Evidence for God from Science

Here you go Jbuza:

Refutations and Elaborations:

***Evolution is not science when it insulates itself from critique***

It does not insulate itself though. There are numerous evolution journals that continuously attack evolutionary mechanisms. Bashing other scientist's models is often how evolutionary biologists (and the like) make their living.

***information is what is used to pass on a message of atheism and evolution that is not Fact***

This is not my position and I made expressly clear that I disagree with ontological naturalism. Additionally I referenced the theistic assumptions many quality scientists have.

***True investigation processes, the correct application of reason in the hypothetical process that guides scientific discovery, avoiding fallacies in the use of logic... these are the things that need to be tought in public school textbooks***

I agree. Did I ever say otherwise? And when ID has been investigated using these methods I will be more than willing to listen.

*** your dismissal of alternative explanations is absurd.***

I don't dismiss alternative scientific explanations. ID has no explanatory power at the moment. It has not made any predictions, it has not withstood potential falsification. This new vein of research is a highly academic matter and is not suitable for public schools at the moment.

***a complete handling of the matter ought to include an attack of evolution, but it is so patentley absurd I am bored of attacking it***

Most Creationists and/or ID advocates that I know would never be so bold to call evolution patently absurd. However, if you do believe that, I would love to hear your personal assault on the theory.

***since the answers are not known telling only one theory and supressing independant thought supresses discovery***

At the public school level you aren't exploring the frontiers of an area. You are learning the basics that allow you to be a functioning member of society with the potential (if you wish) to pursue discoveries in post-secondary institutions. Above all, science is not about discovering absolute truths. All explanations in science are tentative. It is one of the best qualities of the epistemology.

***You attack me instead of my poisition, it is case in point isn't it. ***

I made one snide comment, but quickly moved to point out the logical fallacies in your approach. However, this is now rectified.

***This is my problem with science, they should be teaching all that is known. But with repsect to areas that continue to be pursued by scientific discovery they should infact teach any theory that gives students a fuller understanding of the area in question.***

I don't think it is pragmatic to teach "all that is known". Almost all areas of science are actively being researched at the moment. However, most of the basics in the major disciplines have withstood tests for 100's of years and it seems there is no utility in presenting obscure criticisms. However, if an alternative explanation gains general acceptance as a theory (i.e. a well-substantiated explanation) then by all means it should be accompanied in the science texts. ID has not reached that status.

Hi August:

My framework is quite structured in its evaluation of scripture. I really do make an earnest effort to avoid "picking and choosing".

The Bible would only be subservient to modern science if I thought the Bible was trying to address these issues. Since I don't use the Bible to distinguish physical mechanisms or properties of nature, it can't be qualified as a subservient doctrine.

I believe that you can accept the Bible to be inerrant in its spiritual aspects given that God inspired it. If you accept that presupposition, the concordance of physical events is moot. It becomes a non-issue.

It does not insulate itself though. There are numerous evolution journals that continuously attack evolutionary mechanisms. Bashing other scientist's models is often how evolutionary biologists (and the like) make their living.

But all these bashings start with the assumption that evolution is true...the bashing is over proposed mechanisms and theories that start with "evolution is true" as an axiom. And once someone attacks evolution itself, their are cries of "creationist" as well as rules defined that rule out anything but evolution...(like any explanation must be naturalistic).

It is true that many theories work from the presupposition that common descent is correct. This is hard to avoid.

It is additionally true that one premise within the current science paradigm is that the "universe is primarily orderly". This premise is in opposition with an intervening higher power that is not merely sustaining His creation.

Yet these points would be moot if an alternative explanation existed that covered the predictive data set of evolutionary theory. Many other theories have the same scientific assumptions as well. If this paradigm attribute seems wrong to you, it can't be attached to just one particular theory. There would have to be many guilty parties.

It is additionally true that one premise within the current science paradigm is that the "universe is primarily orderly". This premise is in opposition with an intervening higher power that is not merely sustaining His creation.

False, actually the very opposite. Christianity actually gives a foundation to this premise.

***a complete handling of the matter ought to include an attack of evolution, but it is so patiently absurd I am bored of attacking it***

Most Creationists and/or ID advocates that I know would never be so bold to call evolution patently absurd. However, if you do believe that, I would love to hear your personal assault on the theory.


First evolution continues to talk about all life coming from a common ancestor, but the evidence doesn't support this hypothesis. The fossil record doesn't show in between forms. The amount of genetic material in the numerous gene pools of the numerous species doesn't all point toward a common ancestor. We fail to see speciation like evolution suggests and we have a recorded history of losses of species. The hypothesis that mutations have caused speciation is not supported by the evidence and should be cast aside.

The importance that adaptation through natural selection plays in evolution is not seen in the natural world. The evidence indicates that species do not adapt very well to changes in environment. There is a great environmental movement by man that is trying to protect the habitat's of animal species. Why? Let them adapt. IF you cut all the eucalyptus the koalas will die. If you cut the northwestern old growth forests the spotted owl will die. Habitat change doesn't result in different species it results in extinct species. The fact that in recorded history species have been unable to adapt and have shown a steady history of extinction show that adaptation doesn't have the power that evolution hypothesizes it does.

