Evidence for God from Science

August wrote:[Have you read any books on the history and philosophy of science? Are you a scientist?

That's actually an interesting topic. Who do you feel is more qualified to comment on what science is, a scientist or a philosopher of science ?

sandy_mcd wrote:

August wrote:[Have you read any books on the history and philosophy of science? Are you a scientist?

That's actually an interesting topic. Who do you feel is more qualified to comment on what science is, a scientist or a philosopher of science ?

That is the crux of the issue. Does the fact that one is a scientist empower one to decide what is properly science or not?

I see you also neglect to answer the questions...

August wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: And worse are arguments based on a misunderstanding of science.

Can you then share what science is?

In this particular quote I was referring to the quote immediately following which I feel is a misunderstanding of science. It involves the 2nd law of thermodynamics and has nothing to do with ID. Note: Not a misunderstanding of what science is, but a misunderstanding of what the 2nd law says, resulting in an erroneous conclusion.
I gave two options for how scientists should deal with problems: look for a natural solution or say God did it. By the time of the second post I realized that this wasn't quite what I meant and tried to give myself a little wiggle room by implying that "God did it" is only an acceptable response to a natural problem when all possible natural solutions have been exhausted. So if people misuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is unlikely that they are qualified to say there is no natural explanation. Does that make any sense ?
[Edited for clarity.]

August wrote:I see you also neglect to answer the questions...

I was trying to limit myself to one subtopic per post. And that may have been a good idea since I just picked up a new strategy from a skilled and knowledgable debater - answer a question by rephrasing it as another question.

August wrote:Does the fact that one is a scientist empower one to decide what is properly science or not

I would have to say that almost always I would trust a scientist in his area of expertise to have a better idea of what science is than a philosopher of science. Of course I have never understood the basics of philosophy, not even the common terms, so that undoubtedly has a bearing. Also, the comments of some philosophers about science being a white male construct which is independent of reality and the Sokal hoax don't do much for my opinion of philosophers in general.

August wrote:Have you read any books on the history and philosophy of science?

I've looked at some in the past and recently picked up but have not read:
1) Thomas S Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
2) Hume An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding
3) Curd & Cover Philosophy of Science (1379p ouch)
Any opinions on these ? (got them at a library book sale)

David Hume?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:David Hume?

Yep, I just copied the info as is off the spine, which also is why I had author first.

sandy_mcd wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:David Hume?

Yep, I just copied the info as is off the spine, which also is why I had author first.

Oh do quote him so I can laugh at him.

August wrote:Bgood, you did not answer the questions. While interesting, I'm not seeing that your opinions or examples provided anything to answer the questions.

Both you and Sandy have repeatedly said that ID is not science. Now is the time for you to show what science is, why you say that is what science is, and why ID is not science, and we will take it from there.

To put it simply, in order to propose an intelligent designer, there needs to be some evidence of the designer aside from the artifacts.

For example we have the blood clooting system. We can say that it evolved due to the support of evolution having occurred from many studies. But we can also say we don't know the exact mechanism which may have allowed this to happen.

But you are proposing that an unseen entity acted in an unknown way to influence the evolution of life on Earth for an unknown reason.

If accepted how can we determine how the blood clotting system came to be? And is there even a need? Are you certain that it is impossible for evolution to have lead to this system?

If it is seen as a short comming in evolution that it doesn't have all the answers it is because science works this way! Many of the answers will never be solved. We will never be 100% sure what killed the dinosaurs. We will never be 100% sure what happened in king Tut's family history. We will never know what the first life looked like or how exaclty it could have occured. We will never know how Stone Henge was really built.

We cannot reach a conclusion by eliminating competing ideas. We have to be able to eliminate ID. How does one do that if the Designer is unknown, unseen, undetectable except in the only form of life we know?

Saying that design is a result of intelligence is anthropomorphizing, and human arrogance. Everything we have at our disposal, all of our "designs" are a result of an iterative series of changes and improvements. Look around what was truly designed?

Humanity could never have "designed" the universe, an intelligence such as ours is sorely lacking and it is laughable to compare our intelligence to what may have created the universe. ID may indeed be the path to the truth, however science at this point requires much more empirical evidence. Thus ID is a philosophy, which one may embrace in the persuit of science.

