Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: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.

From what I have seen within scientific study of biology everything was 'designed' to adapt to its environment in a limited fashion. Evolution as defined by simply variance over time is a real truth about living things but in its whole meaning as asserted by science is false when it comes to molecules becoming man because it over reaches the limits of variability that each type of life was designed to vary.
from my understanding about created life in the biblical narative life was not intended initially to harm each other. If we look at Isaiahs account here;

Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

It appears that animals will return to the initial state that they were intended to have when they were first formed. In Gods design there will be no hurting or destruction anywhere including within the animal kingdom, even the lion will eat straw...
So it should be assumed currently that what we are seeing in nature is not the intended state that it should function as according to its original design but because of the variability designed into life it has changed to the state it is now so that we can see how much a good design can become flawed without the correcting hand of God being present to keep it within the parameters of its original intent.
Whether these variations can define an old earth creationism, theistic evolution or a young earth creation ultimately depends on how long it really takes for variation to occur.
Personally I don't feel that OEC or theistic evolution is quite proper because it entails the inclusion of a molecules to man rationale which requires there to be vast stretches of time for a particular type of life to originate from another totally different one and from what I see mechanically this type of variability is impossible.
Most every type of function wihin the living system has a level of irreducible complexity for its specific design and its range of variance is limited by this complexity and this is what defines the different designs that were originally made by God. So for me the OEC / TE concept fails at defining how irreduble complexity can be reformed over any period of time naturally. If anyone feels that OEC / TE is realistic then they should be able to define how nature can accomplish the feat of reforming irreducible complexity since it is a required element to found their belief on.

KBC wrote:
from my understanding about created life in the biblical narative life was not intended initially to harm each other. If we look at Isaiahs account here;

Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Hi KBC,
The scripture you posted would be talking about the future. What in the narrative leads you to believe the creation was originally created with carnivores not killing prey?

Personally I don't feel that OEC or theistic evolution is quite proper because it entails the inclusion of a molecules to man rationale which requires there to be vast stretches of time for a particular type of life to originate from another totally different one and from what I see mechanically this type of variability is impossible.

Be careful lumping all OEC under TE. Many OECs don't believe in molecules to man evolution.

Personally I don't feel that OEC or theistic evolution is quite proper because it entails the inclusion of a molecules to man rationale which requires there to be vast stretches of time for a particular type of life to originate from another totally different one and from what I see mechanically this type of variability is impossible.

If God is behind the scenes then anything is possible, some may deem it incomprehensible, I fail to see how that would change anything though. T.E is only one being demonized here. And I feel bad because despite any evidence of anykind, not even biological, all that is being given as an argument is that it is "Intelligently designed because we can see a design". Though one fails to realize how do we know what we are seeing is design by randomness or intended design and the second question, undfer T.E , if God is guiding it then such a (intelligent or random) design through guided evolution is plausible or not. In that I don't think anyone of you here who has objections to T.E, has any argument of substance, I have failed to see one yet.

The second thing which amuses me is that there is some very high consideration for the "special" creation of man. And yet I beleive, under T.E or even without it, man being special is not anything to do with anything inherent in man or the soil which God made him from but in the choice and will of God, who deemed man importanrt. In the end it is not the act of creation itself which makes man important but God's will that makes him special to be chosen in the first place. And under that I do not see for any good reason how that changes anything in faith which can be deemded, heretical or unbiblical, as some are very passionate to accuse T.E of without giving any consideration to the complete sense of it. And I am quite tired of seeing suych luddite attitude in general, though one hopes it changes.

One of the issues that evolutionary biologists have with TE is that TE sees evolution as being "guided" or "directed" in some way ( not all TE see it as such by the way).
Evolutionists state that living organisisms do NOT evolve to meet the demands of the environment.
Mutations are random, they happen by chance, they are do NOT happen to meet a demand and are NOT directed.
The mutations that "natural selection" deems the most "fittest" are kept and propagated allowing the organisim to evolve and adapt.
In short:
Mutation causes thicker fur by chance, with thicker fur the animal can live in colder climates ( his fur doesn't get thicker because of cold climates, it got thicker by chance the the animal went to colder climates because of it), because he is now in colder climates that change is kept ( natural selection) and passed on in his genes ( microevolution), after many generations if that animal evolved to a point where he con no longer breed with the animals from where he originally came form, he is viewed as a new species ( macroevolution).
In short:
Mutation comes first, then adaption because of mutation, then propagation of that mutation and finally a new species.