Evolutionary origin's fail to address the unique abilities of man. The adaptive powers of logic and reason should be seen throughout the animals. Guilt, Good, and evil have no explanation from evolutionary perspective. Man appears to have an essence that is not explained by evolution. For thousands of years man has known existence is dualistic.

Evolution goes contrary to what is observed. WE observe extinction not speciation, and we observe fossils of complete types without in-between types. Creation is a better explanation. Evolution is absurd, it cites itself and has grown into this nebulous thing that is silly in its complexity.

Added that we see no consistent transitional forms of any species. How then can we really know for a fact that we evolved and animals? Seems more like a different species that died out long ago to me. So many evolutionists making these assumptions that they claim as fact when they don't even hold any. Even the evidence is scarce, if you can call that evidence for evolution. Besides, all this "scientific" BS on evolution, I find it very unconvincing and I am led to believe as what many scientists say, if you try to make it happen, it will. Absurd.

MichelleAnn,

MichelleAnn wrote:August:

Out of curiosity, may I ask if you take the Bible literally or figuratively (at least in part)?

If my memory serves me, there are many versions of the Bible. I realize they all have the same basic message; specific wording may vary from version to version. However, I do not think you could disagree that it is a literary work, penned and consolidated by many people (although I was under the impression that Guttenberg first printed it, so it could be argued that only one person put it together... but I am not sure of that fact, so please don't attack it). Now, the question I have is: Are we SUPPOSED to believe everything in its literal truth? This book was, indeed, written by humans, who are imperfect. Could any embellishment have occurred, while maintaining the utterly invaluable lesson within?

The question I am getting at, is IF instances in the Bible could be proven false, (i.e. it was written by PEOPLE and people are imperfect) would you logically evaluate at the data presented to you? How would your mind change if these facts were brought about by a theologian?

Of course, it depends what you mean by literal and figuratively. Not to overcomplicate it, I believe it all literally, but still in the context of the literary style. The Bible contains history, metaphor, symbolism, law etc, and it has to be read in that context.

As for the many "versions" of the Bible, no, there is just one version, with many translations. This is confirmed by many contemporary manuscripts from the same era, and by various fragments found that predate it.

As a Christian, I have no reason to believe that embellishment occurred. I would find it rather curious that if people wanted to embellish, why would they not have removed the uncomfortable details about the nature of God? While I agree that humans are imperfect, it is a fallacy to assume that imperfect people cannot produce perfect results, especially when guided by the Holy Spirit.

At this point I would regard myself as a theologian, not the class of a Berkhof or Geisler, but certainly on my way there, so your last point has some meaning to me. I am a little perturbed by your implied insult that to hold a literal belief in the Bible is illogical, and that following the pointing out of falsehoods in the Bible, we can get down to the business of logical thought. I have studied many theologians, and while there are differences in opinion, there are precious few who assert that there are falsehoods in the Bible. I would also like to understand how anything in the Bible can be PROVEN false, that opens up a whole other discussion, I guess.

***The fossil record doesn't show in between forms.***

Remember, the fossil record of intermediate forms (esp. any creature with bone) is a pre-requisite for evolutionary theory. There is no way to experimentally falsify a fossil as being transitional. Instead, they need to meet a reasonable standards test of intermediate characteristics that allow the development of a phylogenetic tree. This record is then used to make robust predictions, which give you the factual evidence for evolutionary theory. That these fossils do not exist is incorrect:

Cheirolepis, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, Pholidogaster, Pteroplax

This list are transitional fossils candidates for bony fishes to amphibians. They are fossilized in appropriate strata, are now extinct, and have a bundle of characteristics that fit both taxonomic areas.

***The amount of genetic material in the numerous gene pools of the numerous species doesn't all point toward a common ancestor***

Name a class or order level organism that based on the predictive model (phylogenetic) that did not fit a genetic trace sequence (cytochrome or otherwise). I've never seen one, and if one did exist, the major anti-evolution organizations would have made it public. That is their goal in life after all.

***We fail to see speciation like evolution suggests***

Speciation has been witnessed in the lab and in nature. Cichlid fishes, mole rats, fruit flys, maggot flys come to mind off the top of my head.

***The fact that in recorded history species have been unable to adapt and have shown a steady history of extinction show that adaptation doesn't have the power that evolution hypothesizes it does***

Many species have adapted to nature. Smaller organisms with shorter generational cycles (and many offspring) are far more suited to handle environmental change. Also, highly specific organisms that evolve to a niche but share a limited gene pool are destined to go extinct, as they cannot handle environmental changes. This does not preclude the initial adaptation to the niche. Evolution predicts mass extinction events to follow major changes in environment. There is a strong correlation between the yucatan peninsula meteor and mass extinctions of dinosaurs. What you address is a significant issue of mankind's impact on the environment. You are correct in that adaptation is not powerful enough to handle the mass-scale changes humans have inflicted on the environment in the industrial age. This is why we are seeing the high-level extinctions that were saved for catastrophic Gaia events of the past.

