Evidence for God from Science

Silvertusk wrote: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.

Bingo!

Forget evolution for a second and take this whole argument back a step further to the formation of the universe; you will see that from genesis (oh don't I love the pun) purpose and design are at the core of it all. It is undeniable.

All evolution happens within the confines of the established laws of physics ( it seems) and as such, randomness means that what CAUSES the mutation does NOT lead to a SPECIFIC DIRECTION of the mutation.
EX:
2 living organisms get the same radiation exposure BUT get 2 different mutations out of it.
The result was random and not directed ( supposedly).

Silvertusk wrote:

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.

As far as I'm aware, WLC embraces Adam and Eve and literal human beings that were created in adult form by God.

From the sounds of it, the author of the book you read (not to mention many Atheists), presume Christians who resist "evolution" do so because they believe it conflicts with Christianity. Yet, this is a myth and mistake, even a fallacy of association. Christianity is based on one's response to Christ and Christ alone. So of course evolution can be embraced while one responds positively to Christ.

Yet, I still reject human evolution. Understand there is no emotional baggage from where I stand towards evolution in any form. And while there are those like Ken Ham who cause a lot of baggage, to think ALL Christians who reject human evolution do so because of some "emotional baggage" is just wrong. Many look at the evidence and find it underwhelming.

For me, the biggest gap in macroevolution is that unlike microevolution which could work with existing genetic information, massive amounts of new genetic information are required to go from one species to the next, especially when crossing between reptiles, amphibians and mammels -- is just enormous. We're not just talking about a small mutation, or even large mutations -- which only deal with existing code... we're talking NEW encyclopedias of information being required for an arm, legs, wings, sonar/eyes, breathing water to breathing air. Furthermore, these new structures need to all be accomodated by the biological system that would be a new creature. Then we zoom in to go beneath what we visually see walking around, to the molecular levels. Arms and legs, mammels and repitles aside, the functional mapping and information required is just enormous when it comes to DNA, RNA and proteins and how they are and all function and interact together in our bodies.

The debate for me is theological in nature. If a person doesn't accept Theism then they have no stake in the debate of TE vs. YEC vs. Day-Age or numerous other theological views on creation. One can consult Scripture, tradition, experience and reason to try make their case. And the case for TE is won or lost based on its merits, not based on presuming it to be the case due to a suspicion of "emotional baggage" in Christians who take up opposing positions. Likewise, TE should not be disgarded simply because of some emotion, not even purely natural evolution should be.

From the sounds of it, the author of the book you read (not to mention many Atheists), presume Christians who resist "evolution" do so because they believe it conflicts with Christianity. Yet, this is a myth and mistake, even a fallacy of association.

While it would certainly be wrong to say that all Christians who reject evolution are doing so due to "emotional baggage" associated with their faith, it is absolutely foolish to say that they are in the minority. Ever since the early 1800's, evolutionary thought's main nemesis in the public sphere has been Christianity and Christian leaders. That is an undeniable fact. Science and scientists aside, various Christian groups have been the most powerful anti-evolution camp from the outset, and their arguments are purely faith-based (i.e. emotional baggage).

And in the US, the majority of the country generally rejects evolution and do so based on their conservative Christian upbringing. There are certainly exceptions, many on this forum are relatively educated on the topic and have made rational decisions based on what they know, but most Americans know virtually nothing about evolution except what they learn about it in church. And trust me, if you learn about evolution in church, you probably aren't getting a positive or scientific lesson on the topic.

And believe me, I'm not indicting Christianity as a whole or saying that it is anti-science or that the majority of Christians are morons or anything of the sort. I'm just saying it is incorrect to say that Christianity and how it is taught has nothing to do with the acceptance of evolution in this country. I'm not sure about other countries so much, but in the US this is rather obvious.

Many look at the evidence and find it underwhelming.

I think this is an area that I disagree with as well. I talk to many Christians who say that they are well-versed in evolutionary theory because they look at the "evidence" provided by their church leader or various websites for Christians (a la Answers In Genesis). But almost every time they are either totally clueless about what evolution actually means or they have miserable misconceptions that are fed by, guess who, ultra-conservative Christian groups. You have no clue how many times I've heard the "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" question.

In short, I would say that I highly doubt that most people who think they know the evidence for and against evolution actually know much at all. Misinformation is far too rampant.

It works both ways though. That is, Atheists claim to know Scripture but willfully distort it, or choose portions to suit their purpose. Likewise, when presented with the only possible Atheistic story of human origins, many Christians will distort it to their own purpose. It's just human nature to not want to listen to something they disagree with, especially when it's not even on their table of possibilities.

