Evidence for God from Science

CSLewis -

I understand your position entirely - I'm no paleontologist and I don't play one on TV. So for the most part I have to take their conclusions on faith. They are the experts and they do this for a living. They publish their results in peer reviewed journals and their conclusions and science are judged by other experts in the field. As imperfect as the system is (and you pointed out one of the imperfections in the system in your last post), it is generally pretty good at keeping science on track. And of course it is an intrinsically human endeavor which means it is subject to all of the foibles associated with human behavior. That said, it is no different in these respects than any other field of science - they stay on track and faulty or in accurate conclusions reached for whatever reason are discovered. Science is a self correcting process. And like you, I have neither the time nor inclination to scrutinize every new fossil and judge its merits based on my own subject, lack-of-expertise-based opinion.

So, I guess I am saying that I do not know exactly how they judge when a new species is discovered in the fossil record - they can't subject it to the acid test under the biological species concept (are they capable of reproducing in the wild). Instead they use the morphological species concept - based on differences that exist they judge them to be different enough from other fossils and consider them different species that way.

Now, they can see changes within a lineage over time - they can and have tracked changes in whales from terrestrial mammals to entirely aquatic ones. They can see small, stepwise changes in fossil horses over time --- certainly enough to convince me that new species have formed, changed and sometimes disappeared over time. And in all likelihood, if you could obtain a horse ancestor that lived 20 million years ago and present it with the opportunity to mate with a modern horse, it would likely fail the BSC acid test.

Finally, I am curious what you think of observed instances of speciation? Admittedly this list usually describes modest changes in organisms that prevent them from reproducing with former populations (= microevolution). But it is speciation nonetheless.

Cheers
Al

cslewislover, excellent answers and I appreciate the attatched links.

robyn hill wrote:Zoegirl, . Unfortunately there are people that believe science is the answer to everything and if science can't prove it, it must not exist. Science isn't rock solid either and I agree that science is wonderful and I am a teacher also and love it very much. The problem is that when we teach these theories, or discuss them, some discredit creationism right away because it is not scientificly observable according to many in the scientific community. What a shame that we would be so closed minded.

Robyn, good point... I think we should also be aware that the scientific communities or the public scientific communities are in NO WAY going to admit that Darwinian evolution is unscientific or false. Keep in mind that many of these institutions rely heavily on MONEY or public funds to operate. No way would they ever admit that evolution was false... They would literally LOOSE money or shoot themselves in the foot.... In fact, when they make a supposed scientific claim for Darwinism, they actually get more money or more grants to continue their research...

robyn hill wrote:Thank you so much Gman, I just looked at Rich's article and it is awesome to say the least. I am very glad I came across this forum today. I look forward to more correspondance.

Robyn, to me, both Darwinian evolution (DE) nor the Intelligent Design (ID) approaches are completely scientifically valid.. Both approaches have a lot of research to do. Neither have all the answers so each one should probably have their own considerations.... It just so happens that DE is the only one that is funded by the public sector. Why? Because ID has been labeled as another form of creationism, a breech between Church and State, a religious wedge. Therefore it will probably never be taught nor considered in the public sectors.... In other words, DE has been spot-welded into societies science and philosophies whether you agree with it or not...

Thanks for all your insight and knowledge. This is a great forum. I do offer my students both the evolution theory and intelligent design theory amongst other theories, and let them decide for themselves. I haven't been fired so far and was even teacher of the year last year so I will continue to offer all sides as I feel that is the best job a teacher can do.

yay, another teacher! what grade?

6th grade for 6 years and 5th for the last 5. I love the little rascals and ,wow, do they have challenging questions! I am signing off for now as I have conferences for the next two nights and MASSIVE quantities of tests to grade, but look forward to talking soon.

robyn hill wrote:Thanks for all your insight and knowledge. This is a great forum. I do offer my students both the evolution theory and intelligent design theory amongst other theories, and let them decide for themselves. I haven't been fired so far and was even teacher of the year last year so I will continue to offer all sides as I feel that is the best job a teacher can do.

A wise decision... Offer them the positions and let them decide for themselves. Sounds democratic to me...

>>Sounds democratic to me...

