Evidence for God from Science

Well, this is interesting. If I might ask, how do you feel about ID? I am pretty clear on where you stand with creationism - especially YEC. But it sounds like, from what I am reading, your views do not differ significantly in the strictest sense from a rank and file IDer. That is, ID in the broadest and most inclusive scientific sense maintains that most structures and biological diversity are the product of evolution, and that the Earth is very ancient. But they also believe that god(s) {or aliens} intervened in biological evolution at some points. You seem only to differ in the instances and areas in which divine intervention occurred. So I am not sure how your theistic evolutionist views are discordant with ID except in the details.

haha... well, to take a page from the "systematics" section of the discussion, I guess you could broadly classify me in the "Family of ID" but if you subdivide it further, I think I am a more "apomorphic IDer" or the "Genus Theistic Evolutionist"...
Yes, as of today I believe that God had a hand in a couple parts of our origins (origin of the Universe and possibly life) but not in anything else. If we find a good naturalistic hypothesis that explains it, that is fine. I think it makes theistic evolution "cleaner" if we found the mechanism of biogenesis. It eliminates the "God of Gaps" theory and allows for extraterrestiral life. If God created the Big Bang 12 billion years ago, doesn't that mean that God created the Universe and eventually life? Abstract, yes, but it keeps with the Bible.
The ID'ers out there now pushing ID attribute IC structures and the numerous appearances of distinct kinds to God actively involving himself with creation and even with evolution. They believe these things could not form naturally by a series of small steps over time. So, I consider myself distinct from that group of IDers. That ID is hard to disprove, but it is impossible to "test design" in the present.

And from the little I know about the physics involved, I'd still have to say that they have done some wrangling and contorting to get the numbers to wind up at 10k. But that is neither here nor there when it comes to the question of whether tests exist that could reveal the age of the Earth as very young. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Frank mentioned his own theory of physics in the "Old Universe/Young Earth" thread. I am in no position to argue theoretical physics but that is a good example of YEC's trying to fit the evidence to their belief system. If you interpret the redshift of light to go a certain way, and fossils as being made rapidly, and plate tectonics occurring rapidly at one time, then of course you can "make" YEC work. The big problem is all of this is theoretical, and often untestable, so it is not acceptable to the modern scientific world. Another problem is that it often goes contrary to what we see in the modern world so it is illogical to assume it happened differently in the past (especially when the YEC has no evidence to back him up). Finally, such events often require miraculous events, and magic is not considered science.

But here's the thing, Himan - there is a lot at stake for people who believe these statements to be true, and every time a new fossil, or a new dating method, or a new insight into biological evolution is discovered, it drives the wedge between science and their deeply held religious beliefs even deeper. This is not to say that science should stop because some of the answers it finds may not sit well with some people, only that I think the scientific community sometimes reacts harshly, rudely and unfairly to people when it comes to their religious beliefs

yes, but their faith must be tenuous at best if they think that if one story is fictional (or meant as a parable), then the whole Bible and so God must not be real. Not to mention the numerous Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. that accept evolution AND God. It seems like all the people with hurt feelings are the "Bible thumping" ultra-conservative Christians. Seems like an odd coincidence to me.
And when it is solely this small minority that is attacking science, you can tell why scientists get so miffed at these people trying to change science. That is also why most scientists ignore them.

Consider this: suppose you woke up some day and the scientific community suddenly rejected the placement of your taxa that you worked so hard to describe. You'd fight, and argue and likely cling to your views because they mean a lot to you. In the end, you might accept the new placement. Suppose further that science rejected evolution in favor of some new theory. It may take quite a while for your to abandon your belief in the old theory and accept the new one.

well, because things always change in science, I would not be surprised if my classification was disproved in the future. In fact I expect it to. Yes, I would be upset if someone synonymized my species with another and all my hard work went down the toilet. But that is progress and the nature of science. And with evolution, if they discover a non-Darwinian mechanism of evolution or even another model for change over time, I would accept it if it explained everything to my satisfaction.

