Evidence for God from Science

Here's Part 1 of a series of articles dealing with the assumption by evolutionists that shared genes means common ancestor. The article itself has links that pertain to the issue. For those who want to see another perspective other than common ancestry, here you go:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/dna-com ... del-part-1

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:PaulSacramento,

As we have been talking about parasitic wasps, and their role in an ecosystem, I found this podcast at Reasons.org to be very timely.
It not only gets into predators roles in ecosystems, but it goes into pretty good details about an experiment with parasitic wasps. It's actually pretty amazing. Here's the podcast:http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... -diversity

There is no issue with the existence of ANY predator in the ecosystems, none at all.
The Issue that skeptics raise with parastic wasps ( as an example) is that IF they were designed THAT way ( not to be predators BUT HOW they go about their business) then God is "one cruel bastard" ( I quote one skeptic).

Paul,
are these the same skeptics that say God is not real because if He was real, He wouldn't allow innocent people to die?

LOL !
At imes yes of course, BUT the issue in this regard is a fair one.
IF God created all animals as is, how does one reconcile an animal that kills cruelly ( whatever that may mean) with a loving God?
It's an issue that even TE have to deal with and, to a degree, a valid one.
It is incorrect to fall back on "what is cruel?" because that doesn't answer the question.
IF those wasps evolved to that state because of the fallen nature of this world, that is a possible explanation BUT if God created them AS IS, how does one reconcile such a horrific mode of "survival" with a loving God?

RickD wrote:Here's Part 1 of a series of articles dealing with the assumption by evolutionists that shared genes means common ancestor. The article itself has links that pertain to the issue. For those who want to see another perspective other than common ancestry, here you go:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/dna-com ... del-part-1

Just finished all 5 parts.
Very interesting indeed.
Honestly, it seems that there is enough evidence interpretation to suggest that BOTH views have merit and,perhaps, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:PaulSacramento,

As we have been talking about parasitic wasps, and their role in an ecosystem, I found this podcast at Reasons.org to be very timely.
It not only gets into predators roles in ecosystems, but it goes into pretty good details about an experiment with parasitic wasps. It's actually pretty amazing. Here's the podcast:http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... -diversity

There is no issue with the existence of ANY predator in the ecosystems, none at all.
The Issue that skeptics raise with parastic wasps ( as an example) is that IF they were designed THAT way ( not to be predators BUT HOW they go about their business) then God is "one cruel bastard" ( I quote one skeptic).

Paul,
are these the same skeptics that say God is not real because if He was real, He wouldn't allow innocent people to die?

LOL !
At imes yes of course, BUT the issue in this regard is a fair one.
IF God created all animals as is, how does one reconcile an animal that kills cruelly ( whatever that may mean) with a loving God?
It's an issue that even TE have to deal with and, to a degree, a valid one.
It is incorrect to fall back on "what is cruel?" because that doesn't answer the question.
IF those wasps evolved to that state because of the fallen nature of this world, that is a possible explanation BUT if God created them AS IS, how does one reconcile such a horrific mode of "survival" with a loving God?

Paul,
Maybe you should recant your TE beliefs, and start defending YEC.
These are the same arguments I read from some YECs. They say, if OEC is true, and there were millions or billions of years of suffering before man's sin, that can't be reconciled with a loving God.
Maybe this article by Rich can help you with those critics:http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... years.html

how does one reconcile an animal that kills cruelly ( whatever that may mean) with a loving God?

Paul, this question reminds me of a vivid picture I have in my mind of a family of seals basking on an iceberg, only to have a huge Orca leap out of the water, and snatch a poor baby seal from the arms of its mother.

Paul, when you encounter these skeptics, maybe you could ask them to explain how God could have created creatures that are necessary to sustain an ecosystem, without having predators that "cruelly" kill their prey. Maybe God could have found a way to leave predators out of ecosystems? Is that really the alternative? I personally think it speaks wonders to the creative nature of God when I see all the different kinds of predatory animals. To me it's just amazing. Predators just point all the more to a creator.
You also need to remember that many of the so called skeptics have no desire to see a future "world" that is eternal. The naturalistic worldview just sees this creation, and can't see the reason why God created this temporary world for a specific reason.

So you reconcile a loving God creating a species that, while it could be made to kill in a totally different way, kills in a cruel and horrific way, by stating "wonderous variety".
You may be right, but that doesn't address the question.
Let me put it this way: If God created the parasitic wasp THAT WAY, then why would we have issues with how cruel it kills?
This is not a case of a predator killing it's prey and eating it, this is a case of a predator paralyzing it's prey, keeping it alive, laying eggs inside of it and then it gets eaten WHILE STILL ALIVE by the larvae.

PaulS wrote:
So you reconcile a loving God creating a species that, while it could be made to kill in a totally different way, kills in a cruel and horrific way, by stating "wonderous variety".

