Evidence for God from Science

DannyM wrote:Great! So if not Chance then all you need posit is your brand of Vodka...? Don't be shy, give it a try...

And you talk about me posting "nothing"?

DannyM wrote:If these processes were purely random then you and I wouldn't be here. Simple. Sorry.

This just shows that you fundamentally do not understand the science behind evolution and natural selection. Honestly, I do suggest you do a little research on the subject. There's a lot of documentation out there.

As I said before, you need to try to understand how natural selection does not imply chance. You're taking the random small steps that lead to natural selection and extrapolating this to imply that the end result is pure chance. It is not!

I highly recommend to you the book Climbing Mount Improbable, by the eminently logical Richard Dawkins.

Canuckster1127 wrote:... I don't base my belief upon such a God of Gaps...

I applaud you for that!

Canuckster1127 wrote:Arguing conclusively from a position of ignorance of how something works, inherently begs the question if and when a plausible explanation is identified.

Hear, hear!

Gman wrote:Second evolution, the way it is taught in schools, is clearly being taught as a chance process.

I've already explained why evolution ≠  chance. It's the bit about "sorting" in what you quoted that is the non-random element of natural selection.

Gman wrote:If you take away God from creation, as it is done in the public school systems, then all you are left with is chance.

This is the same "false assertion" (who is it that likes to say that? ), again.

ManOfScience wrote:And you talk about me posting "nothing"? .

Yes that's right...and you still posit NOTHING.

ManOfScience wrote:This just shows that you fundamentally do not understand the science behind evolution and natural selection. Honestly, I do suggest you do a little research on the subject. There's a lot of documentation out there..

Oh I'm reading a lot of documentation, Boy of science, and I understand completely what is going on... And all I see from you is obfuscation and body swerves, ducking and weaving, b ut you're in my sights, and I'm still waiting for you to posit something other than Chance...? The floor's yours, B.O.S...

ManOfScience wrote:As I said before, you need to try to understand how natural selection does not imply chance. You're taking the random small steps that lead to natural selection and extrapolating this to imply that the end result is pure chance. It is not! I highly recommend to you the book Climbing Mount Improbable, by the eminently logical Richard Dawkins.

Oh what a lovely segue…Yes, please, let's talk about this illogical book from one of the world's most illogical minds… Let us take this passage from pg 68:

Any designer capable of constructing the dazzling array of living things would have to be intelligent and complicated beyond all imagining. And complicated is just another word for improbable — and therefore demanding of explanation…Either your god is capable of designing worlds and doing all other godlike things, in which case he needs an explanation in his own right. Or he is not, in which case he cannot provide an explanation.

Now, where do you wish me to start in tearing down this whole paragraph? The above is simply anti-empirical rhetoric which may have, ahem, you, his naí¯ve reader fooled, but on any average examination we see through the bluster…

Let's start with Dawkins' claim about God being “complicated” and hence “improbable”; Dawkins has spent much of his career popularising science and demonstrating that the “dazzling array of living things” could have arisen quite simply, over long periods of time, through neo-Darwinian evolution. So why has Dawkins made such an about-turn all of a sudden? Is it really just to fit this non-point in, so conveniently, to the rhetoric of which he is indulging? Is Dawkins really abandoning earlier assertions, in a 360 move, just to support his own non-point? Well, yes. And do his readers not see through this master of transparent ill-logic? Well, sadly no they don't, because Dawkins is your little god; you HAVE to have faith in him, you NEED to have faith in him. And you wouldn't dare allow yourself to SEE THROUGH him. Now, in any case, the theologian would just respond, after he'd finished dismantling Dawkins' contradictions — and laughing his head off inside — that God created an environment in which incredibly complex entities could develop from quite simple beginnings by quite simple processes. And think about it: since when does “complicated” mean “improbable”? Since when is the latter preceded by the former? They are merely connected by a leap of faith, supported by nothing more than aggressive rhetoric rather than any rigorous, evidence-based arguments. And all the disciples fall for it, hook, line and sinker…Why, because you need this illogical fool.

