Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: What is irreducible complexity, it is not an observation. The observation is complexity the conclusion is that it is irreducible.

This "fact" that it is irreducible is separate from the observations. It is indeed not an observation in itself.

I think you misunderstood what IC means. Think of it as an observed type of complexity that contradicts the neo-darwinist mechanism. And irreducible does not mean that IC's are unevolvable, only unevolvable with darwins mechanism.

I can say that the sunset is beautiful.

Indeed the sun set. The "fact" that it is beautiful is not objective.

That is a non sequitor.

If I have some magnets layed out at each end of a table and placed some paper on top. Then I threw some iron shavings onto the paper and tapped it a few time th shavings line up with the magnetic field. It forms a pattern. Complexity from chaos. But what is driving this order, well of course its the magnetic fields.

hehe and the fact you had to throw iron shavings onto the paper and tap it had nothing to do with your results?

Anyhow,that doesn't answer my question.

I will repeat it for you..

If in the future "evolutionary mutations" are found to be non-random events and we are able to confirm it through successful predictions, would saying they aren't random be non-scientific?

roysr wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: What is irreducible complexity, it is not an observation. The observation is complexity the conclusion is that it is irreducible.

This "fact" that it is irreducible is separate from the observations. It is indeed not an observation in itself.

I think you misunderstood what IC means. Think of it as an observed type of complexity that contradicts the neo-darwinist mechanism. And irreducible does not mean that IC's are unevolvable, only unevolvable with darwins mechanism.

Let us say that when determining that something cannot be explained with current theories. There is a lost step in stating that something is designed, this presumes a designer. This explanation requires proof of a designer.

I can say that the sunset is beautiful.

Indeed the sun set. The "fact" that it is beautiful is not objective.

That is a non sequitor.

How?
Irreducible is not objective, just as beautiful is not objective.

roysr wrote:

If I have some magnets layed out at each end of a table and placed some paper on top. Then I threw some iron shavings onto the paper and tapped it a few time th shavings line up with the magnetic field. It forms a pattern. Complexity from chaos. But what is driving this order, well of course its the magnetic fields.

hehe and the fact you had to throw iron shavings onto the paper and tap it had nothing to do with your results?

Anyhow,that doesn't answer my question.

I will repeat it for you..

If in the future "evolutionary mutations" are found to be non-random events and we are able to confirm it through successful predictions, would saying they aren't random be non-scientific?

Yes. And this would put ID into the forefront of science. This is an excelent example of observation.

Let us say that when determining that something cannot be explained with current theories. There is a lost step in stating that something is designed, this presumes a designer. This explanation requires proof of a designer.
....

How?
Irreducible is not objective, just as beautiful is not objective.

1: ID proponents do not have a scientific theory atm, they are still working on it.

2: I am just going to agree to disagree with you on the points you raise because I don't think we are going to resolve them in this thread.

Yes. And this would put ID into the forefront of science. This is an excelent example of observation.

Finally, we have reached some common ground! That was the main point I was trying to make in this discussion.

Its so frustrating to me to deal with the secularists on the Sean Hannity website. No matter how much I show the differences they still think ID is creationism in disguise. Are secularists so blind that they are so unwilling for anyone to challenge their beloved theory of evolution? I wonder if anyone has some sites that can more thoroughly explain the differences between ID and Creationism If I understand ID it nowhere denies evolution as long as it has its limits. ID doesn't accept the notion that all life came from the same cell.

Here's one site direct from the mouths of mainstream ID proponents:

1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.

3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.

4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestio ... gentDesign

It is also worth noting many Creationists dislike ID as they see it doesn't go far enough. For example, things such as the following are said: "ID (intelligent design) proponents have chosen to stop short of actually mentioning the word: G_d. And they usually want to stay arms length away from those creationist types - "G_d forbid!" (http://www.creationism.org/topbar/designtheory.htm) Nevermind that Creationists don't mind using ID to try push their religious agenda in science classes, and in the process perhaps underpinning any credible science within ID. Don't get me wrong, I am for promoting God. However, Science isn't about God, Theology is. They would perhaps be better focusing on getting schools to take aboard philosophy and theology subjects, rather than injecting their theology into science.

Kurieuo

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

If in the future "evolutionary mutations" are found to be non-random events and we are able to confirm it through successful predictions, would saying they aren't random be non-scientific?

Yes. And this would put ID into the forefront of science. This is an excellent example of observation.

I haven't contributed much to this thread until I saw the above exchange as we've discussed it before.

Let me first state that, from purely a scientific view point, I do agree with the above half-statement. It is a half-statement because it neglects to consider the other side of the coin as follows:

Q: If in the future "evolutionary mutations" are found to be random events and we are able to confirm it by replication, would saying they are random be non-scientific?