Paul, I don't recall stating "wonderous variety". Those terms are too big for my vocabulary.

Paul, why would you assume the parasitic wasp could have been made to kill in a different way? Have you really studied what benefits the wasp gives to its ecosystem by killing the way it does?

Again, I don't call an animal, an insect, that is programmed to kill its prey a certain way, as "cruel and horrific", in the same way that you see it. What about a cat that "playfully" tortures its prey before killing it?
Paul, I just don't see animal death at the hands of other animals as the same as humans killing other humans. I just don't know another way of saying that I don't have to reconcile parasitic wasps and a loving God.

Let me put it this way: If God created the parasitic wasp THAT WAY, then why would we have issues with how cruel it kills?

I don't have an issue with it. Maybe you need to dig deeper into why you have an issue. Start asking yourself some questions.
Paul, everything I've read about parasitic wasps shows that they're extremely beneficial creatures. Maybe if they were created to kill another way, they wouldn't be as beneficial? Maybe the fact that it grows inside its host creature, is vital to its own survival, and its survival is vital to its ecosystem?

From this link:http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithso ... -diversity

Terry Erwin, a scientist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, in conjunction with researchers from Finland, the United Kingdom and U.S., has discovered 177 previously undescribed species of parasitic wasps from Central and South America. This drastically raises diversity estimates of a little-known group of parasitoid wasps to triple what was previously hypothesized. With more than an estimated 100,000 species worldwide, Ichneumonidae parasitic wasps are perhaps the largest family in the animal kingdom and play a key role in ecosystem functioning by controlling the population densities of the animals they use as hosts.

However God created these wasps to play their part in their ecosystem, it seems He did a pretty darn good job!

I don't doubt there is a reason Rick, the issue is that it was designed that way.
How much of an issue of course is another matter.

I'm not sure how the parasitic wasp is an issue for special creation and not for TE.

Is God sovereign? Are things where they are today by God's design? If Evolution (molecules to man) is the mechanism, then who employed the mechanism?
You can't have your cake here and eat it too. If man is the result of these processes, then so is the wasp.

Are we questioning special creation because of the wasp? Seems like this is presenting the wasp's unusual, perhaps even grotesque behavior, as impuning the moral character of God. If so, then you might as well include TE. Either God is Lord of all, or not Lord at all.

jlay wrote:I'm not sure how the parasitic wasp is an issue for special creation and not for TE.

Is God sovereign? Are things where they are today by God's design? If Evolution (molecules to man) is the mechanism, then who employed the mechanism?
You can't have your cake here and eat it too. If man is the result of these processes, then so is the wasp.

Are we questioning special creation because of the wasp? Seems like this is presenting the wasp's unusual, perhaps even grotesque behavior, as impuning the moral character of God. If so, then you might as well include TE. Either God is Lord of all, or not Lord at all.

A valid point, IF TE means that God GUIDES the evolutionary process directly ( step-by-step).
Many TE believe that God instills in living organisims the ability to adapt and survive and HOW that ability evolves is up to the environment and nature.
To suggest that for God to be LORD of all means that GOD controls and directs ALL means that there is NO free will and no "free nature" all is controlled and directed by God, which means that everything that happens is directed by God to happen in THAT EXACT way.
I do NOT believe that to be the case.

PaulSacramento wrote:A valid point, If TE means that God GUIDES the evolutionary process directly ( step-by-step).
Many TE believe that God instills in living organisims the ability to adapt and survive and HOW that ability evolves is up to the environment and nature.
To suggest that for God to be LORD of all means that GOD controls and directs ALL means that there is NO free will and no "free nature" all is controlled and directed by God, which means that everything that happens is directed by God to happen in THAT EXACT way.
I do NOT believe that to be the case.

- I thought that point might come up, and I should have addressed it prior. My point here is not some Reformed concept of sovereignty. I for one do not think that contingencies in nature make God contingent. Yet everything is directed in some sense and working towards His glory. The point only being that TE doesn't resolve the problem. Because if the wasp is just a product of nature, then so is man. So, although I would agree with you that God is not manipulating every iota, I also don't see a nature that is arbitrary.

-The wasp was designed this way.
-The wasp evolved through unguided processes.
-The wasp was designed but fault entered the code.

Any other possibilities.

What, has PETA infected the ranks of the TE movement? CLEARLY, God does not view animals in the same way that He does humans. Again, they were not made in His Image. He gave us dominion over them and meant for them to provide us with food, clothing, the ability to farm, help clearing for crops, provide transportation, etc. Also obvious, is that the animal kingdom could not exist without predator/prey relationships. So, God MEANT for animals to kill animals, for men to kill animals, for some animals to have the ability to kill men, but not for man to kill man. I mean, if you believe God created through evolution, then you must accept that He built the shedding of blood into the animal kingdom.