Intellectually satisfying answers does not a science make. Science is rewarding because every discovery leads to even more questions, its an overwhelming neverending never resolving search which will last a thousand lifetimes.

For example we have the blood clooting system. We can say that it evolved due to the support of evolution having occurred from many studies. But we can also say we don't know the exact mechanism which may have allowed this to happen.

Non sequitor? And what studies show evolution have occured?

To put it simply, in order to propose an intelligent designer, there needs to be some evidence of the designer aside from the artifacts.

Really BGood? And who says this?

But you are proposing that an unseen entity acted in an unknown way to influence the evolution of life on Earth for an unknown reason.

You're proposing the same thing with evolution. Except there's just no reason, and your mechanism isn't sentient.

If accepted how can we determine how the blood clotting system came to be? And is there even a need? Are you certain that it is impossible for evolution to have lead to this system?

BGood, as I've said before, IR systems are in principal unevolvable. Unless it's "in omnipotent chane we trust" for you now?

If it is seen as a short comming in evolution that it doesn't have all the answers it is because science works this way! Many of the answers will never be solved. We will never be 100% sure what killed the dinosaurs. We will never be 100% sure what happened in king Tut's family history. We will never know what the first life looked like or how exaclty it could have occured. We will never know how Stone Henge was really built.

But we assume a naturalistic explanation until a negative has been proven? Even when they are inefficient?

Saying that design is a result of intelligence is anthropomorphizing, and human arrogance. Everything we have at our disposal, all of our "designs" are a result of an iterative series of changes and improvements. Look around what was truly designed?

Get over it Mr. non-sequitor. It's just uniformitarianism in action whiney tim.

Humanity could never have "designed" the universe, an intelligence such as ours is sorely lacking and it is laughable to compare our intelligence to what may have created the universe. ID may indeed be the path to the truth, however science at this point requires much more empirical evidence. Thus ID is a philosophy, which one may embrace in the persuit of science.

The requirements to be science that you arbitrarily demand would kick evolution out of science too you know.

Intellectually satisfying answers does not a science make. Science is rewarding because every discovery leads to even more questions, its an overwhelming neverending never resolving search which will last a thousand lifetimes.

How did Dawkin's put it? Darwin made it possible to be an intellectual atheist?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

For example we have the blood clooting system. We can say that it evolved due to the support of evolution having occurred from many studies. But we can also say we don't know the exact mechanism which may have allowed this to happen.

Non sequitor? And what studies show evolution have occured?

You're just a reacting jittering mess aren't you?
Here's a short paper on geography and its effect on a snail population.
http://apt.allenpress.com/aptonline/?re ... &page=0757

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

To put it simply, in order to propose an intelligent designer, there needs to be some evidence of the designer aside from the artifacts.

Really BGood? And who says this?

Ok, without ever seeing a beehive before can you say an insect made it?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

But you are proposing that an unseen entity acted in an unknown way to influence the evolution of life on Earth for an unknown reason.

You're proposing the same thing with evolution. Except there's just no reason, and your mechanism isn't sentient.

That's because we don't know yet, not because there is no reason. lol

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

If accepted how can we determine how the blood clotting system came to be? And is there even a need? Are you certain that it is impossible for evolution to have lead to this system?

BGood, as I've said before, IR systems are in principal unevolvable.

Thats a fine statement, how do you prove it?
How far are they in Mr. Unevolvable
And how much does principal Unevolvable get paid?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Unless it's "in omnipotent chane we trust" for you now?

That smacks of propoganda if I ever heard one.
Implications are beyond the intention of science which is to describe and understand. As I stated many time evolution does not rule out an intelligent designer, just because athiests interpret it to mean that everything is chance.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

If it is seen as a short comming in evolution that it doesn't have all the answers it is because science works this way! Many of the answers will never be solved. We will never be 100% sure what killed the dinosaurs. We will never be 100% sure what happened in king Tut's family history. We will never know what the first life looked like or how exaclty it could have occured. We will never know how Stone Henge was really built.

But we assume a naturalistic explanation until a negative has been proven? Even when they are inefficient?