A: Yes. And this would put neo-Darwinist evolution into the forefront of science. This is the other side of an excellent observation.

I.e. Neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory has in no way, shape or form shown itself to be random. It's pure speculation.
[/b]

I have a question for anyone to think about: Would it be appropriate to teach evolution in a religion class? I would think that evolution would not be welcome simply because it is out of place, i.e. it has nothing to do with religion... why discuss it there? That is precisely my view of intelligent design being taught in a science class... IT IS NOT SCIENCE. Would you teach astrology in an astronomy class? Should numerology be taught in math classes? Neither of these are religions, I realize, but I am equating it with the point that they do not belong in either of those situations. Intelligent design does not belong in science class, simply because it does not follow the scientific method: you cannot test intelligent design and come up with results to be discussed. I am not in, any way, saying that Intelligent Design is a bad thing. I believe it has its place, but that place is not in a science classroom.

Hi Michelle,

I'd recommend you read my previous posts, for I am becoming extremely tired seeing posters associating ID with religion as a matter of fact. It may be a tolerated within propaganda compaigns, but I won't have such misinformation continually portrayed here.

Thanks,
Kurieuo

It's really hard to call ID creationism in disguise, when Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, agnostics, new agers...but very few creationists...identify with Intelligent Design.

And you are ignorant. William Dembski has been designing a way to detect design. ....

Hi Kurieuo,

I would appreciate it if you would read my posting as well. I never said intelligent design was a religion. I said it is not science.

I would also appreciate it if everyone reading my previous post would not jump on the defensive immediately... although it is interesting that you do. I have never downplayed ID as a theory or downplayed it as something in which to believe. I firmly believe that it is important to have faith or religion or whatever is important to you. I just do not think that something that is unscientific, whatever it may be, should be taught in science classes. I would have the same argument (as I said before) if someone were arguing to teach astrology in an astronomy class. End of story, I am not out to offend anyone or your beliefs.

And I have no idea who William Dembski is, but all the power to him. I would be interested to see how he plans on doing this...

Plus, why do people feel the need to prove God exists? Shouldn't your faith be good enough? I thought the whole point was that you don't have to see to believe.

We, on the defensive? We're on the offensive. We are batting down your hackneyed and overused statements from the get go...some a little less diplomatically than others...take me for example...I've heard your statements so many times, ringing through the hollow skulls of so many fools, that's it is rather annoying. Get a clue. Please. And you keep calling it unscientific...how, give us your well thought out arguments. It's easy to make statements...but back it up, with some reasoning of any sort-if you think you can.

Plus, why do people feel the need to prove God exists? Shouldn't your faith be good enough? I thought the whole point was that you don't have to see to believe.

We are to find that which is true to believe in though. I don't want to believe in something that's false, which is what you seem to be saying I do. You seem to start with the premise that all non-atheistic religions are false (aka, not true), and all it takes is some good ol' home grown blind faith to swallow tons of ridiculous crap.

And Dembski is a philosopher, scientist, and mathemetician. And, from the little I know of him and have read of him, one of his filters is probability...if something becomes absurdly improbable (1 in 10 to the power of 150) of randomly coming about...it can be chalked up to design...BUT THAT IS ALL I CURRENTLY REMEMBER (as I know the next response..."it's all negative evidence") (and it's very conservative, because he gives the chance of life evolving and other wonderful stuff the ability to come into being and evolve from the Big Bang to the present...instead of the beginning point of 4.3 billion years ago I believe)(so 1 in 10^150 is VERY conservative)

(yes I'm cheesed)

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... .php?id=61

here's 33 pages, have fun.

I don't even know where to start with a response to such nonsense. But, I will go one by one through some statements, with which I am a little unclear of their origin.

AttentionKMartShoppers said:

"We're on the offensive. We are batting down your hackneyed and overused statements from the get go...some a little less diplomatically than others...take me for example...I've heard your statements so many times, ringing through the hollow skulls of so many fools, that's it is rather annoying."

I am not exactly sure which statements you are referring to. If you are referring to my saying that intelligent design is not a science, that is true. I cannot see how you would say that it is. My career is based upon the scientific method and I don't see how intelligent design and testing this theory would fall into this category. But you asked for reasons to back this up, so I will. By the way, if you can explain to me how I.D. DOES, in fact, follow scientific theory, please inform me.

I hate to dumb things down, but I am not sure of everyone's scientific background. For an experiment to fall into the scientific method, there needs to be an observation, hypothesis, reproducible methods and reproducible results. This means that data have to be gathered that can be interpretted and reproduced over and over again, hopefully with the same results. Now, I would not be able to think of an experiment one could perform to reproducibly test for an intelligent designer. There is, currently, no scientific way to prove or even suggest that an intelligent being had anything to do with our existence here. Having a background in statistics, I could see there being extreme correlations that could suggest that many of life's processes are related, but any good statistician knows that you can never say with absolute certainty that a correlation is equivalent to causation. This leads back to the fact that you cannot prove there was an intelligent designer.

