Evidence for God from Science

dougangel wrote:

Audie wrote:

dougangel wrote:I'm at we don't really know for sure. Although the evidence points to theistic evolution as Genesis 1,2,3 has to interpenetrated as a Parable and that certain things don't make sense and it is how ancient bronze age man saw the universe. Although Genesis has important spiritual points and sets up the Jewish calendar which is important to many Judaeo christian prophecies.

Although God can do miracles. In the main the universe seems to be running on science.( there are definitely unscientific things in the bible ) The laws, maths and physics seem to be in a precise order of things. God is of course the ultimate scientist, designer (creator) who knew what would happen with his science. But he could of been a lot less hands on than many Christians think after he set the universe in to action although knowing what would happen.

What evidence points to "theistic evolution"?

The whole universe is running on logical science. The creation story doesn't. We are biological creatures. God is definitely using adaptation. Why wouldn't he use evolution on how he created man. There are scientific errors in the bible.the creation story reads like a parable and there are logical problems with it.

Evolution is definitely enough real, and genesis is definitely a story.

Yes, I must say I do find the reluctance of some of the commenters here to appreciate the 'science' part of 'godandscience' a little disappointing. For all I know Genesis may be literally true on every level, but if the evidence for that is only Genesis itself, then that is not science. The raison d'être of this site is clearly stated on the home page banner: Evidence for God from Science. In so far as creationism, evolution or a global flood are subjects related to this, then it behoves those discussing them at least to attempt some kind of scientific approach. Faith in the Bible, or revelation, or intuition, or just blind guesswork, may all result in a perfectly correct interpretation of the universe, but in that case, it could not be said that the truth was obtained from scientific evidence, and in the absence of such evidence, it may be difficult to persuade people who have different ideas that one particular different idea is correct.

And yes, indeed, scientists are sometimes wrong. However, in that case, the very process of scientific investigation tends to expose the fault and correct it. As we have seen many times in this forum, non-scientific approaches result in contradictory ideas which cannot be refuted by faith alone, producing the entertaining creationist standoffs with which this topic is littered: OEC, YEC, Gap Theory and all the variations and amalgamations thereof.

I note that this thread is called "Serious Problems with Evolution". Philip began it with some articles attempting to deny macroevolution, which mostly relied on the work of Pierre-Paul Grasse and Lynn Margulis for support. Typically grasping their ideas at the most superficial level, reasonstobelieve hoped that because these eminent evolutionists disagreed with the mainstream consensus as to the nature of macroevolution, that therefore they must support creationism. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth.

I find some of your comments a little disappointing Hugh, but to be expected. Have you read over the website Hugh? It is a Progressive Creation site that endorses concordism between the Bible and science. It makes no pretension as to what it is about. As for the people here, they are varied in opinion as you know.

Perhaps you'd like all those with "heretical" views that don't strictly conform to a philosophy of scientism ought to burnt at the stake.

Believing the bible and then trying to find evidence to confirm it is no different than believing in evolution and trying to find evidence to confirm it true. As far as evolution not one scientist in 150 years of trying to,doing all kinds of tests with fruit flies,etc has ever demonstrated life evolves but somehow it does not stop them from piling more so-called evidence up behind a theory they don't even know is true. They just believe it,just like we do our bible. If scientists who know all about evolution can't demonstrate life evolves? Why should we believe all of this other evidence they have piled up? It seems the scientific method has been ignored in order to push this evolution theory up the hill.

The bad thing about it is that it was Christians who started modern science and they all were challenged based on interpretations back then,this is one reason the Gap Theory became so popular in the church. It was because the evidence scientists at the time had discovered confirmed it true over the others,then Charles Darwin came along,hyjacked the evidence at the time and convinced a lot of people life evolves because there is variation with my finches,etc and he found a way to make the evidence that had been discovered fit into his theory of evolution.And eventhough he knew the fossils that had been discovered then showed no transition,which he admitted, he insisted they would be found,yet they never were,instead scientists made them into transitional fossils using evolution imagination and made up a chart. But you can look at any fossil found even today and see not one shows transition just like Darwin acknowledged,yet they are called transitional fossils.They are all fully formed creatures that shows the kinds of life that lived in the former world.But ever since then the truth was suppressed and now we have a lost world nobody knows about because of it.

