. IN my view I know there is a God and He does interact with people on a daily basis. IN my view I think that all theories of creation should be taught in school. I also think that all major religions should be taught as well. I say let the chips fall where they may. I would like our children exposed to what they will find in the world. ID is just one in the mix. Now ask yourself if this is acceptable to you? If you say no then why not?

Kurieuo wrote: Sure. I have seen such people be quite open regarding their religious beliefs when talk enters of who the designer is. I have also seen that they often declare that such beliefs are outside the realms of science and ought not be taught as science. Thus, I was correct when as I quite carefully said that core ID proponents "do not take this leap to suggest who the designer is with their science." On the other hand, they are quite free to consider who the designer is outside the realm of science and in the realm of philosophy or theology. Surely you are not suggesting that science can only be practiced by those who do not believe in God or a creator of some sort?

On another note, I have witnessed groups in some of these ID debates (outside of Christianity) advocate aliens or alien seeding as the source of creation. It may go against my belief system, but then again, ID is not really specifying who the creator is, only that is was created by some intelligent system or lifeforce.. If we are willing to spend large amounts of money on projects such as SETI, then why are we phasing out the possibility of aliens seeding on our planet?

zoegirl wrote:Oh, I would agree that I see God everytime I open my eyes, just not because this particular molecule is in the shape of a cross. I mean, don't get me wrong, it is neat, but moreso I think in its shape and form and how this form dictates its function.

You mean neato Zoe?

It's cool, man...far-out, ands yes, neato

For Frank:

What I am doing is to show that at some level a belief in Darwinian evolution is just that a belief.

Well, I disagree - at least in the sense that belief in evolution is different than belief in germ theory, or plate tectonic theory. ToE is simply a statement of fact about how nature works supported by a large body of evidence. You are free to accept it or reject it - but believing it in the sense of believing in god(s) in an entirely different kettle of fish.

To prove Darwin right requires a time machine and a science lab.

Well, I agree with the science lab part. The time machine - not so much. In that sense, the experiments have been done for us leaving us evidences to inperpret. The concept is essentially the same as solving a murder that took place some time in the past with no eyewitnesses. The evidence at the crime scene will leave clues as to the identity of the victim and their assailant as well as the events that transpired. Historical science offers a different albeit equally satisfactory approach to answering questions in science.

Even if you could line up two species DNA and associated proteins and show a step by step, neucleotide by neucleotide, benefit by benefit of one species to another it would still not change my beliefs one bit.

Fair enough. It's not my job nor intent to do so.

I have been involved in the science creation debate for some years and know that it all boils down to world views. The data means nothing.

Well, on this point I disagree. If data were meaningless, there would be little - well actually no point in trying to understand the Earth's history or the patterns that may exist among organisms inhabiting it.

IN my view I think that all theories of creation should be taught in school.

Really? All theories? All of these should be taught alongside your particular view of creation? The list would have to be pretty exhaustive in order to avoid violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Now ask yourself if this is acceptable to you? If you say no then why not?

Well, I am in partial agreement. I am in favor of schools offering a course in comparative religions - as an elective. I am not in favoring of teaching religion in a science class, and I am definitely not in favor of advancing one set of religious views over any other. Doing so breaks the law, and the offending individuals should suffer the legal consequences. Fair enough?

For Kurieuo

Then perhaps science is limited then when it comes to the questions in life that really matter to us?

My point exactly. I not implying that science can not inform religion or vice versa - but I do believe that both pursuits have their limits.

Yet, I would still point out that you argue for too much.

I been accused of such in the past.

One can still consider something designed without answering the question of who did the designing.

Well, I think in some limited sense this is true. But here's the catch - I think the identity of the designer is the question. It is my belief that if ID survives as a method of inquiry that it will ultimately need to answer the big questions it proposes. Merely identifying IC structures is a fairly mundane and ultimately uninteresting task; you have an algorithm and you apply it to a bunch of systems and structures in nature and see which ones fit the bill. But at some point you have face the music - assume, for example, ID researchers identify thousands of IC in nature. This absolutely begs questions like "who is the designer?" "for what purposes did they intervene?" "are they still intervening?" "how did they do it" "why did they do it?" And while I think you'll agree that ID architects have been a little reluctant to be open about their personal beliefs on the matter, they do have their own opinions. And consider what would happen if it we found out that it really was space aliens? Or Buddha? Would this test the faith of those who don't worship Buddha? This is hyperbole - a bit - my point is that I don't think ID can escape the big questions it ultimately (and perhaps unintentionally) asks.