Inefficient? Are you saying that we have to fill in all the blanks with a supernaturalistic explanation? That seems to be what you are saying.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Saying that design is a result of intelligence is anthropomorphizing, and human arrogance. Everything we have at our disposal, all of our "designs" are a result of an iterative series of changes and improvements. Look around what was truly designed?

Get over it Mr. non-sequitor. It's just uniformitarianism in action whiney tim.

Get over yourself. Have a bit of humility, humanity is not so intelligent.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Humanity could never have "designed" the universe, an intelligence such as ours is sorely lacking and it is laughable to compare our intelligence to what may have created the universe. ID may indeed be the path to the truth, however science at this point requires much more empirical evidence. Thus ID is a philosophy, which one may embrace in the persuit of science.

The requirements to be science that you arbitrarily demand would kick evolution out of science too you know.

Take any scientific paper and tell me how this is so? All they do is describe the hypothesis, detail the observations, and include a short conclusion regarding the original hypothesis. It's all empirical.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/93/15/7743.pdf

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Intellectually satisfying answers does not a science make. Science is rewarding because every discovery leads to even more questions, its an overwhelming neverending never resolving search which will last a thousand lifetimes.

How did Dawkin's put it? Darwin made it possible to be an intellectual atheist?

Again you confuse the philosophy of Dawkins with the science itself.

You're just a reacting jittering mess aren't you?
Here's a short paper on geography and its effect on a snail population.

And because of this, you are justified in believing that natural selection can do what no other force in the universe can-create complex systems in direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamcics.

Ok, without ever seeing a beehive before can you say an insect made it?

I wouldn't know it was an insect (unless, who knows, insects are in it), but yes I would believe it do be designed.

That's because we don't know yet, not because there is no reason. lol

So what reason is there to believe in evolution then? What evidence? Huh? Anything but naturalistic phiolosphy and metaphysical claims?

Thats a fine statement, how do you prove it?
How far are they in Mr. Unevolvable
And how much does principal Unevolvable get paid?

BGood...

That smacks of propoganda if I ever heard one. Confused
Implications are beyond the intention of science which is to describe and understand. As I stated many time evolution does not rule out an intelligent designer, just because athiests interpret it to mean that everything is chance.

YES IT DOES. Do you not get it? My goodness, August condensed into a VERY SMALL EXPLANATION-omnipotent chance! This is why you don't understand anything-you can't even get the jist of a two word explanation.

Inefficient? Are you saying that we have to fill in all the blanks with a supernaturalistic explanation? That seems to be what you are saying.

Yes BGood, ME AND MY MIGHTY IGNORANCE. Shut up you fool.

Get over yourself. Have a bit of humility, humanity is not so intelligent.

Do I have to rub your nose in your crap to get it? Hypocrite. You respond to PhDs in fields of science, you arrogant jerk, with nothing but your opinion. And you are an engineer!

Take any scientific paper and tell me how this is so? All they do is describe the hypothesis, detail the observations, and include a short conclusion regarding the original hypothesis. It's all empirical.

And they do that with ID too. Non sequitor, you ignored my statement COMPLETELY.

Again you confuse the philosophy of Dawkins with the science itself.

Dawkins confuses his philosophy with science as well, so get over it. So do you.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

You're just a reacting jittering mess aren't you?
Here's a short paper on geography and its effect on a snail population.

And because of this, you are justified in believing that natural selection can do what no other force in the universe can-create complex systems in direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamcics.

Now I know you don't know what you're talking about.

lol
The second law of thermodynamics does not say information cannot accumulate in the flow of energy towards entropy.
A good example is the acretion of dust into an orderly formation such as the solar system. All due to one simple force called gravity.

You have absolutely no grounds stating that information cannot increase as entropy increases. I suggest you continue your education.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Ok, without ever seeing a beehive before can you say an insect made it?

I wouldn't know it was an insect (unless, who knows, insects are in it), but yes I would believe it do be designed.

What about a tornado? What is design?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

That's because we don't know yet, not because there is no reason. lol

So what reason is there to believe in evolution then? What evidence? Huh? Anything but naturalistic phiolosphy and metaphysical claims?

It is not my concern that you don't beleive.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Thats a fine statement, how do you prove it?
How far are they in Mr. Unevolvable
And how much does principal Unevolvable get paid?