Hi Kurieou; yes, I'm very familiar with the website and by and large find it an excellent investigation into the relationship between an individual and his creation, between the disciplines of science and theology, and so on. It's just that every now and then a thread can get bogged down in methodology, and it seems good sometimes to try to step back a bit and review the bigger picture. Note that I was not at all disappointed with the site, and indeed rejoice in the contributions of everybody, but an out-and-out statement that one should not look at evidence until after one has made up one's mind about something goes so against rationality that it ought to be pointed out.

Yes, ACB, you're quite right: "Believing the bible and then trying to find evidence to confirm it is no different than believing in evolution and trying to find evidence to confirm it true." But the rest of your comment is terribly one sided. No one has ever "demonstrated" the spontaneous creation of organisms - which is therefore "a theory they don't even know is true." And, to exactly mirror your next sentence "If scientists who know all about creation can't demonstrate that life is created? Why should we believe all of this other evidence they have piled up?" Once again, you have put the cart before the horse. You think that evolutionists assume a fact, and then look for evidence that 'proves' it true. This is equivalent to assuming the literal truth of the bible before actually reading a single word, and then mining it for evidence to try to support your belief. Neither theologians nor scientists work like this. Not even creationists. First they read the bible, and it is the words of the bible that lead them to the conclusion that life was spontaneously created. That conclusion is not "proved", it is a conviction established by the evidence in the bible, and for several thousand years did not conflict with any other evidence. As such, it was a not an unscientific conclusion, although there was then, and is now, considerable dispute as to exactly how to interpret such evidence as there was. However, two hundred years ago there was built up sufficient evidence from natural history to challenge (not to 'disprove'' but to 'challenge') that conclusion. Nobody began with a belief in evolution and then looked for evidence to support it. In fact exactly the opposite was true: they began with a belief in spontaneous creation. Eventually, of course, the evidence challenging that belief was so comprehensive that the new paradigm became established. Today, it is best for a student not to assume either spontaneous creation or evolution, but to look at all the evidence, including the words of the bible, and derive his conclusions from the totality. Note that such an approach does not require that either method of populating the world be "proved" or "demonstrated".

The idea that Charles Darwin "hi-jacked" some evidence is not only pejorative, it doesn't really mean anything, does it? His masterpiece, and in fact all his writings, are humble, tentative and generous. He presents his evidence, explains the conclusions he personally draws from it, and offers it for the discussion of his fellows. Such was his nobility of thought that he also presented difficulties with his idea, and evidence which appeared to contradict it, being content to say that he hoped they would be resolved in due course. And indeed, many of them have been. Your statement that "the truth was suppressed" is utterly unfounded.

Your final claim is that "we have a lost world nobody knows about." Well, apparently you know all about it, so why not be the person who finally exposes it? Present your evidence, humbly, tentatively and generously, as Darwin did, with all the evidence, both for and against your idea, as Darwin did, and you might be able to establish a new paradigm in the face of all the prevailing wisdom, as Darwin did.

hughfarey wrote:Hi Kurieou; yes, I'm very familiar with the website and by and large find it an excellent investigation into the relationship between an individual and his creation, between the disciplines of science and theology, and so on. It's just that every now and then a thread can get bogged down in methodology, and it seems good sometimes to try to step back a bit and review the bigger picture. Note that I was not at all disappointed with the site, and indeed rejoice in the contributions of everybody, but an out-and-out statement that one should not look at evidence until after one has made up one's mind about something goes so against rationality that it ought to be pointed out.

Wasn't really expecting that, well responded.

I was not expecting to hear anyone come up with any "serious problems" with evolution, and, -surprise-they did not.

hughfarey wrote:d.

Your final claim is that "we have a lost world nobody knows about." Well, apparently you know all about it, so why not be the person who finally exposes it? Present your evidence, humbly, tentatively and generously, as Darwin did, with all the evidence, both for and against your idea, as Darwin did, and you might be able to establish a new paradigm in the face of all the prevailing wisdom, as Darwin did.