Now, that being said, I am not saying an intelligent being had nothing to do with our existence. Just because something can't be proven, doesn't mean it didn't happen or it isn't there.

AttentionKMartShoppers said:

"We are to find that which is true to believe in though. I don't want to believe in something that's false, which is what you seem to be saying I do. You seem to start with the premise that all non-atheistic religions are false (aka, not true), and all it takes is some good ol' home grown blind faith to swallow tons of ridiculous [poop]."

Where did I EVER say that what you believe in is false? I never said such a thing and for you to write such an antagonistic sentence leads me to believe that you are trying to pick a fight. I believe I specifically said that it is important for anyone to believe what they believe and that I.D. should not be downplayed as a theory. I stand by that. I also still stand by the fact that it should not be taught in schools. I don't think that is so hard to understand.

I would also like to know where I "started with the premise that all non-aethestic religions are false". I can't imagine where you even dreamed that up from anything I have written, but some people have great imaginations. I can't do anything about that. Also, you do not know me, so please do not presume that I am an aetheist. I happen to be a scientist and the two are not synonymous, no matter how much you would like to think to the contrary.

In response to your philsopher, mathematician... I think it is very poor logic and statistics to correlate something absurdly rare occurring with a designer. Another person could correlate it with the boogey man or proof that leprechauns and dragons exist. This logic just does not hold. Just because an occurrence is rare does not mean it was done by a designer. If one were to gather data and analyze it statistically, the only thing the person could say is that the event is rare. That's it.

When you are testing a hypothesis, you are looking to reject the null hypothesis. Yet, any good statistician, no matter how certain the results may look, will never say that you can reject the null. The only thing that can be inferred is the probability of rejecting the null at some confidence level. Because no matter how rare the event, there is ALWAYS a chance of the event occurring. Ask anyone who has won the lottery or been struck by lightning.

Oh, and the probability of life on Earth occurring is 1... that doesn't sound so absurdly unprobable to me.

Finally, may I still point out that my questions were never answered. Why does anyone feel the need to prove God exists? If any person is so sure of their faith, proof should be unnecessary.

I will again say, because it didn't seem to actually catch hold here last time, I am not out to offend anyone. This board was made for people to write their opinions, which I have done, just like everyone else. Questioning the known and unknown is very important... curious and adventurous people throughout history have gotten us to where we are today. Both science and faith should be revered as powerful tools with which to live life.

I hate to dumb things down, but I am not sure of everyone's scientific background. For an experiment to fall into the scientific method, there needs to be an observation, hypothesis, reproducible methods and reproducible results. This means that data have to be gathered that can be interpretted and reproduced over and over again, hopefully with the same results. Now, I would not be able to think of an experiment one could perform to reproducibly test for an intelligent designer. There is, currently, no scientific way to prove or even suggest that an intelligent being had anything to do with our existence here. Having a background in statistics, I could see there being extreme correlations that could suggest that many of life's processes are related, but any good statistician knows that you can never say with absolute certainty that a correlation is equivalent to causation. This leads back to the fact that you cannot prove there was an intelligent designer.

*Waves farewell to evolution*

Now that we agree on something...

First of all, you started with:

For an experiment to fall into the scientific method

...intelligent design is a theory, not an experiment.

I believe I specifically said that it is important for anyone to believe what they believe and that I.D. should not be downplayed as a theory. I stand by that. I also still stand by the fact that it should not be taught in schools.

Good, you agree with the main players in Intelligent Design-all they want right now is for the science of evolution to be taught in place of the religion.

Also, you do not know me, so please do not presume that I am an aetheist.

I never said you were an aetheist. Or an atheist for that matter.

There are people of many religions who have sucummed to modern thinking and think that no religion can be right (except atheism)

I happen to be a scientist and the two are not synonymous, no matter how much you would like to think to the contrary.

No I don't think to the contrary

In response to your philsopher, mathematician... I think it is very poor logic and statistics to correlate something absurdly rare occurring with a designer. Another person could correlate it with the boogey man or proof that leprechauns and dragons exist. This logic just does not hold. Just because an occurrence is rare does not mean it was done by a designer. If one were to gather data and analyze it statistically, the only thing the person could say is that the event is rare. That's it.

It's not that it's rare-it's non-existent. And, just like SETI, and Forensics, Intelligent Design is an extrapolation of current knowledge of how things work. IF you had read Dembski's article....I cite stuff because it's not like I hold the accumulated knowledge of mankind in my pants pocket.

I think it is very poor logic and statistics to correlate something absurdly rare occurring with a designer. Another person could correlate it with the boogey man or proof that leprechauns and dragons exist.