BGood...

That smacks of propoganda if I ever heard one. Confused
Implications are beyond the intention of science which is to describe and understand. As I stated many time evolution does not rule out an intelligent designer, just because athiests interpret it to mean that everything is chance.

YES IT DOES. Do you not get it? My goodness, August condensed into a VERY SMALL EXPLANATION-omnipotent chance! This is why you don't understand anything-you can't even get the jist of a two word explanation.

Sorry but just because you agree with him doesn't mean anything to me. I don't understand what that two word statement means. Evolution only proposes that life changes over time. No where does it state that there is no involvement of a supernatural power.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Inefficient? Are you saying that we have to fill in all the blanks with a supernaturalistic explanation? That seems to be what you are saying.

Yes BGood, ME AND MY MIGHTY IGNORANCE. Shut up you fool.

What is it that you are trying to say then?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Get over yourself. Have a bit of humility, humanity is not so intelligent.

Do I have to rub your nose in your [poop] to get it? Hypocrite. You respond to PhDs in fields of science, you arrogant jerk, with nothing but your opinion. And you are an engineer!

I'm not an engineer. lol
And I didn't respond to PhDs, I responded to you quoting a paper written by an individual who quoted other scientists out of context.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Take any scientific paper and tell me how this is so? All they do is describe the hypothesis, detail the observations, and include a short conclusion regarding the original hypothesis. It's all empirical.

And they do that with ID too. Non sequitor, you ignored my statement COMPLETELY.

You're statement was that by my criteria that science would not be considered science.
I wrote that science requires empirical evidence.
I replied to you explaining that scientific papers are filled with empirical evidence.

ID papers read like popular science magazines. Full of persuasive arguments and logical conjecture. Science papers don't read like this and most allow the reader to reach their own conclusions. Try reading one for once, please.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Again you confuse the philosophy of Dawkins with the science itself.

Dawkins confuses his philosophy with science as well, so get over it. So do you.

Aha!
So you acknowledge that there is a division.
Glad we agree.

Science is not the enemy here.
It is the interpretations some choose to make, which bother you.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:Bgood, you did not answer the questions. While interesting, I'm not seeing that your opinions or examples provided anything to answer the questions.

Both you and Sandy have repeatedly said that ID is not science. Now is the time for you to show what science is, why you say that is what science is, and why ID is not science, and we will take it from there.

Do you have a problem responding to straightforward questions? My original request was:

Can you then share what science is? If ID is not science, what is it? How are you qualified to assess whether something is a part of science or not? Have you read any books on the history and philosophy of science? Are you a scientist?

followed by:

Now is the time for you to show what science is, why you say that is what science is, and why ID is not science, and we will take it from there.

Nowhere here have you attempted to formulate an answer to what science is, why is that considered science, what your qualifications are to assess whether something is science etc.

Without any logical basis, you jump straight into:

To put it simply, in order to propose an intelligent designer, there needs to be some evidence of the designer aside from the artifacts.

I'm confused, are artifacts not considered evidence? Are fossils not artifacts? Does this mean that fossils are not admissable as evidence in science?

Also, consider what you are saying...you are saying there is no evidence of a designer, logically it follows that you are saying that there is no designer, and therefore no God. Are you an atheist?

For example we have the blood clooting system. We can say that it evolved due to the support of evolution having occurred from many studies. But we can also say we don't know the exact mechanism which may have allowed this to happen.

So you are making an a-priori assumption that evolution has occurred. This is precisely the point, you keep on saying that science does not do that, it follows the evidence, but here, even though you don't know the mechanism, you make an assumption that it has to be explained by evolution. Why is that?

But you are proposing that an unseen entity acted in an unknown way to influence the evolution of life on Earth for an unknown reason

No, I don't. You are again making assumptions, including the assertion that evolution is the primary mechanism, and needs only to be influenced.
Right from the start, my position has been very clear. the mechanism is God's word and will, created for His glory. Not unseen, not unknown, and not an unknown reason.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

But while we are on the topic, are you affirming the opposite? There is no designer, and all of life is down to random and purposeless processes?

If accepted how can we determine how the blood clotting system came to be? And is there even a need?