But creationism in the YEC sense, had its "time in the sun" already. If the evidence for YEC was so overwhelming or obvious, we would have never seen the emergence of evolutionary theory. For that reason alone, I can't see science "revert" back to an ancient belief system. I don't think science has "back-tracked" at all in history.

Then imagine that someone told you that Biblical scripture that is your holy text upon which you establish your religious views and calibrate your moral compass was incorrect. Moreover, they say, they have scientific proof that the text is wrong, and they further say that you must have the intellect of a pre-schooler to believe such nonsense in light of such overwhelming scientific proof.

I don't believe that an old Earth and evolution takes anything from the Bible's meaning... the "moral compass" is unaffected. Those who believe the Bible is thrown into doubt because of evolution has to give some thought to their own beliefs. And yes, there are "meanies" out there who doubt the intelligence of YEC's, even if the creationists hadn't even gotten into the science (the majority of people don't care). I've only come across a handful of YEC's that were able to debate the subject well. Most just say, "it's in the Bible and I accept it literally" and walk away. I think it's more frustration than anything because YEC's mix the pot all up.

It's more about according a degree of respect to people whose core values are impacted by science.

what about the creationists who are actively trying to impact beliefs in science? It gets down to the question of who's attacking who's beliefs. I think the YEC's are attacking science (just look at the volume of creationist anti-evolution literature!). Why don't they respect evolutionary scientists?

I would hasten to add that the people who conduct the research that you feel is unscientific are, themselves, scientists. These are people who hold PhDs in the sciences and who have even published papers in peer reviewed journals. Have you seen this list? That so many scientists are active in an area you believe is not science - yet purport to be conducting scientific creation research should tell you something. These aren't Kent Hovind, Dr. Diploma Mill people - these are people with real degrees from accredited institutions. Why do you think these people can't understand that they aren't doing science?

well, they WERE scientists in many cases but the moment they abandoned the scientific method for a AiG "statement of faith" they ceased being scientists. They are many example of these individuals receiving PhD's from Christian colleges and institutions and even PhD's from fraudulent sources! And don't forget, that before their beliefs changed, they became "born-again". This last point is the main reason for the change in viewpoints, not the science.

Well, it is your final statement that is the one I think is the most important. If legions of taxonomists, working since Linnaeus can't definitely place taxa that have been described for hundreds of years (...and that there isn't a single working definition of a species!) should give you pause before criticizing a few creationists for their inability to define a kind. That's the only point I was making...or trying to make...

again, that is progress... When Linneaus first classified organisms, he had a fraction of the diversity to work with. He placed salmon and trout into "Salmo" and all muricine gastropods into "Murex". He did not finely differentiate the species and genera by minor characters. He mainly looked at major morphological and geographical data. So, as a result, his classifications were good for the time but have changed since then. We have detailed genetic, biogeographic, anatomical, and morphometric data that allows us to "fine tune" the classifications. So, if one of Linneaus' species has been moved multiple times from genus to genus, that just shows an accumulation of knowledge from his time to ours. I don't see how this is considered a "flaw" in taxonomy? The inabilty to define a kind is synonymous with not being able to place an organism in the correct family (even order or phylum!). This problem was rampant in Linneaus' time, but not in modern times.

Sounds pretty cool. I have a little formal training in biology myself, some of it in systematics. Don't know much about marine critters beyond a field course I took during my undergrad many moons ago. Oh, and I like fish. They're tasty.

I love to eat fish myself, although I am not about to try my namesake for dinner

frankbaginski wrote:The logic for this is: Once you find the codes then you check if the codes could have occured by accident. Once you determine that the codes could not have occurred by some random process then you are left with design. Design from men or design from God. A check of the data shows that names in this case had to be hand picked at the beginning of time for the codes to fall in place. Since man cannot accomplish this it is left to God.

That's part of the problem... The Bible code researchers refuse to first form a hypothesis for subsequent testing and then afterward determine how it all fits together. Until they do this, they cannot collectively rule out the chance probability...

michaelsheiser wrote:How "Scientific" is the Method By Which Hits are Detected?