I think this very poor logic itself. A dragon is a living organism...so a living organism cannot be cited as t he designer behind...living organisms...same with a leprechaun. Nor can they be the cause behind the creation of the universe...for they must be contained in it, for they are also physical.

Oh, and the probability of life on Earth occurring is 1... that doesn't sound so absurdly unprobable to me.

Agreed. But naturalistically?

Finally, may I still point out that my questions were never answered. Why does anyone feel the need to prove God exists? If any person is so sure of their faith, proof should be unnecessary.

Great Commision.

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

AttentionKMartShoppers said:

Get a clue. Please. And you keep calling it unscientific...how, give us your well thought out arguments. It's easy to make statements...but back it up, with some reasoning of any sort-if you think you can.

So, my response was to show how intelligent design was not scientific. You then contradicted yourself by saying:

...intelligent design is a theory, not an experiment.

In order for something to be scientific, you have to be able to do an experiment and gather data. That was my whole point, to show that I.D. is not scientific, because you asked me to.

And my point with the dragon and leprechaun was that just because some event at ALL is rare doesn't mean you can statistically extrapolate anything beyond what you have found. I didn't mean that leprechauns invented the earth.

An example: Event A is exceedingly rare.... this must mean a leprechaun had something to do with it!

This is the same logic when equating something rare with an intelligent designer. You just can't do it, statistically.

Quote:
"Oh, and the probability of life on Earth occurring is 1... that doesn't sound so absurdly unprobable to me.

Agreed. But naturalistically? "

Yes, naturalistically. Naturalistically doesn't mean God didn't have a hand in there somewhere. Most of earth's processes (and some may argue all) are natural. (I say most because I have opinions about global warming, etc. which is a totally different and inappropriate topic). This says nothing about whether God had anything to do with it.

And you finally agree that faith alone should be enough for the faithful. That has been my point all along. Do you see the how unnecessary it was to get seemingly upset with me over my statements?

Also, it is possible to test the theory of evolution. Scientists have been in the Galapagos Islands for 40 years studying the evolution of the finches down there. And that is just one example.

So, my response was to show how intelligent design was not scientific. You then contradicted yourself by saying:
...intelligent design is a theory, not an experiment.

In order for something to be scientific, you have to be able to do an experiment and gather data. That was my whole point, to show that I.D. is not scientific, because you asked me to.

I haven't contradicted myself. And their have indeed been experiments. Doolittle, for example, cites an experiment with mice and removing certain blood clotting agents to refute Michael Behe. The ironic twist is that Doolittle didn't bother and read what happenned, and actually bolstered Behe's position-because it was shown that the blood clotting system is in fact irreducible. And, as irreducible complexity is the mark of intelligence...(just look at your computer...I dare you to disconnect your power supply, or pull out your processor, or remove your graphics card, or hard drive....)

And my point with the dragon and leprechaun was that just because some event at ALL is rare doesn't mean you can statistically extrapolate anything beyond what you have found. I didn't mean that leprechauns invented the earth.

Not rare, impossible. And it's not only negative evidence, there's positive evidence. But like most people I bother with...you ignored that part. specified complexity, irreducible complexity...marks of intelligence. A simple extrapolation of what we know.

An example: Event A is exceedingly rare.... this must mean a leprechaun had something to do with it!

If leprechauns are known to do event A, then, yes, you could point to them. But, as leprechauns don't exist outside of Scotland and possibly Ireland, it's highly unlikely that Event A in the US could be attributed to a leprechaun.

This is the same logic when equating something rare with an intelligent designer. You just can't do it, statistically.

As I've said, but you won't remember it either, so here it is again-it's not just that Event A is impossible-it's that it can be explained by intelligence-because we see intelligence doing the same kind of things today.

Yes, naturalistically. Naturalistically doesn't mean God didn't have a hand in there somewhere. Most of earth's processes (and some may argue all) are natural. (I say most because I have opinions about global warming, etc. which is a totally different and inappropriate topic). This says nothing about whether God had anything to do with it.

And this would explain why Stanley Miller and others adhere to some form or other of seeding from space by aliens. And this also explains why Richard Dawkins must explain the origin of life by begging the question. Really, if probability=1, then why do these people cook up stupid and self-contradicting stories to explain life's origin...

And you finally agree that faith alone should be enough for the faithful. That has been my point all along. Do you see the how unnecessary it was to get seemingly upset with me over my statements?

Faith is based on fact-if it's not, then you have blind faith.

And I'm not upset-I'm annoyed at the dribble that I've heard over, and over, and over....ad infinitum.

Also, it is possible to test the theory of evolution. Scientists have been in the Galapagos Islands for 40 years studying the evolution of the finches down there. And that is just one example.

That's a horrible example. That'll be microevolution.