Evidence for God from Science

Many can and have observe gravity doing its thing everywhere I go...its working right now
Many can and have observe intelligence producing intelligence, intelligent systems etc...its working right now
Many cannot and have never observed biological systems coming about via NSandRM or from primordial oozepools, by Gerrald's terms we should conclude this is a law, I think that this law is not evident as the previous because it simply doesn't happen that way

There is a very important difference, usually misunderstood, between methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism) and philosophical naturalism (philosophical materialism). Science is committed to methodological naturalism, in that it must needs seek explanations only in the natural (ie, material) realm, because its observations must be tested - and that can only be done by examining additional evidence. Science does not claim that God does not exist; science can't speak to the existence of God, either for or against. There may indeed be a supernatural realm, but science can not appeal to that realm for its explanations.

Rich

Re: Gravity and evolution.

Gravity is a fact - things of lesser mass are pulled toward things of greater mass (to simplify greatly). That is, it is a fact that a pencil, when released, falls to the floor. Gravity is also a theory - a scientific theory which proposes to explain the mechanism by which the observed fact of gravity works.

Evolution is a fact. We observe it taking place among living populations today, and can document it having taken place in the past by examining the fossil record. Evolution is also a theory - a scientific theory which proposes to explain the mechanism by which change in living things takes place over time. Evolution and Gravity are exactly equivalent, in terms of the scientific method.

Rich

RichW9090 wrote:There is a very important difference, usually misunderstood, between methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism) and philosophical naturalism (philosophical materialism). Science is committed to methodological naturalism, in that it must needs seek explanations only in the natural (ie, material) realm, because its observations must be tested - and that can only be done by examining additional evidence. Science does not claim that God does not exist; science can't speak to the existence of God, either for or against.

Rich

Unfortunately, the claim that "Science does not claim that God does not exist" is incorrect.... You are saying that it seeks explanations only in the natural realm. Well, according "naturalism" as it is understood by Darwinian evolutionists, the supernatural cannot exist because it is not natural therefore it cannot nor will ever be tested. Methodological naturalism is just another crafty way to say that God doesn't exist because it "only" seeks explanations in the natural realm, and that natural realm CANNOT include God because He is not natural according to how scientists view naturalism... God is unscientific, we can't detect His design, He certainly is not natural, therefore God can't exist...

RichW9090 wrote:There may indeed be a supernatural realm,

Not according to metaphysical or methodological naturalism.. It's a man made rule... To rule out God.

RichW9090 wrote:but science can not appeal to that realm for its explanations.

And metaphysical naturalism still does not have the complete factual explanations to our origins either. I think that explains everything for me...

RichW9090 wrote:.Evolution is a fact. We observe it taking place among living populations today, and can document it having taken place in the past by examining the fossil record.

Forms of microevolution (adaptations to the environment) maybe factual, but definitely not macroevolution (changing from one species to another). It's assumed....

RichW9090 wrote:Evolution is also a theory - a scientific theory which proposes to explain the mechanism by which change in living things takes place over time. Evolution and Gravity are exactly equivalent, in terms of the scientific method.

Rich

Ok, I might be inclined to go for this except for the factual stuff on evolution... It's a fine line.

Theories are verified hypothesis, verified in the sense of being equal to a law, this is why there is a law of gravity and a theory, because its beyond verified. Evolution is in no way a law, laws are universal, if there was a law of evolution by chance and necessity that law would not allow intelligence into the picture just like you cannot stack up a buiding a certain height without it collapsing, laws of physics do not permit.

"What we have again, is claims of how Darwinian Evolution is so powerless to create anything by yours truly, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens."

I have read several of Dawkins' books, and have never seen him make that claim. I have seen him make contrary claims, however, such as his description of the evolution of the eye in "The Blind Watchmaker." I would be happy to quote the relevant passage from my copy if anyone is interested.

Many people believe the animal kingdom evolved, but mankind did not. Some people believe "microevolution" has occurred, but not "macroevolution." This idea is akin to believing that someone can take a short walk (microevolution), but that it is impossible to walk any considerable distance, such as when Ghandi walked a hundred miles to the sea to make salt. If someone wishes to make the claim that evolution has been guided by God, I cannot find evidence to either support or contradict that statement. It is the kind of thing a person must accept on faith.

However, if a person wishes to deny their is any evolutionary kinship between our species and chimpanzees, they are sorely mistaken. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Chimpanzees have 24 pairs. We can identify the pair of chromosomes in chimpanzees that fused to form the corresponding chromosome in humans. We can even see remnants of telomere sequences buried in the genes where that fusion occurred.

That is pretty compelling evidence for common ancestry in and of itself. Why would a Creator, with all the tools of the universe at His disposal, create within humans compelling evidence of common genetic ancestry? Our genes could easily look nothing like those of monkeys, if we were fashioned from the clay of a river bank independent of the origin of any terrestrial mammal. If I created man, I would not have created anything remotely LIKE monkeys, or fossils of hominids, which could so easily be mistaken for evolutionary ancestors. Why do something so incredibly deceptive?

But it gets MUCH worse. Consider l-Gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, aka GULO. This gene is responsible for the synthesis of ascorbic acid. All mammals have this gene, so that they do not require diets rich in vitamin C. All mammals, except a few species with naturally rich vitamin C diets. In the small handful of mammals with non functioning GULO genes, their native environments were such the gene could cease to function (like the eyes of cave dwelling fish) without any negative impact on individual members of the species.

Our GULO gene is broken in much the same way the GULO gene of old world monkeys is broken. In the new world monkeys (South American varieties), the gene remains intact. Why would a Creator fashioning species independent of each other create the same genetic flaw in what appear to be closely related species? Of the 20,000 genes in the human genome, this one is broken almost identically (like two halves of the same deck of playing cards) ripped so that they match. Each gene contains about a thousand base pairs. Imagine drawing a card out of a pack of 20,000 unique cards, and ripping one in half. Then imagine doing the same thing with another deck of 20,000 unique cards, randomly ripping one, and finding that the two cards just happened to be the same card, and that both were ripped in almost the same way.

That is about the same odds as humans and apes sharing a similarly defective gene. There are other mammals that have a defective GULO gene. Fruit bats. Hamsters. In these species the gene has malfunctioned in a way dissimilar to that of the way it does not function in humans and apes. There are over four thousand different species of mammal. If our GULO gene was broken the same way it is broken in the kangaroo or the otter, but it functioned perfectly in both old world apes and new world apes, it would be much easier to dismiss the fact as some remarkable coincidence--or perhaps the purposeful design of God.

What a fascinating and heated topic! Particularly enjoyable to follow.

Be well, everyone!