For me, my reaction here is more with taking exception with the presumption that "I" as a Christain would accept human evolution if I had no emotional baggage against it. And indeed, this seems the presumption of the book's author as Silvertusk has conveyed. This begs the question so much. You know... like, why do you beat your wife?

At the end of the day, I've come to accept that beliefs aren't entirely logical, no matter who holds them. There is always bias, always the subject -- us.

That does not negate that ideally a belief should be based on the best explanation of the evidence before us.

It works both ways though. That is, Atheists claim to know Scripture but willfully distort it, or choose portions to suit their purpose.

Of course they do, and I don't think I've ever said otherwise. It's a slightly separate issue, but I agree that this happens rather frequently. Like what I said about evolution, misinformation is everywhere and lots of atheists who think they are well-versed in biblical issues probably aren't.

For me, my reaction here is more with taking exception with the presumption that "I" as a Christain would accept human evolution if I had no emotional baggage against it.

These kinds of "what-ifs" are mostly moot points, considering we will never know the answer. I don't doubt that many people would take a different side on the issue if they were able to completely disregard their prior beliefs, but I wouldn't say that about any specific person unless I knew them first. I do think that many Christians completely oppose evolution because of their religious worldview, and might be more open to learning about it if they didn't have a specific religious belief that considered evolution to be a bad thing, though.

At the end of the day, I've come to accept that beliefs aren't entirely logical, no matter who holds them. There is always bias, always the subject -- us.

That does not negate that ideally a belief should be based on the best explanation of the evidence before us.

Very true. Bias is an inherent part of human nature, and to an extent it makes sense. how are we to avoid bias if it is the only lens we have ever been given to see a particular topic through? It's a tough thing to do, even for those who are very good at it.

Kurieuo wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:

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.

As far as I'm aware, WLC embraces Adam and Eve and literal human beings that were created in adult form by God.

From the sounds of it, the author of the book you read (not to mention many Atheists), presume Christians who resist "evolution" do so because they believe it conflicts with Christianity. Yet, this is a myth and mistake, even a fallacy of association. Christianity is based on one's response to Christ and Christ alone. So of course evolution can be embraced while one responds positively to Christ.

Yet, I still reject human evolution. Understand there is no emotional baggage from where I stand towards evolution in any form. And while there are those like Ken Ham who cause a lot of baggage, to think ALL Christians who reject human evolution do so because of some "emotional baggage" is just wrong. Many look at the evidence and find it underwhelming.

For me, the biggest gap in macroevolution is that unlike microevolution which could work with existing genetic information, massive amounts of new genetic information are required to go from one species to the next, especially when crossing between reptiles, amphibians and mammels -- is just enormous. We're not just talking about a small mutation, or even large mutations -- which only deal with existing code... we're talking NEW encyclopedias of information being required for an arm, legs, wings, sonar/eyes, breathing water to breathing air. Furthermore, these new structures need to all be accomodated by the biological system that would be a new creature. Then we zoom in to go beneath what we visually see walking around, to the molecular levels. Arms and legs, mammels and repitles aside, the functional mapping and information required is just enormous when it comes to DNA, RNA and proteins and how they are and all function and interact together in our bodies.

The debate for me is theological in nature. If a person doesn't accept Theism then they have no stake in the debate of TE vs. YEC vs. Day-Age or numerous other theological views on creation. One can consult Scripture, tradition, experience and reason to try make their case. And the case for TE is won or lost based on its merits, not based on presuming it to be the case due to a suspicion of "emotional baggage" in Christians who take up opposing positions. Likewise, TE should not be disgarded simply because of some emotion, not even purely natural evolution should be.

K - I was directly quoting WLC when I said "emotional baggage" I was not applying that to anyone in particular.

For me, the biggest gap in macroevolution is that unlike microevolution which could work with existing genetic information, massive amounts of new genetic information are required to go from one species to the next, especially when crossing between reptiles, amphibians and mammels -- is just enormous. We're not just talking about a small mutation, or even large mutations -- which only deal with existing code... we're talking NEW encyclopedias of information being required for an arm, legs, wings, sonar/eyes, breathing water to breathing air. Furthermore, these new structures need to all be accomodated by the biological system that would be a new creature. Then we zoom in to go beneath what we visually see walking around, to the molecular levels. Arms and legs, mammels and repitles aside, the functional mapping and information required is just enormous when it comes to DNA, RNA and proteins and how they are and all function and interact together in our bodies

I think you are making an issue where there isn't one.
As I showed before, to biologists macroevolution happens when one "species" can no longer mate with its original species.

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. 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.

Seems as if I remember another discussion we were having where you kept referencing ID as God of the gaps. Yet when you whittle this down all I see here is that your TE is a God of gaps. Am I missing something?

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.

If God chose? That is contingency on the highest degree. It is essentially the same as how an Arminian deals with predestination. That God looked through time, saw the outcome and THEN made a decision.