Now, how does Dawkins quantify this probability? He doesn't. Nor does he offer a method for determining that probability in the first place. So it is purely and simply nothing more than a RANT by this weird fundamentalist you so adore… Oh, and improbable things happen. That is the point Dawkins makes in Climbing Mount Improbable after all, right? Improbabilities exist. I mean you never know, the improbability that Chance created you could b e an improbability that exists!

I really could go on, but it is obvious to any logical mind reading this that Dawkins' “analysis” lacks any conceptual clarity whatsoever and in fact is just an aggressive rant, big on rhetoric, low (nonexistent) on empiricism. Let us continue to analyse this book, Boy of science, and this time you fire away with whichever passage you wish…Bring it on!

DannyM (if I were as pathetic as you, I should probably call you FannyM, or something),

I see no point in continuing this "discussion" with you, as you seem incapable of responding intelligently, resorting instead to cheap insults ("Boy of Science") and other meaningless garbage. Besides, you seem to be repeating yourself, and your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

I am quite happy to continue the discussion with other, mature, respondents (ref. Canuckster1127, as an example of how to hold a civilized conversation).

ManOfScience wrote:I've already explained why evolution ≠  chance. It's the bit about "sorting" in what you quoted that is the non-random element of natural selection.

Read it again... Evolution by natural selection is a blend of chance AND "sorting". You stated earlier that is wasn't based on chance. This is simply incorrect...

“Genetic drift, gene flow, and even mutation can cause microevolution. But these are chance events, and only blind luck could result in their improving a population's fit to its environment. Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, is a blend of chance and "sorting": chance in the random collection of genetic variation packaged in gametes and combined in offspring and sorting in that some alleles are favored over others. Because of this sorting effect, only natural selection consistently leads to adaptive evolution-evolution that results in a better fit between organisms and their environment.” Biology : Concepts and connections — Ch. 13.12, pg 269, 2008

ManOfScience wrote:This is the same "false assertion" (who is it that likes to say that? ), again.

False assertion??? You take away God or any other type of intelligent creator and all you have is mindless chemicals creating nothing based on chance... That is your god pure and simple... Maybe you would believe Ernst Mayr.

“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer… Every aspect of the "wonderful design" so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection.” — Evolutionist Ernst Mayr (2000, 81)

ManOfScience wrote:DannyM (if I were as pathetic as you, I should probably call you FannyM, or something),

Watch the ad hominem's please.... Or you are out of here.

So here's some food for thought.

So everyone here is against chance (and I'm certainly for a Creator). And yet, how much of our thinking is based on this idea of probability and chance? We trust probability

We do multiple statistical analysis on coin tossing, card games, gambling and all on the basis that the natural world works in a predictable fashion. We understand the roll of dice, the flip of a card, to the point of risking money because we understand predictions and chance.

And yet even withing this idea of chance, we know that events happen based on all possibilities. 1/6 for the roll of a die. 1/ for the coin...etc...

The issue. then, is not whether chance is such an evil thing, for God has certainly created this world of order and predictability. The issue is whether the chance events can produce the variations needed for selection to work. We certainly see selection working within populations on the small scale. The issue becomes whether mutations and genetic drift are sufficient to provide the variety we require for selection to work.

Now if we can say that God works within His world and if we can attribute events that seem quite unlikely to Him (what are the chances of that!") then why can't we attribute chance in biological history to Him? As annoying as Ernest Mayr is, he certainly does not speak for a necessity of evolutionary philosophy. *He* may think it leads to rejecting God, but it certainly doesn't have to. Evolution may provide the fuel for them rejecting God but that is their perogative

From a philosophical and theological point of view, God could definitely work within a process whereby variations are made. The issue is whether this actually happened.


The ad hominem attacks are taking place from Danny M first, so yes, let's please avoid the personal attacks.

Gman wrote:Watch the ad hominem's please.... Or you are out of here.