True. Although I respectfully submit that neither teaching nor science are democratic endeavors (I say this as both a former scientist and current teacher)...

Gman -

>> Robyn, to me, both Darwinian evolution (DE) nor the Intelligent Design (ID) approaches are completely scientifically valid.. Both approaches have a lot of research to do.

I would agree that ID, being a relatively new field of inquiry (20 years or less) has a lot of research ahead of it. But the ToE has been around for over 150 years, and there are volumes of research in this field. Could you be a little more specific in what areas you think evolution needs? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just curious.

>> Neither have all the answers so each one should probably have their own considerations....

On this, I would agree.

>> It just so happens that DE is the only one that is funded by the public sector. Why? Because ID has been labeled as another form of creationism, a breech between Church and State, a religious wedge. Therefore it will probably never be taught nor considered in the public sectors.... In other words, DE has been spot-welded into societies science and philosophies whether you agree with it or not...

Well, there's a couple of issues you bring up here; first, will it be taught in public schools? You say no, and I tend to disagree - we have one teacher on this forum who admitted teaching it. I know many teachers in my district teach ID. I think this will continue even if cases are brought to the Supreme Court and ID - like YEC - is ruled a religious-based philosophy. Teachers with strong personal beliefs tend to teach what they want to teach. Now, whether public schools will promote the teaching of ID is another kettle of fish. I suspect in the coming years we will have school boards that will implement policies promoting its teaching on an ad hoc basis across the country, and I suspect that court cases will inevitably follow. And I would be surprised if the outcome of these cases is any different than the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling. ID, in its current form, is deeply rooted in Christianity, and teaching it would violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. It will be rather difficult for ID to parse itself from its roots, IMHO. And I suppose this would also preclude it from receiving tax dollars to pursue its research.

Now, ID is an area of active research at place like the Discovery Institute which is privately funded. But even if it wasn't ruled a religious idea and public money could fund it, I tend to think there wouldn't be a groundswell of interest. Scientists are sort of a tough crowd, and they tend to think the ToE is a valid, robust scientific theory and that ID hasn't produced on its promises (i.e. they haven't produced a demonstrably IC structure, as yet).

Finally, I wouldn't really argue that the ToE has been spot-welded in place - it sort of gained the status it enjoys in science on its own merits. That is, after 150 years of active research, there has not been a single published study that has discredited a major tenet of the theory of evolution. This sort of support is enjoyed be an elite group of ideas in science which is why the Wedge will have to be pretty big to be successful.

Cheers
Al

IT's always sad when an idea is not talked about. I feel that I actualyl more freedom in a Christian school (although I will admit that I have great respect for my administration who allows that freedom) to discuss the issues than many public school teachers

Al, I was the teacher that admitted I teach all theories. As long as there are teachers who welcome all theories instead of selling themselves out, students will have an opportunity to make there own choices. Hopefully teachers will tell both sides as it is supposed to be an objective field where we teach kids to think, not what to think. I sure hope teaching is democratic or I am wondering what all those extra district meetings are all about and I better go report it to the union!:) I don't think gman was stating that ed or sci was necessarily democrtic, rather that my personal choice to teach all sides was a democratic choice.

Robyn -

Al, I was the teacher that admitted I teach all theories, look above, it was yesterday.

I know - I wasn't so much interested in naming you directly as simply pointing out that teachers may teach ID, YEC or any host of ideas they want to. As a teacher, I know this to be true. I was not, however, sure if you taught in a public school or not. I know, for example, that zoegirl teaches at a private, religiously-affiliated school, and so teaching ID or YEC is likely less of an issue.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that you thought ID wouldn't be taught in public schools. Gman thought it likely wouldn't because it had been branded as another form of creationism (Creationism Light, perhaps?!), and it was this to which I was responding.

Sorry for any confusion I caused -
Al

OH! I totally get it! I just realized you were talking to gman, not me, I just wasn't looking at it right. I edited my response. No worries at all!

ARWallace wrote:>>Sounds democratic to me...

True. Although I respectfully submit that neither teaching nor science are democratic endeavors (I say this as both a former scientist and current teacher)...

It depends on your philosophy perhaps... 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 DE, DE probably wouldn't pass the test to be classified as science either.