Bible code researchers repeatedly refuse (as correct scientific method would require) to put forth which names and which spellings would constitute hits before checking the letter sequence. In other words, they refuse to first form a hypothesis for subsequent testing. The method of Bible code researchers is to look for meaningful words and phrases in an ELS sample, and afterward determine how such hits fit together. The results are therefore spectacularly un-miraculous. This is precisely one of the problems that led mathematicians almost universally to declare the original Witzum-Ripps experiment invalid (upon which Drosnin's book, The Bible Code, was based; see the Appendix).

To Illustrate, if you flip a coin 1,000 times and record the sequence, the odds that you would get that particular sequence are 10300 to 1 - but this is no miracle - someone was just flipping a coin and writing the results down. Hence the astronomical numbers thrown about as "science" by Bible code researchers mean little. However, if you had predicted beforehand that the 1,000 coin flips would result in that particular sequence, that would be far beyond chance, and miraculous. But this is exactly what Bible code researchers do not do. Bible code practitioners do not tell us beforehand what they expect to find — which names, which places, etc. They just start looking for letter combinations after they've told the computer to set up a search string. What is needed is the old scientific method:

(1) START WITH A HYPOTHESIS — the specific names and their exact spellings in a specific language or stage of the language (see my critique below), then . . .

(2) Eliminate the textual letter differences by choosing the most ancient, reliable text through textual criticism, then . . .

(3) Conduct your search / ELS sequencing.
To date, Bible code research has done NONE of these things. Bible code proponents need to start with a hypothesis and set up an experiment to weed out chance probability - he doesn't. There is too much wiggle room at every stage.

Source: http://www.michaelsheiser.com/biblecodepage1.htm

Canuckster1127 wrote:I highly doubt it. Again, it seems to me to be a matter of finding what you're looking for because you want to find it.

"Hidden" messages within passages is hardly new. It's been around in different forms of literature, including those outside the Bible (actually it's more common there, I believe) and it is part and parcel with things like Zoroastrianism, Astrology and Gnosticism, to name just three.

Another excellent point...

ELS in some forms is not a code but is torturing the data. The heptadic structure of the words is not a shuffling of letters looking for a match. This is a big subject and one that I enjoy. I may start a thread on this subject but it will take me a week or so to gather the data.

Being in your fun element finally offers arranged nights. Code allows. ELS (7)

ARWalace,

I was reading about plants and they said that two sets of data are injected into an unfertilized seed. One of these makes the embryo and the other one makes food for growth of the embryo. So the pollen has these two sets of data and another tube generator, when it gets stuck near the seed it grows a tube to inject the data into the seed. Does anyone know how the pollen gets the signal to make this tube? Is there a chemical trail to the seed?

frankbaginski wrote:ARWalace,

I was reading about plants and they said that two sets of data are injected into an unfertilized seed. One of these makes the embryo and the other one makes food for growth of the embryo. So the pollen has these two sets of data and another tube generator, when it gets stuck near the seed it grows a tube to inject the data into the seed. Does anyone know how the pollen gets the signal to make this tube? Is there a chemical trail to the seed?

Bit busy at the moment - good questions and I'll get back to you ASAP.

frankbaginski wrote:ARWalace,

I was reading about plants and they said that two sets of data are injected into an unfertilized seed. One of these makes the embryo and the other one makes food for growth of the embryo. So the pollen has these two sets of data and another tube generator, when it gets stuck near the seed it grows a tube to inject the data into the seed. Does anyone know how the pollen gets the signal to make this tube? Is there a chemical trail to the seed?

I wish I could answer that. I took an advanced botany class in College many years ago. I was a Business and Religion double major, it was my only general ed requirement remaining and that class was the only one that would fit into my schedule. So I took it with a bunch of science majors.

Hardest C I ever earned in my life.

I remember just enough so that I could lay sod if needed as long as someone yelled "Green Side, Up!" at me every now and then ....