Are you picking on me because I disagree with your beliefs? Read the thread again: it was DannyM who insulted me. Anyway, don't worry, there'll be no more from me.

ManOfScience wrote:

Gman wrote:Watch the ad hominem's please.... Or you are out of here.

Are you picking on me because I disagree with your beliefs? Read the thread again: it was DannyM who insulted me. Anyway, don't worry, there'll be no more from me.

When I see an attack I'll call it... Please stop playing the victim.

Again we have to look at it the way it is taught in the schools. It's is clearly without a god. It's not neutral science...Darwinian evolution is teaching that the world is run by impersonal forces. That we are here by the result of impersonal material forces that don't think about us. The history of the cosmos is something that all of us have a stake in. We all want the true answer. We don't want to be misled by scientific authorities who want us to believe that there is only one answer to that and who shape their evidence so that it can only support that answer.

Life must have arisen by purposeless chemical evolution because there is no alternative. And after all Darwin explained that once you get live jump stated, you can carry it up to complex plants and animals and human beings. And if anyone says that is not true, then they must be wrong because that is the only thing that could have happened. In other words this is a philosophical difference.

zoegirl wrote:So everyone here is against chance.

Thank you for actually recognizing that! I was starting to wonder if certain members here were able to comprehend that I don't believe in chance as our creator.

zoegirl wrote:The issue. then, is not whether chance is such an evil thing, for God has certainly created this world of order and predictability. The issue is whether the chance events can produce the variations needed for selection to work. We certainly see selection working within populations on the small scale. The issue becomes whether mutations and genetic drift are sufficient to provide the variety we require for selection to work.

Agreed, this is indeed exactly the issue.

zoegirl wrote:From a philosophical and theological point of view, God could definitely work within a process whereby variations are made. The issue is whether this actually happened.

I certainly can't refute that. If God existed, he could certainly have produced the diversity of life we see today via Darwinian evolution. The next arguments, presumably, turn to the origin of life (which indeed could have been a chance event!) and to the existence of God. The latter is much broader than the scope of this thread, but the former could be an interesting point of discussion. (Ah, and I see that Gman, whilst I was composing this response, has just brought up that very issue. )

Gman wrote:Life must have arisen by purposeless chemical evolution because there is no alternative. And after all Darwin explained that once you get live jump stated, you can carry it up to complex plants and animals and human beings.

You're almost right. But we need to separate two things:

1. Evolution
2. The origin of life

As already explained, evolution, whilst based around random genetic mutations, is directed via the process of natural selection.

The origin of life, on the other hand, could have come about by a chance event -- even if the event in question were highly improbable. Why? Because it's a one-off event. It may sound counter-intuitive, but improbable one-off events happen all the time.

Gman wrote:

ManOfScience wrote:

Gman wrote:Watch the ad hominem's please.... Or you are out of here.

Are you picking on me because I disagree with your beliefs? Read the thread again: it was DannyM who insulted me. Anyway, don't worry, there'll be no more from me.

Picking on you??? When I see an attack I'll call it... Please stop playing the victim.

dannyM wrote:("Boy of Science")

There has certainly been name calling

Gman wrote:Again we have to look at it the way it is taught in the schools. It's is clearly without a god. It's not neutral science...Darwinian evolution is teaching that the world is run by impersonal forces.

Ideally, it's teaching that science as a method of investigation can't answer that question. However, yes, I agree that in many classes the issues are confused.

Gman wrote:That we are here by the result of impersonal material forces that don't think about us. The history of the cosmos is something that all of us have a stake in. We all want the true answer. We don't want to be misled by scientific authorities who want us to believe that there is only one answer to that and who shape their evidence so that it can only support that answer.

Absolutely

Life must have arisen by purposeless chemical evolution because there is no alternative. And after all Darwin explained that once you get live jump stated, you can carry it up to complex plants and animals and human beings. And if anyone says that is not true, then they must be wrong because that is the only thing that could have happened. In other words this is a philosophical difference.

there are definitely issues about abiogenesis