Surely you are not suggesting that science can only be practiced by those who do not believe in God or a creator of some sort?

Absolutely not. And if I have given you or anyone this impression I would like to state unequivocally that this is not what I believe.

On the other hand, many Creationist ID advocates want "who the designer is," specifically the God of the Bible and even in particular the creation position which says God created everything in six 24-hour days, taught in science classrooms. Science is just the wrong area for such issues to be taught and discussed.

On this we are in total agreement.

What about numbers two and three?

For Jad:

Check out this audio link below Al if you get the chance. It is in regards to allopatric speciation. You need RealPlayer installed on your PC to hear it and it will take a while to load up but in any case it's worth a listen. If you can't hear it I'll see if I can get a mp3 version of it.

OK - I listened to it - or most of it. Enough to get the gist. Is there a specific question you have?

ARWallace,

You stated that Darwinian evolution is beyond a belief. Does that mean that Darwinian evolution has moved from a theory into a law?

You use the argument about a crime scene to prove your point about using evidence to show a particular person killed the victim. That person is outside the evidence but the evidence leads to the conclusion that they were there and they did something. However with:

ARWallace wrote:Well, I think in some limited sense this is true. But here's the catch - I think the identity of the designer is the question. It is my belief that if ID survives as a method of inquiry that it will ultimately need to answer the big questions it proposes. Merely identifying IC structures is a fairly mundane and ultimately uninteresting task; you have an algorithm and you apply it to a bunch of systems and structures in nature and see which ones fit the bill. But at some point you have face the music - assume, for example, ID researchers identify thousands of IC in nature. This absolutely begs questions like "who is the designer?" "for what purposes did they intervene?" "are they still intervening?" "how did they do it" "why did they do it?" And while I think you'll agree that ID architects have been a little reluctant to be open about their personal beliefs on the matter, they do have their own opinions. And consider what would happen if it we found out that it really was space aliens? Or Buddha? Would this test the faith of those who don't worship Buddha? This is hyperbole - a bit - my point is that I don't think ID can escape the big questions it ultimately (and perhaps unintentionally) asks.

You use the opposite side of the argument to lock out a designer. To me that means that the argument is not to be considered on face value. There is some underlying agenda which allows you to use the argument as a tool with no attachment to the logic. Am I wrong?

The establisment clause has nothing to do with any of this. It only states that a religion cannot be sanctioned by the Federal government. Teaching the religions of the world and teaching different world views is not a violation. I don't care what lawyers say. So do you want a show of hands of the scientist of the world and a majority vote places the content in schools. What of Germany in the 1930's. One has to wonder what the scientist of that day would have voted into the schools. No subgroup should be allowed to dictate content on theories. This is a slippery slope that will lead to big problems. That kind of power leads to activist flowing into the subgroup. There is already evidence that science is flooded with people with agendas.

When I said that the data means nothing when talking about worldviews I was refering to the interpretation of the data. That is key to this debate and is the heart of the matter. Where you see one thing through your filter of your worldview I see something completely different with my worldview. Where you see the mechanics of evolution I see the mechanics to maintain a species. Where you see a tree of life with life evolving from one species to another I see created life with common parts. We both are looking at the same data. Therefore the data means nothing.

Frank:

You stated that Darwinian evolution is beyond a belief. Does that mean that Darwinian evolution has moved from a theory into a law?

Careful, now. That's not what I said. I said that the ToE was a series of statements with heuristic appeal and empirical support that describes the operation of our natural universe. Now, you are free to examine these statements and the evidences that support them and choose to accept or reject them. But this doesn't mean these facts, ideas and evidences don't exist. So you "believe" in the ToE in the same way you "believe" plate tectonic theory. Now, belief in the supernatural is a totally different ball game. There is no test you could conduct, no data you could collect and no empirical evidence that exists that could confirm the existence of god. So you "believe" in god based not on empirical proof, but on faith - faith that something exists without proof that it does. So belief in a scientific theory is inherently different than belief in god.

You use the opposite side of the argument to lock out a designer. To me that means that the argument is not to be considered on face value.

Well, in the quote you provided, I am not locking out a designer. I was pointing out that ID can not escape the questions it raises - that if you propose that some feature(s) of organic life were created by a designer, that questions as to the identity and even motives of the designer logically follow. I don't know whether a designer exists or not - to date I have seen no compelling examples that (to me) suggest intervention and not naturalistic processes. But that does not mean examples don't exist. And if they do, I am going to want to know who that designer is/was.