Canuckster1127 ,

I know what you mean. When I came to bio lab I found a bio major and asked them if they wouldn't mind doing my lab also. They sliced up my frog and cat for me. They thought they got the best end of the deal. I just read the book before the final and aced the test. Only took a month or so for all of that to fall out my ears. I still remember most of what I was taught in math and physics. I spent 10 years in college. Engineering and business. After that I really started to learn things. The school of hard knocks. The good old days of working full time, full time student, and taking care of the baby. Just where did that energy come from?

frank,

here are several good sources.

http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/reprint/17/2/327.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollen_tube

http://www.umanitoba.ca/Biology/lab8/biolab8_5.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=mRxyS1 ... wfBsTW2B1w


I actually liked my plant physiology class in college, even though typically most regard it as less interesting than micro or animal phys.

My Mechanisms in Plant physiology grad class WAS interesting, although the 9 women in the class, I think, somewhat overwhemed the male professor....not the most dynamic teacher, but cool class.

zoegirl,

Thanks for the links. It looks like they are still looking for the mechanism for the guided growth. So I will just move along to something else.

Frank:

Well, it looks like ZG beat me to the punch. It's just as well - botany is well outside my area of expertise. But for what it is worth, here is what I remember of the cellular basis of plant reproduction. In the anthers of flowering plants, pollen is produced. The pre-pollen cells (can't remember their name right now) undergo meiosis to produce 4 haploid pollen cells. These pollens cells are transferred to another plant of the same species by whatever pollination method they use. Once the pollen grain comes into contact with another plant of the same species, the pollen grain undergoes mitosis. One of these cells will grow a pollen tube carrying the generative cell to the egg which it will then fertilize. It seems that landing on the right plant triggers the production of the tube cell, so there is likely some pretty specific biochemistry going on - that is, landing on the wrong plant, or on itself won't produce the tube cell (or will not form properly).

Beyond that we're taxing the limits of my knowledge. I looked around a little, and it seems that there are a number of enzymes and proteins involved in pollination and the growth of the pollen tube (not surprisingly). See here, hereand here.

Not much, but I hope it helps.

frank, I wouldn't say they don't know....they just don't know *all* the pieces.

check out http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/ ... 081503.php

I've provided a highlight.

Working with Arabidopsis, a popular model plant, Preuss and colleagues from her lab found that plants produce a carefully controlled gradient of gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA), a molecule best known for its role in the mammalian nervous system, to lure a pollen tube toward the egg cells. GABA acts like a light at the end of a tunnel, stimulating the initial growth of the pollen tube and shining ever brighter as the tube gets closer to its goal.

The researchers found that the key to regulating GABA levels is an enzyme they named POP2 that degrades GABA. Arabidopsis flowers produce high levels of GABA, then eliminate varying amounts of it from different structures, so that a small amount is present at the surface of the pistil, where it stimulates pollen tube growth. Higher concentrations are found closer to the eggs, leading the tubes toward the target.

The study grew out of the team's chance finding of abnormal pollen tubes on plants that were later found to lack POP2.

"We saw the pollen tubes just winding around and totally missing their targets on one particular mutant," said Preuss. Co-author Laura Brass, a former Ph.D. student in the Preuss lab, analyzed the mutant strain and pinpointed the gene that caused the defect, which the researchers named POP2. By comparing the sequence of the defective protein produced by POP2 to other known proteins, lead author Ravishankar Palanivelu, Ph.D., a post-doctoral fellow in Preuss's laboratory, concluded that it was an enzyme called an aminotransferase. It was not until the researchers found that the mutant plant contained a hundred-fold elevation in GABA, however, that they learned which molecule the enzyme degraded.

Further studies confirmed that the chemical normally concentrates near the egg-containing ovule. In contrast, in the mutant plants, GABA is diffused throughout the tissues. In these mutants, the pollen tubes are "just overwhelmed with signal," said Preuss. Instead of a light at the end of the tunnel it was "like staring at the sun."

pretty wild

wow, this thread died

wow, this thread died

Well, we sort of got off topic in a hurry. Look at where we wound up and then consider the original thread's theme and title.

Why not start a new one?

Things have slowed down. I know I took a break to read some Ted Decker books. Good reading. I also started to read some more about genetics. It takes a while to get past the new verbage.

Has anyone placed all of the components of DNA into a solution to see if DNA self forms? I thought there was a third molecule needed?