Evidence for God from Science

RickD » Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:02 pm

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?

I certainly think that the laws of life and sciences need God to start, but with very little to no interference from God himself. Though I am not sure thus whole heartedly falls within T.E. So that is why I said, life can come out of evolution, though I am not an athiest so I do not think that these laws can come out of nowehere and be persistant. Reason and logic go against that.

neo-x wrote:

RickD » Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:02 pm

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?

I certainly think that the laws of life and sciences need God to start, but with very little to no interference from God himself. Though I am not sure thus whole heartedly falls within T.E. So that is why I said, life can come out of evolution, though I am not an athiest so I do not think that these laws can come out of nowehere and be persistant. Reason and logic go against that.

That would probably be one step too far for me. If evolution was 100% true then I still believe that God would be in the process as well as the initial start up conditions.

neo-x wrote:

RickD » Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:02 pm

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?

I certainly think that the laws of life and sciences need God to start, but with very little to no interference from God himself. Though I am not sure thus whole heartedly falls within T.E. So that is why I said, life can come out of evolution, though I am not an athiest so I do not think that these laws can come out of nowehere and be persistant. Reason and logic go against that.

Without a doubt, IMO, that falls within the very broad range of TE. If you believe there was very little to no interference from God, could you explain "specifically" your belief on how man is a special creation. If man evolved from whatever it is he evolved from, how is man any different than any other animal? You know, how can man have a spiritual nature if he is just another step along the evolutionary path?

jlay » Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:46 pm

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.

And there are plenty of critques of Meyer hypothesis, if you should talk about it, I suggest you give it some reading too. Juts google it up. If ID wants itself to be taken as science it has to get rid of the GOG.

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 I still maintain what I said, given the evidence for evolution, specially shared genes and DNA, you can not come out saying there is something wrong with evolution, ofcourse there are many things still to be discovered, the basics however are proveable. For the fact that we do not know how a shift towards vertebrate occured, given time we might. But even if we do not, that still does not negate the evolutionary theory at all. Unless you can come up with a viable mechnaism besides evolution, which I seriously doubt is there, I don't see how one can aviod the obvious.

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.

I am sorry, I have done nothing of that sort. The problem is ID wants to be taken as science, I think it isn't for reasons apparent. You have to get rid of the GOG to begin with. Even if I accept T.E, it is not a science theory, its a philosophical take on the whole things, same as ID.

And since I have seen no compelling theory for ID therefore I reject it, nothing different than you rejecting T.E.

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.

You're wrong. That is exactly what I wanted you to stop doing. You seem quite certain, that T.E requires science to be proven etc...on grounds that ID or OEC, YEC, would also fail because of the obvious GOG. So you can't accept theism in general and point a GOG in T.E, since I beleive at the core you do not beleive any different either. However as I said you can try theolgical arguments. Where am doing what you are saying I am doing?

I am only trying to stop you from attacking strawmen and demonizing T.E. I just showed you a flaw that goes both ways, for anyone. So indeed if someone beleive in ID, OEC, or YEC, and think that T.E should show evidence for God's interference, then they are hypocrites.

On evolutionary grounds, science, sure disccuss what you wish.

If you believe there was very little to no interference from God, could you explain "specifically" your belief on how man is a special creation. If man evolved from whatever it is he evolved from, how is man any different than any other animal? You know, how can man have a spiritual nature if he is just another step along the evolutionary path?

I think man's speciality comes from God's will, not anything inherent to man himself. God makes man special by choosing him, not that God chose man because man was special in some way. I won't say I have got it all down but I do think that man must be in God's plan all along, as the Bible says, it just took evolution time to get man there. If these laws are designed by God, they would show automation, some stability, probability and some pattern. God being omniscient knows the outcome already of his laws. So when he makes these laws, he knows one day, we may very well arise from these laws. At which time God chooses us and interacts with us.

The point is, man is not simply a potential choice out of randomness out in time. Man is not a surprise for God, how God he be? I for one thinks that to God, making these laws, meant numbers and potential creation. Every law has a potential outcome. The reason these laws operate mean they have a system which can be measured, they are automated and to God they must bring EXPECTED results. Ofourse in the case of God, being omniscient he just knows the outcome for certain. Therefore what he knows for certain happent to be the result. These laws may seem incomprehensible to us, but to God that will not be the case, he know what he made.

Second point I am not trying to exclude God, simply that evolution works on the laws of life, these laws are made by God and therefore would carry out his will. Just not in the handcrafted way we imagine the special creation of man to be. I just don't think that happened. We know now that our MCRA were two different individuals having 70000-100000 yrs apart. So I would not take the creation of Adam and eve literal.

Man's spirutal nature comes from God, nothing else.

neo-x wrote:And there are plenty of critiques of Meyer hypothesis, if you should talk about it, I suggest you give it some reading too. Juts Google it up. If ID wants itself to be taken as science it has to get rid of the GOG.