But, as well, God clearly ordained the shedding of certain animals' blood for expected sacrifices:

"Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. The Lord smelled the soothing aroma ..." (Genesis 8:20-21)

“Now this is what you shall offer on the altar: two lambs a year old day by day regularly. One lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer at twilight. And with the first lamb a tenth measure of fine flour mingled with a fourth of a hin of beaten oil, and a fourth of a hin of wine for a drink offering. The other lamb you shall offer at twilight, and shall offer with it a grain offering and its drink offering, as in the morning, for a pleasing aroma, a food offering to the LORD. It shall be a regular burnt offering throughout your generations at the entrance of the tent of meeting before the LORD, where I will meet with you, to speak to you there." (Exodus 29: 38-42)

"He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron's sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting." (Leviticus 1:5)

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." (Leviticus 17:11)

"He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering." (Leviticus 4:29)

"And he said to me, “Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD: These are the ordinances for the altar: On the day when it is erected for offering burnt offerings upon it and for throwing blood against it, you shall give to the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok, who draw near to me to minister to me, declares the Lord GOD, a bull from the herd for a sin offering. And you shall take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the ledge and upon the rim all around. Thus you shall purify the altar and make atonement for it. You shall also take the bull of the sin offering, and it shall be burned in the appointed place belonging to the temple, outside the sacred area. And on the second day you shall offer a male goat without blemish for a sin offering; and the altar shall be purified, as it was purified with the bull. When you have finished purifying it, you shall offer a bull from the herd without blemish and a ram from the flock without blemish. You shall present them before the LORD, and the priests shall sprinkle salt on them and offer them up as a burnt offering to the LORD. For seven days you shall provide daily a male goat for a sin offering; also, a bull from the herd and a ram from the flock, without blemish, shall be provided." (Ezekiel 43:18-25 ESV)

Regarding the wasp.
I have a couple of issues with this. For one, can we assign moral qualities to these creature's, and the behaviors we see in nature? When I spray pesticides and plug in my bug zapper, is there some moral issue? No. what I'm hearing here is that "if" God designed the wasp this way, then there is reason to call into question God's own morality. That is a HUGE statement, and frankly one I just don't see it at all.

Seperately, if the wasp is the result of blind, unguided processes, then so is the moral capacity of man. To follow those conclusions through to their logical end has a lot of consequences that would concern me more than some wierd beahvior we see in the wasp.

It's an interesting issue. One thing we can know for sure, nature is blind. There is no way for nature to know that millions of years down the road there will be a wasp that will need a catepiller to act as host for its larvae. Since we all agree on evolution is the sense of diversity, it could be that this response is simply a result of the pressures of nature, some sort of fault in the code, and coincedence. It's obvious that the host have not evolved to defend this mechanism.
In humans we have bacteria that serve good functions. Good in the sense that they benefit humanity. We also have bacteria that harm. Are they both accident? I would say that what we can observe in terms of "evolution" (mutation, loss of info, etc.) should be able to explain all this. Does this present a "moral" issue. No. I'm not convinced that the issue with the wasp is a moral one, anymore than a person becoming infected with the flu.
So, if it's evolution, how do you account for the functions?

Jlay wrote:
-The wasp was designed this way.
-The wasp evolved through unguided processes.
-The wasp was designed but fault entered the code.

Any other possibilities.

I can see one more, although it is basically the same as #1.

The wasp was designed to have the ability to evolve. Or, guided evolution.

I think this is what some TEs believe.

For the sake of the issue with the wasp's killing and eating their victims alive, and God not being loving, I believe TE would still be faced with this.

RickD wrote:

Jlay wrote:
-The wasp was designed this way.
-The wasp evolved through unguided processes.
-The wasp was designed but fault entered the code.

Any other possibilities.

I can see one more, although it is basically the same as #1.

The wasp was designed to have the ability to evolve. Or, guided evolution.

I think this is what some TEs believe.

For the sake of the issue with the wasp's killing and eating their victims alive, and God not being loving, I believe TE would still be faced with this.

YOu lost me there. How are you using the word evolve? The 3rd option accounts for changes within the code. If a wasp was designed to evolved, then you aren't using the word "evolve" in a true Darwinist sense. You can't have a designed wasp if TE (allowing for Darwinism) is true.

Jlay wrote:
YOu lost me there. How are you using the word evolve? The 3rd option accounts for changes within the code.

I guess that's what I mean, minus the "Fault".
In other words, the wasp was created with the ability to evolve, or adapt to the kind of prey available. A kind of micro evolution within its wasp "kind". I'm not saying I believe that, I'm just throwing it out there.

If a wasp was designed to evolved, then you aren't using the word "evolve" in a true Darwinist sense. You can't have a designed wasp if TE (allowing for Darwinism) is true.

But the problem is that there is such a broad range of beliefs, even within TE.