PaulSacramento wrote:

For me, the biggest gap in macroevolution is that unlike microevolution which could work with existing genetic information, massive amounts of new genetic information are required to go from one species to the next, especially when crossing between reptiles, amphibians and mammels -- is just enormous. We're not just talking about a small mutation, or even large mutations -- which only deal with existing code... we're talking NEW encyclopedias of information being required for an arm, legs, wings, sonar/eyes, breathing water to breathing air. Furthermore, these new structures need to all be accomodated by the biological system that would be a new creature. Then we zoom in to go beneath what we visually see walking around, to the molecular levels. Arms and legs, mammels and repitles aside, the functional mapping and information required is just enormous when it comes to DNA, RNA and proteins and how they are and all function and interact together in our bodies

I think you are making an issue where there isn't one.
As I showed before, to biologists macroevolution happens when one "species" can no longer mate with its original species.

Or as is commonly observed today, extinction.

To re-quote what you showed before...

PaulSacramento 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.

This doesn't explain how the animal "evolved" to the point they diverge into a new species. It is just assumed.

Let's be clear, a "finch" with a small beak is still a "finch" with a big beak throughout drought or plentiful rain. The species adapted according to environmental pressures. Despite some elasticity surrounding their beaks in their morphology that allows them to adapt as a species to the environment. However, natural selection and the environment was the driver here, not chance mutation. Even though their beaks would return the normal... at least this provides a coherent example of how the environment could plausibly catalyst a change within a species...

To me, it is more plausible given the timescale evolution must accomodate... external pressures like "the environment" are necessary. It also explains functionality, since external factors exert some force to cause a functional mutation related to itself. For example, the weather becoming cold causes a mutation that is functional to keeping an animal warm (thicker fur). The external factor helps explain the timeliness of changes as well as how a change could be functional.

If a species is left on their own to just have a mutation randomly occur and still remain functional for a new environment, this will take much, much longer. So for evolution to be true to the facts as I see them (the different species we see popping into existence throughout Earth's history), external pressures are necessary -- which is also why evolutionary biologists propose them. And rightly so, because they make a lot of sense!

Consider this. We have a rich supply of biological deposits today like coal due to pressure exterted by layers above and the like. Without these external pressures, it'd take a heckova lot more time and many deposits probably wouldn't have even formed. Likewise, the rich supply of species today are due to pressure being exterted by external forces upon living organic creatures that cause change. Without any external pressures there is a timing issue, and we probably wouldn't even get new species.

So what does evolutionary biology give us? We have some driving mechanisms for change like the environment (don't take this away unless you wish to weaken the position of evolution). However, we don't have mechanisms for new information that can be driven. To explain what I mean here...

Evolution would work best if turned on its head, that is new species went from complex to simple. For example, if evolution started with human beings, it has a rich supply of genetic code to work with. It can truncate an arm, a leg, cause a mutation in the eye that makes it stop seeing colour or the like. And over time, such mutations form a new species -- albeit with a lot of vestiges. These are the kind of mutations I see, but notice they do not cause "new biological information". An animal or person might have a mutation that causes them to be born with an extra limb, but this is simply a "duplication" of existing code. This seems as far as adding "new code" can get; you won't find a mutation that duplicates code of another arm, that is then "rotated" into a combination that forms a fin or wing. And even if rotated to form something new, there'd be limits unless new chunks of code could be written/added.

Note here, that this is also evolution working in the reverse. This is more conceivable as a lot of biological information would be there from the get go for evolution to mutate and work with. This means Theistic Evolutionists are in a good position. For, many believe God planted a pluripotent seed that than unfolded according to God's plan into many species over time. All the information is there from the beginning thanks to God. Pure Naturalists on the other hand, all they've got is nothing but chemical reactions as the starting building block. They have no mechanism for new information except through panspermia which is oddly but interestingly becoming increasingly popular.

Silvertusk wrote:K - I was directly quoting WLC when I said "emotional baggage" I was not applying that to anyone in particular.

Do you have the article? I think I read it, it was a good read... Craig was using "emotional baggage" to say something like that the discussion over evolution is an emotionally charged issue he prefers to navigate around rather than dwell on (or something to that effect).

Seems as if I remember another discussion we were having where you kept referencing ID as God of the gaps. Yet when you whittle this down all I see here is that your TE is a God of gaps. Am I missing something?

ID, is God of the gaps. And if that is the standard then I believe all theology is God of the gaps at some point. But that does not mean either that no truth exists. The point is evolution gives a mechanism, ID doesn't, that is why I also said, if you happen to remember, that ID is a philosophical take on the matter not a scientific one.