First you falsely assume I am not familiar with the critiques. I am. In fact Meyer has often directly addressed the critiques. The GOG is a big one he often addresses. BTW, directing someone to Google is not an answer. That is weaker than milk toast, as well as a faulty appeal to authority.

And I still maintain what I said, given the evidence for evolution, specially shared genes and DNA, you cannot come out saying there is something wrong with evolution, of course there are many things still to be discovered, the basics however are provable. For the fact that we do not know how a shift towards vertebrate occured, given time we might. But even if we do not, that still does not negate the evolutionary theory at all. Unless you can come up with a viable mechanism besides evolution, which I seriously doubt is there, I don't see how one can aviod the obvious.

Then why start off begging the question.
When you say "shared genes," you are both question begging and conflating.
When you say "given the evidence," you are equivocating
When you say, "there are many things still to be discovered," you are employing an obvious evolution of the gaps, which is hypocritical as well, considering your objections to GOG. In fact, I'm genuinely concerned that you mention this. It is apparent to me that you were either completely oblivious that you were invoking a Evolution of the Gaps fallacy here, or you simply have a double standard and flat don't care. If there is a 3rd option I'd be intrigued to hear. If either of the other two are true, then I wonder what is really going on here, and why.

Now, if you really think that this (multiple fallacies stacked on one another) is a good starting point, then we might as well .

I am sorry, I have done nothing of that sort. The problem is ID wants to be taken as science, I think it isn't for reasons apparent. You have to get rid of the GOG to begin with. Even if I accept T.E, it is not a science theory, it’s a philosophical take on the whole things, same as ID.

No, it's not the same. The basic premise of multi-competing hypothesis and the fact that we can examine how complexity (I would say function) occurs, given testable and observable examples, blows that claim out of the water. It's evident the problem is people like you, who wallow in fallacy and refuse to consider anything other than Darwinist starting points. It is absolutely hypocritical to hold ID to some constantly changing standard and ignore the multitude of fallacies that infest the foundations that support your worldview. The fact that you won't deal with it is all the more concerning.

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 also wanted to back up and address this.
I am all for having the same term and definitions, as I do not want to argue from ignorance or against a strawman. And I will admit, I am not 100% sure how you are using the term TE. I can only go by the definition I understand. It also seemed to me that you were taking on and off the TE hat when it suited. What I mean here is that TE in many cases seems to concede most if not all the claims of Darwinism.
If you are implementing TE as some sort of prime mover, then I'd be very interested in hearing a more detailed theory, and you can link me to any source.

neo-x wrote:

If you believe there was very little to no interference from God, could you explain "specifically" your belief on how man is a special creation. If man evolved from whatever it is he evolved from, how is man any different than any other animal? You know, how can man have a spiritual nature if he is just another step along the evolutionary path?

I think man's speciality comes from God's will, not anything inherent to man himself. God makes man special by choosing him, not that God chose man because man was special in some way. I won't say I have got it all down but I do think that man must be in God's plan all along, as the Bible says, it just took evolution time to get man there. If these laws are designed by God, they would show automation, some stability, probability and some pattern. God being omniscient knows the outcome already of his laws. So when he makes these laws, he knows one day, we may very well arise from these laws. At which time God chooses us and interacts with us.

The point is, man is not simply a potential choice out of randomness out in time. Man is not a surprise for God, how God he be? I for one thinks that to God, making these laws, meant numbers and potential creation. Every law has a potential outcome. The reason these laws operate mean they have a system which can be measured, they are automated and to God they must bring EXPECTED results. Ofourse in the case of God, being omniscient he just knows the outcome for certain. Therefore what he knows for certain happent to be the result. These laws may seem incomprehensible to us, but to God that will not be the case, he know what he made.

Second point I am not trying to exclude God, simply that evolution works on the laws of life, these laws are made by God and therefore would carry out his will. Just not in the handcrafted way we imagine the special creation of man to be. I just don't think that happened. We know now that our MCRA were two different individuals having 70000-100000 yrs apart. So I would not take the creation of Adam and eve literal.

Man's spirutal nature comes from God, nothing else.

Neo,

What makes humans different from all other animals? If the spiritual nature of man is what makes him different, when did man get the spiritual nature? Did it evolve into man? Did God pick some hominids and give them a spirit? You know, what's the mechanism by which man got a spiritual nature?

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

If you believe there was very little to no interference from God, could you explain "specifically" your belief on how man is a special creation. If man evolved from whatever it is he evolved from, how is man any different than any other animal? You know, how can man have a spiritual nature if he is just another step along the evolutionary path?

