Evidence for God from Science

sandy_mcd wrote:Scientists will likely never be able to show how abiogenesis happened.

IF it happened...

sandy_mcd wrote:The spherical earth is accepted by most today. I doubt we will go back to the concept of a flat earth.

Of course we won't. We can observe a spherical Earth from outer space and orbit around it, so we know that it's round. There's no reason to doubt that fact. I brought up that example to illustrate the difference between an observable fact, and unobserved theories.

sandy_mcd wrote:Similarly, a recent Creation was widely accepted hundreds of years ago. Then people began noticing things which didn't fit in with this idea. So I think the possibility of science going back to recent Creation is no more likely than going back to a flat earth.

I never argued that it would, I'm an OEC. While the age of the Earth can't be considered an observable fact (on the extreme side, the universe could have been created 5 minutes ago, along with our memories of the past), the evidence points towards an old Earth, and if we presuppose certain conditions that enable a stable universe, I believe it's reasonable to consider the Earth and the universe old. But of course, nothing is 100% certain unless observed, and we can't re-observe the past.

I think the two main contesting theories are neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design, neither of which are specific to some religion. In fact Intelligent Design is becoming more popular, but a lot of scientists (though not all by far) are committed to evolution, so we'll have to wait for a new generation of scientists before anyone can notice the changes.

I don't think it is fair to say that scienc(e/tists) claims to be infallible.

I don't think it's fait to say either. That is why I didn't say it. I said under the banner or science. Science says nothing. Scientists do. Science is a process that I love.

Reactionary wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:Scientists will likely never be able to show how abiogenesis happened.

IF it happened...

sandy_mcd wrote:

React. Glad you got that. It is a good example of how logical fallacy permeates modern thinking. This statement begs the question in assuming abiogenesis is a fact.

Reactionary wrote: We can observe a spherical Earth from outer space and orbit around it, so we know that it's round. There's no reason to doubt that fact. I brought up that example to illustrate the difference between an observable fact, and unobserved theories.

I never argued that it would, I'm an OEC. While the age of the Earth can't be considered an observable fact (on the extreme side, the universe could have been created 5 minutes ago, along with our memories of the past), the evidence points towards an old Earth, and if we presuppose certain conditions that enable a stable universe, I believe it's reasonable to consider the Earth and the universe old. But of course, nothing is 100% certain unless observed, and we can't re-observe the past.

I brought up the flat earth idea to illustrate that once-accepted ideas rejected by science very seldom (catastrophism?) return. Biblical creation was the accepted model and it was overturned. So it is unlikely that ID will make any inroads in science. [There's not very much here: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640]

But even unobserved theories are much more powerful than observable facts. We can observe that the sun rises each morning. But planetary theory explains these observations very simply and can predict the time of the sun's rising as well as when it doesn't (eclipse, say). So I had least hold theories in much higher regard than isolated observations.

It also isn't definite that an observation is 100% certain and more reliable than reconstructing the past. Many studies have shown the often unreliable and contradictory nature of eyewitness accounts of crimes. In such cases, a properly conducted forensic examination of the past can be more credible.

jlay wrote: This statement begs the question in assuming abiogenesis is a fact.

It is as you state a reflection of a worldview; specifically one in which physical events can be explained by natural laws (note that this does not rule out the existence of God, only certain types of actions). But science has been pretty good so far at coming up with explanations. So why decide that some areas of research can't be examined scientifically? Presumably everyone here believes that the earth existed before life on it; that the two were not formed at the same time. So at some point life must have appeared. What makes this event one which requires a (periodic?) supernatural intervention and therefore is not amenable to natural investigation?