Evidence for God from Science

Hello all.

The question at hand: Is ID a religion?

IMO, the question itself misses the central issue. Certainly ID is not a religion, but that does not preclude it from being inherently religious and/or non-scientific.

Does ID include the supernatural and religious tenets? Certainly; one need look no further than the Discovery Institute's own writings to demonstrate that (e.g. the Wedge Strategy). Additionally, the fact that ID advocates seek to argue against and remove references to science seeking "natural explanations" (e.g. their efforts in Kansas) speaks directly to ID invoking the supernatural.

As far as the micro vs macro discussion, it's not a question of the scale of evolution as much as it is a question of scope of observation. Evolution typically only proceeds on a "micro" scale. "Macro" only comes into play when we view evolution over larger time scales. The evolution itself hasn't changed; it's just our perspective that's changed.

Hi Gerald and welcome. I agree with everything you said. Good post!

DB

Gerald McGrew wrote: IMO, the question itself misses the central issue. Certainly ID is not a religion, but that does not preclude it from being inherently religious and/or non-scientific.

Just the same as calling macro-evolution unscientific as well...

David Blacklock wrote:Hi Gerald and welcome. I agree with everything you said. Good post!

Thanks DB!


______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gman,

Well, since ID invokes the supernatural and the supernatural is untestable by science, that certainly makes ID unscientific.

What pray tell makes macroevolution unscientific (and how are you defining "macroevolution")?

Gerald McGrew wrote:Gman, Well, since ID invokes the supernatural and the supernatural is untestable by science, that certainly makes ID unscientific.

The claim that ID isn't science by certain scientific standards isn't necessarily true. Complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum are not religious texts or objects. The flagellum is a biological machine that resembles an outboard motor. If someone were to examine the parts of an outboard motor they would conclude that it was intelligently designed.

Gerald McGrew wrote:What pray tell makes macroevolution unscientific (and how are you defining "macroevolution")?

What is your evidence for macroevolution?

Hi Gman,

>>What is your evidence for macroevolution?<<

Transitional fossils? Opposable thumbs? DNA relics of genes leaving a family tree?

>>Why ID isn't scientific?<<

After several weeks of listening to expert testimony under oath, a judge said it wasn't science - Judge Jones, Dover trial.

DB

Gman wrote:

Gerald McGrew wrote:Gman, Well, since ID invokes the supernatural and the supernatural is untestable by science, that certainly makes ID unscientific.

The claim that ID isn't science by certain scientific standards isn't necessarily true. Complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum are not religious texts or objects. The flagellum is a biological machine that resembles an outboard motor. If someone were to examine the parts of an outboard motor they would conclude that it was intelligently designed.

That doesn't answer the question at hand. Just because ID makes arguments about non-religious objects, that doesn't mean it's not unscientific. Again, ID invokes the supernatural and that places it outside of science.

Gman wrote:

Gerald McGrew wrote:What pray tell makes macroevolution unscientific (and how are you defining "macroevolution")?

What is your evidence for macroevolution?

You didn't answer the question. What makes macroevolution unscientific?

Finally, if you define "macroevolution" as the link does ("Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species"), then the evidence for it is that we've seen it happen.

Himantolophus wrote:Simply put: If God created naturalistic evolution, can it really be considered naturalism?

In strictly metaphysical terms you are not a naturalist. You just believe God used a natural means to create life. God is still in the picture as Creator. Whether you see it or not, you are probably more inline with ID sentiments and in particular what I have read of Michael Behe's beliefs (he does not reject ancestral evolution).

I am wondering when you have the time, if you could read through the "The Meanings of Evolution" paper, then let me know out of the various meanings of evolution presented within which ones you would agree or disagree with?

Gerald McGrew wrote:Does ID include the supernatural and religious tenets? Certainly; one need look no further than the Discovery Institute's own writings to demonstrate that (e.g. the Wedge Strategy). Additionally, the fact that ID advocates seek to argue against and remove references to science seeking "natural explanations" (e.g. their efforts in Kansas) speaks directly to ID invoking the supernatural.

Where are you getting this misinformation from? I have read the book The Wedge (which should be all about this strategy) and it does not say this at all. Rather it targets the philosophy of science embedded in today's cultural climate, which is rooted in metaphysical naturalism, as restricting free scientific inquiry. Please provide references to validate your claim.

Gerald McGrew wrote:Finally, if you define "macroevolution" as the link does ("Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species"), then the evidence for it is that we've seen it happen.

No you haven't.

David Blacklock wrote:Hi Gman,

>>What is your evidence for macroevolution?<<

Transitional fossils? Opposable thumbs? DNA relics of genes leaving a family tree?

Not according to evolutionist Stephen J. Gould. He wrote:

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'

David Blacklock wrote:>>Why ID isn't scientific?<<

After several weeks of listening to expert testimony under oath, a judge said it wasn't science - Judge Jones, Dover trial.

DB

Oh, so now we are calling judges scientists? Sorry...

Gerald McGrew wrote:That doesn't answer the question at hand. Just because ID makes arguments about non-religious objects, that doesn't mean it's not unscientific. Again, ID invokes the supernatural and that places it outside of science.

Again... ID does not seek to identify the designer. It is only concerned with finding any evidence of design whether it be supernatural or life coming from another planet or "seeding".

We can't totally prove that evolution happened or it didn't either. It's beyond the current capacity of science to draw a conclusion with any degree of certainty on either side. And if we performed the same rigorous tests that we could on ID with evolution, evolution probably wouldn't pass the test to be classified as science either.

Gerald McGrew wrote:You didn't answer the question. What makes macroevolution unscientific?

Look at the previous page... Where is your evidence for macroevoltion? How do explain the cambrian explosion?

Gerald McGrew wrote:Finally, if you define "macroevolution" as the link does ("Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species"), then the evidence for it is that we've seen it happen.

No one has ever witnessed a fish morphing into a human. If you have seen this occurring then where is your evidence?

Hi Gman,

If you'll look closely, you'll see that I never said Judge Jones was a scientist. And Stephen J. Gould was a staunch defender of evolution, including what you are calling macroevolution....and...evolution has stood up to vigorous scientific testing for 150 years - sometimes being refined, but never even coming close to being threatened as a theory - which, in science, pretty much means fact, subject to change upon receipt of further information. If your worldview didn't get in the way, I'm sure you'd see the light.

DB

David Blacklock wrote:Hi Gman,

If you'll look closely, you'll see that I never said Judge Jones was a scientist.

And if you look closely you would understand that judges probably know very little about science and probably more about the law. What judge would ever favor ID knowing the laws between the separation of church and state? Unless he wanted to lose his job perhaps....

David Blacklock wrote:And Stephen J. Gould was a staunch defender of evolution, including what you are calling macroevolution....and...evolution has stood up to vigorous scientific testing for 150 years - sometimes being refined, but never even coming close to being threatened as a theory - which, in science, pretty much means fact, subject to change upon receipt of further information.

That is why I quoted him...

David Blacklock wrote:If your worldview didn't get in the way, I'm sure you'd see the light.

DB

I believe I have seen the light.... and it starts with a "G" not an "e"....

>>judges probably know very little about science<<

Everybody in that courtroom got an impressive primer on science, including the judge - enough to convince him ID was basically a religious proposition and that it wasn't science.

DB