I think man's speciality comes from God's will, not anything inherent to man himself. God makes man special by choosing him, not that God chose man because man was special in some way. I won't say I have got it all down but I do think that man must be in God's plan all along, as the Bible says, it just took evolution time to get man there. If these laws are designed by God, they would show automation, some stability, probability and some pattern. God being omniscient knows the outcome already of his laws. So when he makes these laws, he knows one day, we may very well arise from these laws. At which time God chooses us and interacts with us.

The point is, man is not simply a potential choice out of randomness out in time. Man is not a surprise for God, how God he be? I for one thinks that to God, making these laws, meant numbers and potential creation. Every law has a potential outcome. The reason these laws operate mean they have a system which can be measured, they are automated and to God they must bring EXPECTED results. Ofourse in the case of God, being omniscient he just knows the outcome for certain. Therefore what he knows for certain happent to be the result. These laws may seem incomprehensible to us, but to God that will not be the case, he know what he made.

Second point I am not trying to exclude God, simply that evolution works on the laws of life, these laws are made by God and therefore would carry out his will. Just not in the handcrafted way we imagine the special creation of man to be. I just don't think that happened. We know now that our MCRA were two different individuals having 70000-100000 yrs apart. So I would not take the creation of Adam and eve literal.

Man's spirutal nature comes from God, nothing else.

Neo,

What makes humans different from all other animals? If the spiritual nature of man is what makes him different, when did man get the spiritual nature? Did it evolve into man? Did God pick some hominids and give them a spirit? You know, what's the mechanism by which man got a spiritual nature?

The question of WHEN can't be answered by TE, OR OEC or YEC.
There is no date that can be fixed that has no issues.
The question of why is one of Theology and not science.
The question of what it means to be in God's Image is theology and not science.
TE, like OEC and YEC is NOT a scientific position, it is a theological one.

The bible states that God made man in His image, it doesn't state ate what point of development of Man He did this, nor what date or era of earth He did this.
It states that :

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Now, we know that God is NOT male and female, even though it states that God created man in His Own image, even though the reading almost implies that, we know that is not to be the case, correct?
The likeness, the image of God in which man was created does NOT imply or mean a PHYSICAL image but an image in terms of relation.
As God is a relational being, so is Man and man was created as such, to be relational, to be loving ( other-centred love).
NOw, Genesis 2 goes into more detail of the creative process of mans creation:

7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Note no mention of spirit per say, only of man being made a living soul by the breath of God.
We can interpret that as the spirit of God ( His Breath) is what made Man a living soul.
The issue comes here:

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

In Genesis 1, creatures are made before Man, but her, God makes (some) creatures after Adam ( to keep him company in Eden) and tells Adam to name them.
When Adam understood that he needed MORE than that, God created Eve from Him ( note that is not how it goes in Genesis 1).

why the difference?
SOme state it is because we have two creation stories from two different writers ( the Yahwist and the Elohist perhaps).
IMO, they are right and wrong.
We have two stories because ONE is about the Creation of the Universe, Earth and the species of Man and the other about what happened in Eden with the first "special" Man and Woman.

What makes humans different from all other animals? If the spiritual nature of man is what makes him different, when did man get the spiritual nature? Did it evolve into man? Did God pick some hominids and give them a spirit? You know, what's the mechanism by which man got a spiritual nature?

PaulS wrote:
The question of WHEN can't be answered by TE, OR OEC or YEC.
There is no date that can be fixed that has no issues.

Paul, I didn't mean what date when I asked Neo when. I meant at what point in evolution did humans get a spiritual nature.

PaulS wrote:
The bible states that God made man in His image, it doesn't state at what point of development of Man He did this, nor what date or era of earth He did this.

I believe the text does say that when God created man, specially created man, man was a spiritual being. Since man was a special creation, not a being that ended up as a human by evolution from something else, this fits with scripture. My whole point in asking, is to find out what Neo thinks about man being a special creation, and when and what makes him special. Because as I see what you guys are saying(especially Neo), I can't see where this fits into scripture, and I'd like to understand.

7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Note no mention of spirit per say, only of man being made a living soul by the breath of God.
We can interpret that as the spirit of God ( His Breath) is what made Man a living soul.

Paul, part of being human is being a spiritual being. You can't separate the spiritual nature from man. So, when God made man, He made him as a physical, and spiritual being.

In Genesis 1, creatures are made before Man, but her, God makes (some) creatures after Adam ( to keep him company in Eden) and tells Adam to name them.
When Adam understood that he needed MORE than that, God created Eve from Him ( note that is not how it goes in Genesis 1).

No Paul, man was God's final creation. Specifically Eve. God brought the creatures He had already made, before Adam, so Adam could name them.

Neo, you do understand that ID is not necessarily incompatible with Evolution?