One of the issues that evolutionary biologists have with TE is that TE sees evolution as being "guided" or "directed" in some way ( not all TE see it as such by the way).
Evolutionists state that living organisisms do NOT evolve to meet the demands of the environment.
Mutations are random, they happen by chance, they are do NOT happen to meet a demand and are NOT directed.
The mutations that "natural selection" deems the most "fittest" are kept and propagated allowing the organisim to evolve and adapt.
In short:
Mutation causes thicker fur by chance, with thicker fur the animal can live in colder climates ( his fur doesn't get thicker because of cold climates, it got thicker by chance the the animal went to colder climates because of it), because he is now in colder climates that change is kept ( natural selection) and passed on in his genes ( microevolution), after many generations if that animal evolved to a point where he con no longer breed with the animals from where he originally came form, he is viewed as a new species ( macroevolution).
In short:
Mutation comes first, then adaption because of mutation, then propagation of that mutation and finally a new species.

I agree Paul, and thank you for those articles that you shared some pages back.
I was not advocating T.E, simply saying that the objections from with in Christians movements seemed superficial in my opinion.

neo-x wrote: If God is behind the scenes then anything is possible, some may deem it incomprehensible, I fail to see how that would change anything though. T.E is only one being demonized here. And I feel bad because despite any evidence of anykind, not even biological, all that is being given as an argument is that it is "Intelligently designed because we can see a design". Though one fails to realize how do we know what we are seeing is design by randomness or intended design and the second question, undfer T.E , if God is guiding it then such a (intelligent or random) design through guided evolution is plausible or not.

Good question. It's a logical contradiction. Design and randomness. Design infers intelligence. It forsees function. How do the blind processes of nature forsee a use, or a future environment? Everything observable in evolution (NS, mutation, gene shift) cannot provide for such a mechanism. Yet, we have millions of examples of function originating out of intelligence. Now, if that is not substance, then what is? To say that randomness, or unguided, blind processes can produce function is conflating plain and simple.
We can observe how nature might select among the existing genetic info. We might even see how a function in the existing genetic info may be sorted out, because that function no longer serves any purpose. But that doesn't account for the function in the first place. To state that losses and changes within the library can account for the library in the 1st place is simply not intellectually honest.

The second thing which amuses me is that there is some very high consideration for the "special" creation of man. And yet I beleive, under T.E or even without it, man being special is not anything to do with anything inherent in man or the soil which God made him from but in the choice and will of God, who deemed man importanrt. In the end it is not the act of creation itself which makes man important but God's will that makes him special to be chosen in the first place. And under that I do not see for any good reason how that changes anything in faith which can be deemded, heretical or unbiblical, as some are very passionate to accuse T.E of without giving any consideration to the complete sense of it. And I am quite tired of seeing suych luddite attitude in general, though one hopes it changes.

But you are left with a God who is arbitrary, is not sovereign (even in the weak sense) and is contingent. Man wasn't a product from the image of God. I really do hope you understand those implications.

neo-x wrote:

One of the issues that evolutionary biologists have with TE is that TE sees evolution as being "guided" or "directed" in some way ( not all TE see it as such by the way).
Evolutionists state that living organisisms do NOT evolve to meet the demands of the environment.
Mutations are random, they happen by chance, they are do NOT happen to meet a demand and are NOT directed.
The mutations that "natural selection" deems the most "fittest" are kept and propagated allowing the organisim to evolve and adapt.
In short:
Mutation causes thicker fur by chance, with thicker fur the animal can live in colder climates ( his fur doesn't get thicker because of cold climates, it got thicker by chance the the animal went to colder climates because of it), because he is now in colder climates that change is kept ( natural selection) and passed on in his genes ( microevolution), after many generations if that animal evolved to a point where he con no longer breed with the animals from where he originally came form, he is viewed as a new species ( macroevolution).
In short:
Mutation comes first, then adaption because of mutation, then propagation of that mutation and finally a new species.

I agree Paul, and thank you for those articles that you shared some pages back.
I was not advocating T.E, simply saying that the objections from with in Christians movements seemed superficial in my opinion.

I just wanted to point out that for evolutionary biologists, TE is as "unacceptable" as any other "creationist" view.
The majority of EB see the process as 100% random, with no room for direction of ANY sort.
How correct they are in that regard is yet to be determined.

Evolutionists state that living organisisms do NOT evolve to meet the demands of the environment.

This is actually pretty factual. When drastic changes in an environment occur, lots of populations are wiped out or at the very least devastated by it. They don't all just "evolve" themselves to become better for that new environment.

Your statement sounds a lot like the views of Lamarck, one of the first people to suggest that life forms evolve over time. He thought that an individual could change itself and its offspring by choosing to alter itself to better fit its environment. Not surprisingly, it did not take that much time for this view to be completely discounted.