As for being T.E, it is not mine, same is YEC is not yours. I have been studying biology lately, purely from a layman's perspective of course, but I am more leaning towards Evolutionary biology, and not TE. And that is the precise reason I said earlier that if you have a problem with T.E then that would only be superficial as an objection, since the ones objecting don't have anything to show for it, for at the heart you also believe that God is behind it all whether you believe YEC or not. Of course within faith and theism, you would be a hypocrite to object to T.E, which also makes its claims within theism and not outside of it. So that was basically what I was trying to say, you can not attack T.E from within theism for scientific explanations, for which T.E attributes God as source and obviously a God of the gaps.

You can within theism try T.E for theological problems, but not God of the gaps, since your objection can be put to your belief in return too.

If you want to attack T.E through science, then be my guest, at that point, a God of the gaps because irrelevant as an objection, since you are open to it one way or the other as well. You would have to object within the confines of evolution science and form there, the evidence is the best guide, you either be convinced or not, though I hope its the former and not the latter.

If you remember our last argument, I clearly said that I WAS NOT advocating for T.E. Only evolution.

If God chose? That is contingency on the highest degree. It is essentially the same as how an Arminian deals with predestination. That God looked through time, saw the outcome and THEN made a decision.

Here is your problem, you are taking the atheist definition of evolution and applying to it to T.E, are you okay?
Under the case of T.E, God didn;t saw the outcome, God willed the outcome. In this case evolution is not random at all, it is guided. So if God chooses man, he doesn't chooses it over a canary or a hippo, just because he liked to. T.E carries the full implications of theology, it means that man was in God's mind since forever, and he chose evolution as the mechanism to derive life and therefore come to a time when man comes on the scene and therefore God can appoint him as he so well pleases. more on this below but this just shows why you talking past me, you assume T.E to be God knows what but I am sure its a heresy in your opinion, if you knew T.E you wouldn't even make this objection.

I think you have assumed the wrong idea of "chose" here. My implication was not that God chose among all the possibilities that were within his range because of the evolutionary randomness. I meant that the possibilities are a result of God's purpose and will, of which evolution is only a vessel of deliverance. If man was in God's mind since eternity, then God always knew how it would come to man and his choosing of man. The only point is how God decided to do it. I fail to see any contingency here. In Guided evolution, how could God be contingent since he already knows the outcome, his will is the outcome and therefore he guides evolutionary processes. The possibilities are not shaped by randomness, but by God, that is why is it called guided evolution. I am not specifically T.E anymore, but I would certainly like to defend this against strawmen or misinformed ideas.

Neo-x wrote:
I am not specifically T.E anymore, but I would certainly like to defend this against strawmen or misinformed ideas.

Neo, what would you consider your creation stance to be now, if not TE?

neo-x wrote:ID, is God of the gaps. And if that is the standard then I believe all theology is God of the gaps at some point. But that does not mean either that no truth exists. The point is evolution gives a mechanism, ID doesn't, that is why I also said, if you happen to remember, that ID is a philosophical take on the matter not a scientific one.

There is your assertion. Now I'd like you to defend that based on what ID is presenting. (I have some issues with ID. Primarily I don't see complexity as the main issue.) Otherwise, as I said earlier, bald assertion. Meyer has provided a multi-competing hypothesis. In fact, you don't even have to be a theist to follow this line of reasoning, so please do tell how and why this is a GOG? As best as I can tell you are arguing agains a strawman. That being what you think ID to be versus what is actually being presented.

As for being T.E, it is not mine, same is YEC is not yours. I have been studying biology lately, purely from a layman's perspective of course, but I am more leaning towards Evolutionary biology, and not TE.

Can't say that I'm surpirsed based on some of your foundational positions. That's not an attack, just an observation. In fact that is what I would have predicted. Of course I'm looking from the outside in. I've exampled several times your refusal to deal with the logical fallacies that Darwinism is building on, and you've essentially ignored that they are an issue. I can see where that road leads.

And that is the precise reason I said earlier that if you have a problem with T.E then that would only be superficial as an objection, since the ones objecting don't have anything to show for it, for at the heart you also believe that God is behind it all whether you believe YEC or not.

Of course I believe God is behind it. But again, I don't think you are being honest with that position. Arguing design is not arguing the Bible. You seem unwilling to allow ID or function proponents that liberty, which prevents any honest discussion.

Of course within faith and theism, you would be a hypocrite to object to T.E, which also makes its claims within theism and not outside of it. So that was basically what I was trying to say, you can not attack T.E from within theism for scientific explanations, for which T.E attributes God as source and obviously a God of the gaps.

Anyone can see that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Mmmmm, cake....
TE ranges from Guided/Directed evolution to the simple view that God created the first type(s) of life with the ability to evolve and allowed it to evolve in whatever way it did.