Evidence for God from Science

Because I think that God intervenes personally in people's lives...but doesn't intervene past ordination of physical processes.

Even though Scripture tells us that He does?

I disagree about the one Law. I think there is only one origin of the Law, but that this law has changed previously.

Please show where the moral law has changed.

Also look at this thread, maybe you can comment after reading that:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?t=855

Evidence: Fossil record, homology, vestigal limbs, biogeography, and genetics. Each of these items has been used as evidence for evolution (and offered in a manner which can either lend creedence or criticism of evolutionary theory).

I'm sorry...you have presented me with no evidence. I mean, you've given me evidence...but not for evolution...more for intelligent design.

I guess we can categorize the laws into types. Certainly conduct and dietary laws have changed. Moral laws do seem static; perhaps I should have been more specific with which I meant.

To re-iterate a concept I offered before, the physical interventions that God presents do not have modern concordance with what we see in nature. What I highlighted was that when these events occur in scripture they include an overarching concept (be it spiritual or moral) that has providence over the manifest event. Which allows the scripture to remain inerrant without having actually happened.

I realize and have sympathy that inerrantists despise this view. I can't help that other Christians will vehemently disagree with this potentially slippery slope.

KMart: I don't see how transitional hominid fossils give evidence for ID. I fully realize that you believe they have an alternative explanation. However, no matter what your views are, there can be no question that this is evidence for evolution (if appropriately evaluated). Just like I could never say that if a flagellum has 40 independent, necessary parts that it is not good evidence for ID.

Matthew_O wrote:BGood: ID is not trying to include the assumption of a designer. Secondly, many scientists make this assumption anyways in helping solidify their commitment to the epistemology.

Currently there are hypothetical models of how to test ID. It is possible considering there are numerous designed products around (and many products formed naturally).

However, at least for now, the tests are still just hypothetical. There is currently no ID test model that has any evidence to support it. That it gets as much attention as it does serves notice to the personal motivations of some of its benefactors.

Thank you Matthew—I think I can accept these remarks of yours. I do also understand your concern perhaps that Christians may use ID to their own ends, or even religions other than Christianity making use of ID, but just because ID can be a tool of the religious in no way makes it religious and unscientific. I wish more would understand that ID as a science makes no assumption as to who the designer is. Any such assumptions I would agree belong in philosophy or theology, or maybe in various models yet to be developed, but again, this does not negate the methodological and observational approach (i.e., the science) to be found within ID.

Kurieuo

Matthew_O wrote:Kurieuo: I agree with you on most points save one. I don't think full understanding of a principle is required before it can be taught. There are a lot of atomic level happenings that we are not sure of, but that doesn't stop us from teaching atomic chemistry. And there, we gloss over the numerous problems without even a flinch...they are never mentioned.

I too would agree, and think much of the methodologies ID offers and is developing could benefit sciences such as CSI and archeology, or even information theory within computer sciences. But I see that it would perhaps be unwise if not properly controlled and refined, to release it into the educational system.

For one, there really is no defined model. Therefore teachers could use it for their own agenda, and Creationists (Young Earthers) seem particularly delighted that ID seems to be piercing into the scientific community where they could not. The last thing I would want to see, is Young-Earth Creationism being taught as Intelligent Design. Therefore, I see it as really important ID becomes more developed and defined so that it can't be misused within science.

Kurieuo

Matthew_O wrote: However, when scientific cirriculum is being developed by public schools, it should provide the most current scientific information that is widely established in the academic community (of scientists). There is no objective criteria out there that would preclude evolution as being the only modern scientific explanation for human origins. And if you disagree with this statement, I would like to hear why you disagree. But before you do, let me provide a bit of additional information to clarify my position.

Part of this is false, which really makes the whole works false in its explanation of the subject.

one hundred percent of science was established before the human race became "enlightened", and a large portion of that was discovered by people who presuppose God exists and used that and their logic to discover KNOWN FACTS wbout the world around us. Science cannot establish that God doesn't exist, and science certianly cannot dictate what I can and others can hypothesize and what we can discover based upon this presupposition that is entirely identical in its philosophical origins, as the explanation you use to hypothesize, but that is philosophy and if you would like we can start a thread on that elsewhere.

Your position seems fascist, indoctrinating, and harmful to the children to me. Let me clarify that position by saying that in large part I say this because Science has become top heavy in that a certian quanitity of what you will find published in these books you speak of is in dispute. There has been a great deal of information discovered about the world and applied by man to great gain, but for Science to bastardize itself and become a pitiful child ignoring very strong evidence, i.e the world around us, the order of God's creation as he describes it in Genises being validated by science, the utterly unique abilities of Man that should appear in more species per evolution, these things make other explanations very important alternatives that should not be ignored. Evolution is not science when it insulates itself from critique, this makes it laughable and freightening.

