Evidence for God from Science

Himantolophus wrote:To the posters earlier: I wasn't saying Jones' decision was an "end-all", but I mean that ID has gone up against the school system many times and they haven't been able to shake the "creationist" affiliation. They will just keep complaining and going to court, I think until they get lucky somewhere

Himan wrote:People here also act like Darwinian evolution is set in stone in science.

Himan wrote:Evolutionary biology is still a young science.

Himan wrote:Science is still searching and testing the theory of Darwinian evolution.

Himan wrote:So before we "throw out" Darwinian evolution OR start to teach the myriad of creationist and ID theories, we should just do some more research on the evidence at hand and teach the best theory. Keep in mind that this could be 100 years in the future! lol

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

godslanguage wrote:

"Science is about skepticism"

By that standard ID movement is more then qualified to be legit Science since 50 percent is based on being skeptic of Darwinian evolution. I would say being skeptic is ID's foundation and anything else that stems from that root is a bonus.

I guess being a skeptic isn't that bad is it?

Being a detractor is not the same as skepticism.

"A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree"
- Dr. Leonard George

touché

You have not been following the core movement of ID have you? If you did, then you would know that all they wish to do is do more research on Darwinian evolution and introduce a fuller scientific discussion regarding it in the classrooms. Those like Eugene Scott and others are they ones who say that children are not intelligent enough to be able to sift their way through such discussions. I agree with Stein that they are afraid, very afraid, that their metaphysical assumptions will loose sway.

Himantolophus wrote:

You have not been following the core movement of ID have you? If you did, then you would know that all they wish to do is do more research on Darwinian evolution and introduce a fuller scientific discussion regarding it in the classrooms. Those like Eugene Scott and others are they ones who say that children are not intelligent enough to be able to sift their way through such discussions. I agree with Stein that they are afraid, very afraid, that their metaphysical assumptions will loose sway.

No, I haven't been following the "struggle" so I'll refrain from adding anything else. All I think is that the word "God" sends shivers through people who want to leave Church and State separate. Old Earth and evolution are strongly supported by evidence and I think most people equate "evolution" with "Darwinian evolution" nowadays.

Himan wrote:In favor of the ID's however, I think if the Darwinian evolutionists are so confident, why should they bother if other theories are discussed? We know alot on the history of the Earth both geologically and biologically, we just have to search for a mechanism of evolution that explains it all better. If God is part of it, who cares?

frankbaginski wrote:Kurieuo,

Wow, nice post.

I was reading Romans again and it says something about you are given a designed in need to seek God. Yes, you could ignore it. It also says that the universe calls out to you to seek God as well. Yes, you could ignore it. But it adds that if you turn from God and teach others the same then you will receive some judgements on earth. I think that taking God out of the classroom and placing Darwin there is doing just that. If you look at our society since the removal of the Bible you see the judgements listed in Roman's. Am I wrong?

Expelled

Last month, I was able to watch a screening of Ben Stein's upcoming movie, Expelled (http://www.getexpelled.com/). Stein was there at the presentation too, so I got to sit through a little Q&A with him. At the time, all viewers had to sign a confidentiality agreement that precluded us from writing reviews about the movie. That restriction was lifted yesterday, however, so today I bring you my review of Expelled.

For those who know absolutely nothing about the film, Expelled is Stein's look at Intelligent Design and the way that ID proponents are expelled from the "academy" via academic censorship. The basic goal of the film is to publicize the fact that there are professors who question Darwinistic dogma who are then censured for it, who cannot get tenure, who are fired from their jobs, etc. Therefore, on a broad issue, the film is designed simply to publicize the suppression of free-thought by Darwinists and not to provide an apologetic for ID as such.

Since I knew this was the motivation, I watched the film intentionally thinking of what Darwinists would say in response to it. Because of that, when I watched it I found the movie does have some weaknesses. The main drawback to it from the intellectual standpoint is that it relied on a heavy emotional link to Social Darwinism, especially manifest by Hitler's Darwinism; thus the "intellectual" Darwinist will most certainly respond: "It's nothing but emotive propaganda with no substance" (which isn't true, but the emotive aspect was emphasized enough that it did sometimes feel that way even to this ID proponent).

By the way, I should also point out that I don't think it's bad in and of itself for the movie to play on the Social Darwinistic evils that have come about; atheists harp on the Crusades enough that they deserve this. And frankly most people are unaware of the links between Eugenics and Darwinism and Planned Parenthood, which are also mentioned in the film along with Hitler and the Communists.

Throughout the film is the metaphor of the Berlin Wall, and Stein ends the film by paralleling Reagan's famous "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" speech. The attempt is to get people to know the wall exists so that others will be able to work at chipping it away. The rallying cry is: "We need academic freedom, and that includes the freedom to believe contra-Darwin about origins of life." I do believe the film captures this goal, and so it succeeds at what it attempts to do.