How do the blind processes of nature forsee a use, or a future environment?

Jlay, why does it have to? If a mutation happens to grant a handful of individuals greater reproductive success in a future environment, why does that have to be "foreseen"? There are thousands (if not millions) of other mutations occurring in that exact same environment on other individuals that won't grant any kind of advantage in the future environment. But that handful of "lucky" ones are going to "randomly" be better off in the future because they happened to have a certain mutation. So are only a few individuals foreseeing the future and properly evolving for it? Nay, it is far more logical to suggest that the mutations were random occurrences that have the potential to help an individual in the future, but won't necessarily.

I just wanted to point out that for evolutionary biologists, TE is as "unacceptable" as any other "creationist" view.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. Lots of evolutionary biologists, like other scientists, are spiritual or religious and many would say they accepted TE as well. No, it is not their scientific viewpoint, but that's where the line between religion and science gets blurred. The scientific study of evolution can only account for what we see, not what God may or may not have done to make it that way. so yes, TE is not an acceptable "scientific theory", per say, but I doubt most scientists will tell you that you can't believe in it at all if you accept evolution.

By comparison, chemists might tell you that scientifically, certain chemical reactions act a certain way because of random movement between subatomic particles. But would they tell you that it is "unacceptable" that God might have made it work that way on purpose? No, I highly doubt it. They just wouldn't tell you that they could scientifically account for God even if they wanted to, therefore They can only perceive it as being a perfectly random process. Same goes for evolution.

The majority of EB see the process as 100% random, with no room for direction of ANY sort.

We perceive or witness no direction in evolutionary processes. Could God be directing evolution in a subtle way, or in a way that we can only perceive as random? Possibly. But as far as any scientist can say, that view is not something we can study or support through science. It's not that it is automatically wrong or bad, it's just that it is not scientific.

You seem to be mistaking "it's not science/we can't scientifically study it" as some sort of atheistic rejection of God entirely. Biology isn't alone in doing this, either. But I think it is completely wrong to suggest that most scientists don't consider God to be part of the process at all. It's just that those beliefs of theirs aren't part of their scientific inquiry. It's personal, not professional.

Ivellious wrote:Jlay, why does it have to? If a mutation happens to grant a handful of individuals greater reproductive success in a future environment, why does that have to be "foreseen"? There are thousands (if not millions) of other mutations occurring in that exact same environment on other individuals that won't grant any kind of advantage in the future environment. But that handful of "lucky" ones are going to "randomly" be better off in the future because they happened to have a certain mutation. So are only a few individuals foreseeing the future and properly evolving for it? Nay, it is far more logical to suggest that the mutations were random occurrences that have the potential to help an individual in the future, but won't necessarily.

That is a rather large "If".
I don't dispute that certain mutations could be beneficial, such as the survivability of a bacteria. Although, the term beneficial here is even questionable.
Beneficial in this sense isn't function but better reproductive fitness.
Give me an example of how vision could be the result of mutation?
So again, we have conflating. We try to take something that is very weak in its potential and IMAGINE the possibilities given enough time.
It is absolutely absurd to propose that the human eye is a by-product of random mutation.

It is absolutely absurd to propose that the human eye is a by-product of random mutation.

Yep, because what can see better, an eye that has evolved to have 99% of the necessary structure and functionality required for sight - or a pimple on my butt? Guess what - it's a wash (although my money is on the butt zit ). A 99% evolved eye cannot function as an organ of sight! It's worthless for such. And so what use was it in all of those other stages and mutations? It certainly wasn't useful as an EYE! I just love it - EVERY so often (over millions of years), an organisms' features JUST SO HAPPENED to mutate precisely as is needed to gain some end-resulting functionality. Maybe that's why evolution is often referred to as being one amazingly lucky series of "dumb, BLIND chances?"

Doesn't function imply design?

RickD wrote:Doesn't function imply design?

Let me philosophise the heck out of this question.

Can we think of an obvious instance where "no design" could lead to a function?

I'm hard pressed unless you start with some physical laws which enable a stable universe to function (or a set of laws wherein something can already operate).

With a foundation of some set of laws laid, then where something new comes to exist that possesses function -- it isn't a matter of random events causing that function, but rather necessary events according to those laws.

What will naturally be, is predetermined by the very initial state of things unfolding. It is conceivable that something could unfold necessarily to possess functionality without its design being considered.

If this is true then function doesn't necessarily depend upon design. And yet, for anything to exist of their own accord, the laws that govern our universe appear grounded in a design that is stable and predictable.

I find it hard to believe that "randomness" or "necessity" could lead to function or even something, without first having a set of stable laws to work within.