You say keep it to science and I agree with that. You say use widely accepted information, information is what is used to pass on a message of atheism and evolution that is not Fact. If Science DOES NOT want to see any more wonderful geniuses come out of public schools, than supress independant thought, hide from the adult arena of ideas, and proclaim that your bastardized incantation of yourself has all the answers to questions that the greatest historical thinkers we know of answered differently. True investigation processes, the correct application of reason in the hypothetical process that guides scientific discovery, avoiding fallacies in the use of logic, and the answers the truths of math supply; these are the things that need to be tought in public school textbooks.

So get down of your high horse, and crawl up out of the slimey ooze and stop using thise old tactic that Science has all the answers, and realize that the unique and powerful tools that man poses explain things differently. Your attack of any postion being taught in science and your dismissal of alternative explanations is absurd. Your positoiin does not deserve the wonderful advancements that come from the hypotheses that have been inspired by man's contemplation of the world his God created. This sickens me with discust when science ignores how important God was in the lives of the men that discovered these things with an unscientific assumption that God cannot exist. Eisntein while I am not sure of his realationship with God believed and he said that he was trying to discover the mind of God. Which is interesting since the forces he theorized about seems to contain everything. Of course this information will not be included in your textbook that isn't going to make brilliant children.

The only safety that allows anyone to escape indoctrination at AMERICA's YOUTH CAMPS are true investigation processes, the correct application of reason in the hypothetical process that guides scientific discovery, avoiding fallacies in the use of logic, and the answers the truths of math supply; these things that are innate abilites in feresome creatures that God created. These and the Human qualities make most reasonable men seek answers to questions that are explained from creation theory and ignored by evolution.

I feel that scince this was an attack to discredit creation it seems that a complete handling of the matter ought to include an attack of evolution, but it is so patentley absurd I am bored of attacking it, since as can be clearly seen from your promotion of textbooks that preclude any attack, you will simply ignore the cirticism.

Kurieuo wrote:

Matthew_O wrote:Kurieuo: I agree with you on most points save one. I don't think full understanding of a principle is required before it can be taught. There are a lot of atomic level happenings that we are not sure of, but that doesn't stop us from teaching atomic chemistry. And there, we gloss over the numerous problems without even a flinch...they are never mentioned.

I too would agree, and think much of the methodologies ID offers and is developing could benefit sciences such as CSI and archeology, or even information theory within computer sciences. But I see that it would perhaps be unwise if not properly controlled and refined, to release it into the educational system.

For one, there really is no defined model. Therefore teachers could use it for their own agenda, and Creationists (Young Earthers) seem particularly delighted that ID seems to be piercing into the scientific community where they could not. The last thing I would want to see, is Young-Earth Creationism being taught as Intelligent Design. Therefore, I see it as really important ID becomes more developed and defined so that it can't be misused within science.

Kurieuo

I have to jump in here because it makes the point in my last ppost so well. I agree with both of you, I think. In these areas it is more important to give an overview of the diff. theories and teach the students how to proceed with investigation in these areas.

Light speed, atomic structure, origins of man, qualities of man; these things need further scientific investigation, and since the answers are not known telling only one theory and supressing independant thought supresses discovery.

Every textbook should be written to give the student on overview of the information and promote independant thought, and provide tools. Every science textbook should at least mention that creation by a God is a theory of origins, that Intelligent design has been theorized, and that evolution has been theorized. Any person that cares about smart children could do no other could they. Some of those children will not believe evolution to be true. But why does science have a desire tha every child be an atheist and belive evoltuion? The arena of ideas is were discovery is made.

Hmmm, perhaps the school you attended should have indoctrinated the concept of grammar (instead of leaving the option open to your own personal exploration).

All kidding aside:

1. Strawman
2. Red Herring
3. Ignoratio Elenchi (Missing the Point)
4. Ad Hominem
5. Ad Ignorantium

Shall i go on? You address nothing of what I say and instead go on a dogmatic rant. My only quote will suffice here:

'one hundred percent of science was established before the human race became "enlightened".'

Riveting.

Matthew_O wrote:Hmmm, perhaps the school you attended should have indoctrinated the concept of grammar (instead of leaving the option open to your own personal exploration).

All kidding aside:

1. Strawman
2. Red Herring
3. Ignoratio Elenchi (Missing the Point)
4. Ad Hominem
5. Ad Ignorantium

Shall i go on? You address nothing of what I say and instead go on a dogmatic rant. My only quote will suffice here:

'one hundred percent of science was established before the human race became "enlightened".'