If there were a "lost world", pre flood I guess, then it would be vastly easy to demonstrate, far simpler than it has been trying to piece together the actual story of earth's history.

There would be a "flood stratum" to be found world wide.

(there isnt)

There would be no living things nor any ice, older than the date of the flood.

(there are)

All life forms from the "previous world" would no longer exist, save those few
rescued in the 'ark".

(this is obviously not the case)

But sure, if someone cares to present a case, let them.

(inventing some imaginary fault in the thinking of all the scientists on earth is not 'data")

All ya'll are doing is choosing to continue to look at the evidence in and on the earth from an evolution perspective overlooking that lack of evidence life evolves. Nothing I can do to change your mind as long as you choose to do it. I refuse to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective because there is no evidence that shows life evolves,therefore no need to. It comes down to the point I've been making the whole time,it matters what perspective we choose to look at the evidence from.You should really ask yourself how you can choose to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective having to use imagination and assumption to do it based on no evidence life evolves. Ya'll ignore it and still choose to anyway.What's wrong? Can't have the bible being confirmed true when it tells us a former world existed that perished and we have the evidence for it in the earth if you don't look at it from an evolution perspective but a former world that perished perspective? I can't help it ya'll choose to look at it from the wrong perspective and worse choose to trust scientists who don't even know if life evolves yet continue to pile more so-called evidence up based on an unconfirmed theory.

Audie wrote:I was not expecting to hear anyone come up with any "serious problems" with evolution, and, -surprise-they did not.

Hate to suprise you so.
This link goes into details
http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup
Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code
Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures
Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations
Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution
Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand "Tree of Life"
Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry
Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry
Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species
Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and "Junk DNA"
Bonus Problem: Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage
I've got one. Why is there male and female wouldn't it be better for more species to be asexual. This and many other things point to intelligent design.

Audie wrote:I was not expecting to hear anyone come up with any "serious problems" with evolution, and, -surprise-they did not.

Since we don't have a higher viewpoint, no problemo for me means it is coherent to itself. Such should be a litmus test for any view of the world one accepts, including on origins. Note, though, that such doesn't make a set of beliefs true, but rather acceptable within the paradigm that they hold together in (i.e., in the case of evolution, Physicalism).

Is there a theory for the evolution of consciousness?

abelcainsbrother wrote:All ya'll are doing is choosing to continue to look at the evidence in and on the earth from an evolution perspective overlooking that lack of evidence life evolves. Nothing I can do to change your mind as long as you choose to do it. I refuse to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective because there is no evidence that shows life evolves,therefore no need to. It comes down to the point I've been making the whole time,it matters what perspective we choose to look at the evidence from.You should really ask yourself how you can choose to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective having to use imagination and assumption to do it based on no evidence life evolves. Ya'll ignore it and still choose to anyway.What's wrong? Can't have the bible being confirmed true when it tells us a former world existed that perished and we have the evidence for it in the earth if you don't look at it from an evolution perspective but a former world that perished perspective? I can't help it ya'll choose to look at it from the wrong perspective and worse choose to trust scientists who don't even know if life evolves yet continue to pile more so-called evidence up based on an unconfirmed theory.

No, ACB, you are not reading my posts. You seem to be doing the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la" so as not to hear what I'm saying. Why do you think there is nothing you can do to change my mind? You haven't even tried! You go on and on about perspective (again), when it is clear that that that's an approach that won't get anywhere. I won't indulge in a mere 'yes-you-do-no-I-don't' bicker, so let's move on. Present some evidence for your point of view, as I suggested you might a few posts back, and we'll consider it. Have you, in fact, got any?

dougangel wrote:Hate to surprise you so.

The point is not whether there are any objections at all, but whether there are any serious objections, and whether alternative explanations are any better. The 12 problems you present are in many cases details of mechanisms rather than serious objections to the overall theory. Several of them are of the "I can't see how this could happen, therefore it didn't happen" variety, which is neither logical not scientific. Problem 1, for instance, claims that there is 'No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup,' from which life could have arisen. This is a statement of belief, not of fact, and rather wide of the mark: there are several possible mechanisms currently being investigated, and the fact that none has yet been demonstrated successful does not mean that it won't be, or that there aren't any. The fact that the source of the river Nile had not been discovered in the early 19th century did not stop people looking for it, nor did anybody say there wasn't one. Problems 2 and 3 are in a similar vein.