No, we need to know how it works. But if you see the need to know how things came to be, please explain how life came to be from your no-designer perspective.

Are you certain that it is impossible for evolution to have lead to this system?

Are you certain that evolution was responsible for this and all other systems? Yes, I am certain that evolution was not responsible for this or any other system. I'm sure looking forward to you proving me wrong. For my proof, see above.

Also, are you wanting to use science here to disprove that a designer did it? How can you do that if anything to do with a designer is not science, and it is merely a philosophical position? Can you disprove philopsophy with science then?

If it is seen as a short comming in evolution that it doesn't have all the answers it is because science works this way!

Again we are back to what science is and isn't. This statement has to be evaluated against the definition of science. Anyhow, if you are proposing that that is how science works, then why are you anti-ID? You keep saying that ID does not have the answers, but then evolution does not either, by your own admission here.

Many of the answers will never be solved. We will never be 100% sure what killed the dinosaurs. We will never be 100% sure what happened in king Tut's family history. We will never know what the first life looked like or how exaclty it could have occured. We will never know how Stone Henge was really built.

I doubt that we have solve answers. Maybe if we stick to solving questions we will get much further.

Ok fine, on what basis are you then asserting that ID is not science? And what does King Tuts family history have to do with science?

You claim enough knowledge about how life occurred to assert that it was not designed.

We cannot reach a conclusion by eliminating competing ideas. We have to be able to eliminate ID. How does one do that if the Designer is unknown, unseen, undetectable except in the only form of life we know?

Huh? First you say that we cannot reach a conclusion by eliminating competing ideas, and then you say we have to be able to eliminate ID? Now which is it, do we need to eliminate competing ideas or not?

And it is quite simple, ID can be eliminated by showing feasible biological pathways to complex systems that support the hypothesis of random and purposeless mechanisms. Note that this will not do away with theistic evolution though.

Saying that design is a result of intelligence is anthropomorphizing, and human arrogance.

Huh? Can you show designs that were not the result of intelligence? I also fail to see how that follows, seems like a non-sequitor unless you can prove it. And how is this different to saying that we humans decided that all life is due to the blind random processes of evolution? That must seem pretty arrogant to God...

Everything we have at our disposal, all of our "designs" are a result of an iterative series of changes and improvements

No it's not, that is why there are things called inventions. And what does this have to do with the argument? You are inconsistent too, above you said that design is not the result of intelligence, and here you say that there are changes and improvements which account for everything we have at our disposal. Did those changes and improvements just happen by themself, or was there some intelligence involved? How about them inventions, I guess some copper molecules just arranged themselves by accident to give us a telegraph, which two people just happened to pick up and send messages to each other.

Humanity could never have "designed" the universe, an intelligence such as ours is sorely lacking and it is laughable to compare our intelligence to what may have created the universe.

No, it was that unseen, unknown entity. Who on earth is comparing our intelligence to that of a creator? But I'm curious, why are you saying that the universe was created or designed? I thought there was no way to see that it was created, since we don't have any evidence.

ID may indeed be the path to the truth, however science at this point requires much more empirical evidence.

Like what, a little "Made by Jehova" label on every atom? Seriously though, the empirical evidence is being interpreted wih an a-priori assumption that it was due to evolution, like you did above. So even if those little labels were there, evolutionary theory would still ascribe it to chance.

But I'll play, what kind of empirical evidence will convince you that ID is true?

Thus ID is a philosophy, which one may embrace in the persuit of science.

I'm sure the folks over at the Departments of Forensics and Archeology will be thrilled to hear they are engaging in philosophy. Your conclusion here is a non-sequitor, by the way, what premises lead you to believe that ID is a philosphy and not a science, can you please define what science is? And let's grant your argument for a second, if ID is used in the pursuit of science, what will you call the science related to that philosophy? Do you then also agree that the philosophy of atheism has its science called evolution?

Intellectually satisfying answers does not a science make. Science is rewarding because every discovery leads to even more questions, its an overwhelming neverending never resolving search which will last a thousand lifetimes.

Is that your definition of science?

Please try to answer the pretty straightforward questions posed here and previously. If you can't or won't, just say so, and we will leave it at that.