Riveting.

You brilliant man you, shall we all bow before you clearly superior intellect.

You attack me instead of my poisition, it is case in point isn't it.

I guess than you find science to be this elastic thing that is shaped by man's discovery of it?

I feel like attacking you for having such an idiotic position, but scince you don't think science exists in total what are we trying to discover? A fariy tale like evolution I guess.

This was painful for you I guess, reread the post. The truth hurts I guess.

Hey Jbuza and MatthewO, please address the arguments only, and leave the person out of it. It has been civil up to now. If you disagree with someone, be specific about the points of disagreement, provide counterarguments and don't flame, you know better than to do that.

Kurieuo wrote:

Matthew_O wrote:Kurieuo: I agree with you on most points save one. I don't think full understanding of a principle is required before it can be taught. There are a lot of atomic level happenings that we are not sure of, but that doesn't stop us from teaching atomic chemistry. And there, we gloss over the numerous problems without even a flinch...they are never mentioned.

The last thing I would want to see, is Young-Earth Creationism being taught as Intelligent Design. Therefore, I see it as really important ID becomes more developed and defined so that it can't be misused within science.

Kurieuo

I can't gloss over either of these issues. I am against ID being tought as a fact as much as I am aginst evolution being tought as a fact. With both these issues origins science, and atomic chemistry students need to be given all the major thoeretical frameworks to give them the best understanding of atomic strcuture as it truly exists nad to give them the very best tools for how atomic structure and atomic chemistry could be investigated and new discoveries made. The same is true with origins science; well educated individuals are given an overview of the information and allowed to specialize in what interests them.

August wrote:Hey Jbuza and MatthewO, please address the arguments only, and leave the person out of it. It has been civil up to now. If you disagree with someone, be specific about the points of disagreement, provide counterarguments and don't flame, you know better than to do that.

I'm all for that. Evolution is a big target I don't need to resort to name calling. Sorry.

Matthew_O wrote:Hmmm, perhaps the school you attended should have indoctrinated the concept of grammar (instead of leaving the option open to your own personal exploration).

That would have been tragic if they did. The school provided me with an understanding of how grammer works. Never did they however tell me how I should express myself.

This is my problem with science, they should be teaching all that is known. But with repsect to areas that continue to be pursued by scientific discovery they should infact teach any theory that gives students a fuller understanding of the area in question. There is grand problem of being tought what to think instead of how to think.

Society has become a cookie cutter with schools acting more to train students to take tests for the SAT, rather than foster an environment wherin children are presented with lots of information and learn to become thinking adults.

People who right books often have uniqe and intersting ways of expression, people who make scientific discovery often think outside the box. Einstein believed he was investigating the mind of God.

Hi Matthew

Matthew_O wrote: To re-iterate a concept I offered before, the physical interventions that God presents do not have modern concordance with what we see in nature. What I highlighted was that when these events occur in scripture they include an overarching concept (be it spiritual or moral) that has providence over the manifest event. Which allows the scripture to remain inerrant without having actually happened.

I realize and have sympathy that inerrantists despise this view. I can't help that other Christians will vehemently disagree with this potentially slippery slope.

I guess what concerns me is that you seem to want to make God and Scripture subservient to science, in that if the results of the scientific method do not agree with Scripture, you would rather believe science and wave off Scripture with a "spiritual" explanation.

It also leaves us with the dilemma of what we believe to be true in Scripture then. How do we believe anything in the Bible to be true then, even the spiritual parts, if none of it actually happened?

August:

Out of curiosity, may I ask if you take the Bible literally or figuratively (at least in part)?

If my memory serves me, there are many versions of the Bible. I realize they all have the same basic message; specific wording may vary from version to version. However, I do not think you could disagree that it is a literary work, penned and consolidated by many people (although I was under the impression that Guttenberg first printed it, so it could be argued that only one person put it together... but I am not sure of that fact, so please don't attack it). Now, the question I have is: Are we SUPPOSED to believe everything in its literal truth? This book was, indeed, written by humans, who are imperfect. Could any embellishment have occurred, while maintaining the utterly invaluable lesson within?

I am assuming KMart is going to attack this one, go ahead I am used to it by now. But please do it with well-thought out and calm reponses, please.

The question I am getting at, is IF instances in the Bible could be proven false, (i.e. it was written by PEOPLE and people are imperfect) would you logically evaluate at the data presented to you? How would your mind change if these facts were brought about by a theologian?