So to review it, it definitely would get a solid A in my book. And while the movie is only 97 minutes long in the form I saw, Stein told us the DVD is going to have tons more footage and extra features in it, including what will probably become one of the most famous Dawkins interviews, at least for the IDers.

In fact, that interview remains the most memorable portion of the film if, for no other reason, than the fact that I have read so much of Dawkins materials beforehand. Stein had Dawkins looking absolutely flummoxed. During Stein's interview, Dawkins stated that it was impossible that there is an Intelligent Designer. Stein asked him for a percentage on how sure he is of that idea. Dawkins refuses to give an exact number, then finally decided on 99%. Stein asked: "Couldn't it be 49% instead?" Dawkins responded with his typical: "No, the probability of a designer is nowhere near half" etc. Then, Stein pressed Dawkins on how the first cell was created, and in the end Dawkins actually acknowledged that he could accept the theory of panspermia (aliens did it). Everyone in the theater laughed, because after just saying it was impossible for intelligent design to have created life on Earth, Dawkins admits that aliens that were "more intellectually advanced than we are" (as close to a direct quote as I can recall from memory of something I saw only once) could have done it after all.

As a funny aside, one of the questions Stein was asked during our forum was: "Do you think you treated Dawkins fairly in the movie?" To which Stein responded (accurately, as those of you who have read Dawkins already know): "I think we treated him charitably. There were many hostile responses he gave that we edited out, where his response was basically, 'I'm Richard Dawkins and you don't know what you're talking about. I'm Richard Dawkins!'" It remains to be seen how much of the entire interview will be in the DVD version of the film.

Naturally, this film will not convince any Darwinist to look at ID...but then, no film could do that. It will hopefully be enough to pry open the door a bit for some so that others can come along with more detailed explanations in the future.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:During Stein's interview, Dawkins stated that it was impossible that there is an Intelligent Designer. Stein asked him for a percentage on how sure he is of that idea. Dawkins refuses to give an exact number, then finally decided on 99%. Stein asked: "Couldn't it be 49% instead?" Dawkins responded with his typical: "No, the probability of a designer is nowhere near half" etc. Then, Stein pressed Dawkins on how the first cell was created, and in the end Dawkins actually acknowledged that he could accept the theory of panspermia (aliens did it). Everyone in the theater laughed, because after just saying it was impossible for intelligent design to have created life on Earth, Dawkins admits that aliens that were "more intellectually advanced than we are" (as close to a direct quote as I can recall from memory of something I saw only once) could have done it after all..

David Blacklock wrote:Nowhere in scientific methodology is it appropriate to pronounce anything "irreducibly complex." A major motivation for scientists is curiosity. They just don't throw up their hands like that and say, "it can't be done." That ID seems to have hung their hat on IC seems to make it, In the words of our friend, The Cannuckster, "quack like a duck." The idea that God was and is responsible and that he intervened once or billions of times - is an entirely reasonable position. To find out evidence as to where and how he intervened, seems to me, like a legitimate scientific endeavor.

Evolutionists believe what they believe after having followed multiple trails of evidence for 150 years (or so), and new evidence every year continues to confirm the theory. Instead of following suit (trying to find out where and how God intervened), The Discovery Institute (despite their PR stance) appears to have put all their marbles into the bag of being against the strong scientific concensus regarding evolution. What should scientists think of an outlying group who aren't trying to find out how things work?

There is much more guesswork involving Inflation theory - the specific details of how the Big Bang unfolded - than there is in evolution. How come we don't hear much objection to that? Or to String theory? Unlike evolution, these are heavily speculative. Just wondering....

DB

Nowhere in scientific methodology is it appropriate to pronounce anything "irreducibly complex." A major motivation for scientists is curiosity. They just don't throw up their hands like that and say, "it can't be done." That ID seems to have hung their hat on IC seems to make it, In the words of our friend, The Cannuckster, "quack like a duck." The idea that God was and is responsible and that he intervened once or billions of times - is an entirely reasonable position. To find out evidence as to where and how he intervened, seems to me, like a legitimate scientific endeavor.

Evolutionists believe what they believe after having followed multiple trails of evidence for 150 years (or so), and new evidence every year continues to confirm the theory. Instead of following suit (trying to find out where and how God intervened), The Discovery Institute (despite their PR stance) appears to have put all their marbles into the bag of being against the strong scientific concensus regarding evolution. What should scientists think of an outlying group who aren't trying to find out how things work?

“Scientific 'consensus' is only resorted to when uncertainty exists.”

There is much more guesswork involving Inflation theory - the specific details of how the Big Bang unfolded - than there is in evolution. How come we don't hear much objection to that? Or to String theory? Unlike evolution, these are heavily speculative. Just wondering....