Other 'serious problems' relate not to Evolution as a paradigm, but to the specific ideas developed by Charles Darwin 150 years ago. Because "On the Origin of Species" got something wrong, goes the supposition, then therefore the entire paradigm collapses. This too is simply incorrect. In every case, where Darwin (or any other evolutionary scientist) got something wrong, correcting the error has resulted in the strengthening, not the weakening, of the principal idea, that every organism on the earth today is related by descent to every other.

Your last idea: "Why is there male and female wouldn't it be better for more species to be asexual," is not a problem. it is a question, and the answer is no it wouldn't. Different methods of reproduction suit different environments, and both sexual and asexual reproduction are elegant solutions to the production of descent with modification according to the environment. Asexual reproduction is particularly suited to a food-abundant, disease-free environment - wherein we find asexual reproduction prevalent, and sexual reproduction to a more variant environment - where it actually occurs, as it happens.

If "intelligent design" encompasses an evolutionary process from a 'primordial soup' towards the interrelatedness of every organism on the earth today, then I could agree that evidence from nature does indeed point towards it. If, however, "intelligent design" is merely a synonym for spontaneous creation ex nihilo, then I don't.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:I was not expecting to hear anyone come up with any "serious problems" with evolution, and, -surprise-they did not.

Since we don't have a higher viewpoint, no problemo for me means it is coherent to itself. Such should be a litmus test for any view of the world one accepts, including on origins. Note, though, that such doesn't make a set of beliefs true, but rather acceptable within the paradigm that they hold together in (i.e., in the case of evolution, Physicalism).

Is there a theory for the evolution of consciousness?

Is there a theory that explains exactly what consciousness is, and points to a bright line dixtinction between when it is there, when it is not?

When does a developing embryo become conscious?

Is there a more tiresome all-purpose- meaningless term than "paradigm"?

dougangel wrote:

Audie wrote:I was not expecting to hear anyone come up with any "serious problems" with evolution, and, -surprise-they did not.

Hate to suprise you so.
This link goes into details
http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup
Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code
Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures
Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations
Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution
Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand "Tree of Life"
Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry
Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry
Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species
Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and "Junk DNA"
Bonus Problem: Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage
I've got one. Why is there male and female wouldn't it be better for more species to be asexual. This and many other things point to intelligent design.

I hate to see anyone gish so.

Perhaps there is a problem with what is meant by "serious" or "problem".


What do you havd in mind? That any of those show ToE is wrong?

Most of those are not even serious minded, nor are they "problems".

There are problems in our understanding of the life of Jesus. What was he doing when he was 13yrs old?

Do you have in mind that one or more of those acgually shows the theory to be wrong, or are / were
questions and problems such as are being addressed in any field of research?

Fact is humans are conscious beings, and if we're talking evolution, then such should be a gradual transition. Yet, what archaeology reveals is that a lot just seems to burst onto the scene with modern humanity.

I'll save you some time, not that you were looking. There is no real evolutionary model for consciousness. There isn't even something specific we can point to physically to say this is why humans possess so much intelligence that no other life form comes close to.

What we observe are merely causal links to our physical bodies, such as a cluster of brain cells firing in a certain pattern with particular intensity and timing. But, then, that is to be expected since no one denies that humans possess physical bodies. As Nagel expresses:

It is not an explanation to say just that the physical process of evolution has resulted in creatures with eyes, ears, central nervous systems, and so forth, and that it is simply a brute fact of nature that such creatures are conscious in the familiar ways. Merely to identify a cause is not to provide a significant explanation, without some understanding of why the cause produces the effect. The claim I want to defend is that, since the conscious character of these organisms is one of their most important features, the explanation of the coming into existence of such creatures must include an explanation of the appearance of consciousness. That cannot be a separate question. An account of their biological evolution must explain the appearance of conscious organisms as such.

Anything less is really half picture of certain life that is comprised of both matter and is consciously aware.