Since I know Craig is a favourite of many here, highly recommend video Craig vs. Ayala debating "Is Intelligent Design Viable?" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/cr ... university)

Since I know Craig is a favourite of many here, highly recommend video Craig vs. Ayala debating "Is Intelligent Design Viable?" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/cr ... university)

As soon as Craig starts his argument with "I'm going to focus on trying to disprove evolution" instead of actually giving a scientific argument for ID, he lost me. ID proponents love this tactic. They rarely talk about any kind of scientific model that ID presents in favor of bashing evolution and saying "therefore, ID is better." They present the shortcomings of evolutionary theory (in their eyes) as evidence/support for ID. This is a false dichotomy.

Ivellious wrote:

Since I know Craig is a favourite of many here, highly recommend video Craig vs. Ayala debating "Is Intelligent Design Viable?" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/cr ... university)

As soon as Craig starts his argument with "I'm going to focus on trying to disprove evolution" instead of actually giving a scientific argument for ID, he lost me. ID proponents love this tactic. They rarely talk about any kind of scientific model that ID presents in favor of bashing evolution and saying "therefore, ID is better." They present the shortcomings of evolutionary theory (in their eyes) as evidence/support for ID. This is a false dichotomy.

Hmm, it seems you were hearing something else to what I was hearing.

After Ayala does his opening talk, Craig gets up and begins by defining terms and what ID is. And then points out how ID would be viable within biology based on its definition through an example.

Craig doesn't try to disprove "evolution". Rather, Craig targets Darwinism as a mechanism -- natural selection operating on random variations to account for common ancestry -- because this is where he sees ID theorists and Ayala parting company.

In fact, Craig specifically states: "[Darwinism] makes it clear where ID theorists and Ayala part company. It is not on evolution, or even common ancestry, but on Darwinism."

neo-x wrote:I am sorry, I have done nothing of that sort. The problem is ID wants to be taken as science, I think it isn't for reasons apparent. You have to get rid of the GOG to begin with. Even if I accept T.E, it is not a science theory, its a philosophical take on the whole things, same as ID.

Sorry to pick on you Neo-x. I'm just highlighting a trend I'm seeing in this entire discussion that is blatently wrong. And you're bringing up GOG helps illustrate.

Many confuse Methodological Naturalism with the philosophical position of Ontological Naturalism (also often referred to as "Philosophical Naturalism" or "Metaphysical Naturalism").

The former simply follows a physical process that pursues uncovering knowledge about how our world works. Obviously a great methodology to use within the physical sciences.

The latter is a philosophical worldview, a belief, that all that exists is in fact bound to our universe or what is deemed "Natural" (to the exclusion of God, gods and even spirits). Thus, "truth" can only ever be something "natural".

Now, science is not carried out based on accepting ontological naturalism -- rather one just needs to accept that physical laws are stable and predictable to an extent that scientific methods can be carried out.

Many scientists are Theists and believe in God, including many respected early scientists like Copernicus, Newton and others. Within Theism it is also easy to understand why God would design the world to be stable and built upon predictability which the physical laws enforce. Unless God wished to keep us second guessing whether we'd disappear, be zapped into an frog, or have gravity reversed for God's entertainment at our expense, then it makes sense within Theism that a God who cares would design a stable and predictable world. More so than a stable set of physical laws somehow coming together by pure luck from ???... but anyway, that's my belief.

However, Ontological Naturalists must reject any "how" answers that contradict their faith. Thus, any explanation involving God or some "designer" that can't be explained in "natural" terms is off the table. It can't be true.

Methodological Naturalism on the other hand just works with what is at hand. It keeps doing experiences and the like that help us to understand either 1) how God designed things to work, or 2) how they unintelligently came to be. Science is philosophically neutral.

So, when someone asserts "God of the Gaps" based on faith in ones commitment to Christianity (Theism), there is equally a "No God of the Gaps" possibility that can be commited by Atheists (Ontological Naturalism).

BOTH, are outside of science. We must be careful to let methodological naturalism (physical sciences) uncover what they do, but it is up to our philosophies to make sense of the facts uncovered. A lot of Naturalists will jump the gun, to fill in the gaps with nice-sounding theories, and then those theories become accepted when infact methodological naturalism may not have yet proven them. Yet, because they're the only natural theories "on the table" they must be true. No!

It is here that Naturalists would commit a "No God of the Gaps" because they've now changed from doing science which works with methods and processes (Methodological Naturalism), to making a claim that only what is natural is true (Ontological Naturalism). This is an epistemological claim, and one that is philosophically derived from ones preferred view of reality.

Methodological Naturalism has limits. If God is true, and outside of what is "natural", then physical science will never discover God. Rather, intelligent human beings like us look at what gets uncovered and decide for ourselves. If we're Theists, we'll likely see that the "big bang" and "fine-tuning" arguments point to God. If we're pure Naturalists, we'll see nothing by coincidence and chance; our universe is one of many options that could have happened yet one had to happen. Both look at the same data collected through true science, but interpret it according to our own persuasion.