There is some underlying agenda which allows you to use the argument as a tool with no attachment to the logic. Am I wrong?

Well, we all have agendas. But I am not sure in this case I have been trapped by my own logic (or lack thereof!).

The establisment clause has nothing to do with any of this. It only states that a religion cannot be sanctioned by the Federal government.

Well, the Establishment Clause is exceedingly germane to your suggestion that all creation theories be taught in school. It is precisely the reason that creationism is not taught in public schools in the US. By teaching YEC, it has been ruled that this advanced one religious viewpoint at the exclusion of all others. So I am not sure how you can state that it isn't relevant when the Supreme Court ruled that it was...

Teaching the religions of the world and teaching different world views is not a violation.

I agree with you 100%. However, teaching an elective class in comparative religions is very different than a required section of a science class devoted to only one religiously-based creation theory...unless the comparative religions class is not an elective and they only teach one religion...

So do you want a show of hands of the scientist of the world and a majority vote places the content in schools. What of Germany in the 1930's. One has to wonder what the scientist of that day would have voted into the schools. No subgroup should be allowed to dictate content on theories. This is a slippery slope that will lead to big problems.

I agree. This is why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights through which these matters can be interpreted. And the very reason the Supreme Court ruled the teaching of YEC was unconstitutional was because a subgroup was trying to dictate school content. So I return to my original question - do you think all creation theories should be taught in public schools (with equal billing) and the students left to decide which they accept? This is the only way that one subgroup's ideas don't subjugate all others.

Where you see one thing through your filter of your worldview I see something completely different with my worldview. Where you see the mechanics of evolution I see the mechanics to maintain a species. Where you see a tree of life with life evolving from one species to another I see created life with common parts. We both are looking at the same data. Therefore the data means nothing.

Well, I suppose this is true. I'm not sure this is a bone I want to pick.

for zoegirl:

Checked out your reference. Sounds like a thoughtful series of compromises, and certainly is a respectful set of beliefs and tolerant of other views. Not sure I agree with all of their central tenets, but it made for an interesting read. But I must confess that the hairs on my neck stand up a little when I get the sense that some quote mining has occurred (i.e. I am a little uncertain about the authenticity of some of the quotes used to support their position). But an otherwise interesting perspective that I was unaware existed - or more specifically, suspected existed in some form or another, but didn't know it had a specific label!

WEll, I wou;dn't personally refer to them as a compromise..

I feel that I am not compromising my spiritual faith....Old Earth Creationists and progressive creationist examine the Hebrew and understand the different meanings of the word. So we understand Genesis from a literal perspective.

And as for the science, well, we have probably , but certainly I don't view myself as compromising science.

And as for the science, well, we have probably...

You really like that dead horse flogging metaphor, don't you?

I must confess "whacking an ailing monkey" doesn't quite do it.

hey, you brought it up first!

IT's FRIDAY and I am DONE for the DAY!!

ARWallace ,

I will give you the point about Darwinism being a law. I want to make it perfectly clear that we are talking about an interpretation of data. I place Darwin's idea as a hypothesis and not a theory because it cannot be demonstrated. In fact he predicted things that have not happened. The fossil record being the biggest stumbling block. You may feel otherwise and I have no problem with that.

As for locking out a designer, it seems that it is you who won't allow a designer in until a name is attached to them. The motives of the ID group should not be considered. If so we should look at the motives of Darwin:

Quote from Darwin

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, The savage races throughout the world.... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than The Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla."

Also (quote from Darwin)

"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."

Concerning the sexes (quote from Darwin)

"The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands....Thus
man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental development to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen."

So if ones personal feelings are to be tied to a theory then the Darwinian theory of evolution is sexist and racist. I know that the theory is independant of his terrible attitude toward women and some races. So if I can separate the theory from the man I have to wonder why you are so hung up with the motives of the designer or His name.

The supreme court has made law here with their interpretation of the establishment clause. This is not the original intent. That is the point I was making. I hope one day that it is overturned. We are making progress that direction every day. The American public ultimately has the say so on what is taught in school. The Warren court is gone and I hope to see a return to normalcy soon.

The volume of information available to teach in the classroom is staggering. There are way more practical things to teach than evolution. Just why is it that something that does not effect us today, because we can't see it happening is so important. That is because it is agenda driven. I think that evolution should be an elective in college. Teach our kids about electricity instead.