Good question. It's a logical contradiction. Design and randomness. Design infers intelligence. It forsees function. How do the blind processes of nature forsee a use, or a future environment? .

The post that this came in as a reply to was for T.E. Now the only problem here is that how do you know from seeing that a design can be made out of randomness, but the correct question is, can a design be made through GOD GUIDED evolution, as T.E claims? And I think the answer is Yes. I do not see how that is a problem. If evolution works thorugh God, then not everything would be blind.

But you are left with a God who is arbitrary, is not sovereign (even in the weak sense) and is contingent. Man wasn't a product from the image of God. I really do hope you understand those implications.

Not at all. See, here you are mixing two things. even if I go with methodical naturalism alone and then go with T.E as well, how does God not remain soverign? He does. He is omniscient and he knows that the laws he created ALONE, would work out the way he intended them to be. Finally reaching man too. Then God can work through mankind as he so chooses. I mean God is omniscient eternally, that alone makes him soverign when he made the laws of biology, physics, chemistry etc.

1. God throws a pair of dice, but he already knows the outcome, so he is not contingent upon the results of the dice whatever numbers may show up. Thats naturalistic evolution (even leaving T.E out)

2. God throws a pair of dice, knowing the outcome, and kept throwing it until the numbers he knows would come up, came up. Thats T.E. Still, I dont see any impeachment on God's sovergnity.

the only problems I see here, are, Can God use evolution as a tool? I say why not.

did he? There is ample evidence for that

can evolution produce the design of life?
Yes it can.

Evolution can result in design because in view:
1. Under T.E, God interferes and guides evolution
2. Under naturalism, God already knows the outcome of evolution because of the laws of life he created have self guiding properties. Together with natural selection, those laws would work. Our randomness is still a design.

The question is, is it intended design?
I think under both points it is clear that either God directly interferes, or the laws he made, carry out his will and he being omniscient already knows what they are.

Now ofcourse ID'ers have objections to it. But that objection is with one who does not beleive in God. I don't see how this should, T.E to be precise, within theism trouble anyone.

Man wasn't a product from the image of God

Can you please let me know what you do mean when you say "Image of God"?

What I, meant was, if God chose man, thorugh Guided evolution, then ofcourse he chose man when he thought man was in his "image". Since God would already know the outcome of evolution from eternity. How does he became contingent?
personally, I think man became in God's image, not physically but spirutally, when he became one with God.

Philip wrote:

It is absolutely absurd to propose that the human eye is a by-product of random mutation.

Yep, because what can see better, an eye that has evolved to have 99% of the necessary structure and functionality required for sight - or a pimple on my butt? Guess what - it's a wash (although my money is on the butt zit ). A 99% evolved eye cannot function as an organ of sight! It's worthless for such. And so what use was it in all of those other stages and mutations? It certainly wasn't useful as an EYE! I just love it - EVERY so often (over millions of years), an organisms' features JUST SO HAPPENED to mutate precisely as is needed to gain some end-resulting functionality. Maybe that's why evolution is often referred to as being one amazingly lucky series of "dumb, BLIND chances?"

No you don't need 99% of the eye for it too be useful.

It started off as photo sensitive cells that even with different shades of light and dark allowed a species a huge natural advantage. Then a pit started to form to give the shades persepective to give an even greater natural advantage. After which the pit deepened to then provide a full sphere allowing cells to start producing a protective shell - again providing a more natural advantage and so on..... The eye is not irreducably complex.

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:Doesn't function imply design?

Let me philosophise the heck out of this question.

Can we think of an obvious instance where "no design" could lead to a function?

I'm hard pressed unless you start with some physical laws which enable a stable universe to function (or a set of laws wherein something can already operate).

With a foundation of some set of laws laid, then where something new comes to exist that possesses function -- it isn't a matter of random events causing that function, but rather necessary events according to those laws.

What will naturally be, is predetermined by the very initial state of things unfolding. It is conceivable that something could unfold necessarily to possess functionality without its design being considered.

If this is true then function doesn't necessarily depend upon design. And yet, for anything to exist of their own accord, the laws that govern our universe appear grounded in a design that is stable and predictable.

I find it hard to believe that "randomness" or "necessity" could lead to function or even something, without first having a set of stable laws to work within.

This is WLC's arguement that actually circumvents the whole emotional baggage of evolution. Unless you have the initial fine-tuning in the first place and the set of seemingly well designed physical laws in place then evolution will not even be able to start. This is why I am more inclined to believe that the mechanisms of evolution are more designed than we think and not random in any sense - more that they act that why through necessity by the result of physical laws.