***Evolutionary origin's fail to address the unique abilities of man. The adaptive powers of logic and reason should be seen throughout the animals. Guilt, Good, and evil have no explanation from evolutionary perspective.***

Evolutionary theory deals with human development quite well. Social anthropologists spend their lives studying it and making predictions of human behaviour based on evolutionary principles. It is incorrect though that powers of logic and reason should be seen. There is no prime direction evolution travels in. There are no inevitable results due to the probabilistic nature of beneficial alleles being passed on. As for constructs of guilt, good, and evil, these ideas work well within the evolutionary paradigm.

Overall, your position on this topic does not address any of the evolutionary evidences out there. You may disagree with specific evidences, but to prima facie dismiss them without an argument against the accepted position is an untenable position.

Thinker:

***How then can we really know for a fact that we evolved and animals? Seems more like a different species that died out long ago to me. So many evolutionists making these assumptions that they claim as fact when they don't even hold any***

We can never directly, empirically observe our evolution from common hominids.

Evolution is a theory built out of indirect facts (or if you prefer, inferences to empirical facts). Many other scientific disciplines are constructed this way.

There is one hallmark of a quality scientific theory built out of indirect facts. And that quality is the ability to make unintuitive predictions (esp. those that violate general common sense).

When you are trying to explain properties of organisms, the ability to predict what you will find is the most valuable asset science can provide. To know how something will react before you actually examine it. In medicine, is particularly important to be able to have knowledge of the background of an organism to adequately lead research hypotheses. This is what evolution's value is. It guides psychology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, and brings illumination (if not researcH) to many other fields.

If evolution is to be challenged, it had best be replaced with a theory with similar robustness.

Whatever... Evolution has become so complex, because scientists like it that way, and they shape it THEIR way so it makes science seem flawless in the origins of humanity and other animals when in fact there are scientific flaws in evolution. It is just plain ridiculous. How do you know for a hardcore fact that we have CONSISTENT TRANSITIONAL forms for ANY species? Is there proof? Candidates are not proof. I strongly believe there are conspiracies with evolutionists. I believe they will hand pick bones they find and MAKE them fit into what they want so they can say "hah, there you go, proof for macroevolution!". Absurd. I have seen so many secular science magazines always talking about evolution claiming proof, when there is none. All you people that maintain these worldviews, in my opinion, makes you an atheist. I don't care how elaborate you are in talking about evolution, I don't buy it. All you guys say is cry out "there is no God!", wow, what a profound statement from a fool. Well, if there was no God, how does a universe come about? What starts the initial creation? Where does all the matter come from? Where does anything come from? It certainly can't come from nothing, dead end. So, the logical explanation is God which does create EVERYTHING from nothing, and people who look for an explanation of how God came about from nothing ARE fools themselves, and so they declare there never was a God and resort to science as their everything in life. Do you HONESTLY believe we will ever know EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE that has EVER existed in ALL of time? I really don't think so. I would like for some fool to explain how a universe would come about from nothing if there was no God, really think hard about it. I went through this roller coaster of believing and not believing in evolution, but I think I will stay in my position and say it didn't happen as to what we are told today, just because it is overcomplicated, has problems, and I just plainly don't buy into it. And if I don't buy into it, that's me, not anyone else. How much would it be a shock if all of what you knew to be true were indeed false? I am specifically talking about evolution. I challenge you to think about it despite that you already believe in it because that is what science pushes the most in people around the world. Scientists just want another reason to make this world another Godless nation. Well, I'm sorry, I don't care if America starts celebrating Darwin Day, it will expose what fools you all are. I have faith in God and it has grown to the amount where I don't doubt so much as I did when I first joined this forum under several username changes ago. I can't explain how I have come this way, but I know why, and that is because God cares and wants us to grow. I didn't do much of anything to make my faith stronger, it just did. Now, a small portion of it may be that I have done research on things I had questions about, but my faith has grown, I know there is a God, and I know the accounts of the Bible to be true because of the evidence and mainly the PROOF in the scripture. So deny all this all you want, keep holding onto your evolution theories and claim you are Christian, because you probably aren't. Why? Well because the Bible forbids making things your idol, and there are people that idolize science and exalts it above anything else, how foolish are they. So, because I know God exists, I know that He has been shutting doors in my life, if you can imagine a circular room all with doors side by side, and I am in the middle looking for that opportunity to go through that door and mess up, he shuts those doors that are insignificant. Science is one big one, as I am being led to believe this is all hocus pocus elaborate science hoaxs. So go on being that atheist you call yourself a Christian and idolize science. One of the many things that God has done for me was give me the opportunity to "tune" into the worldview of an atheist, and it isn't fun, it is void, empty, and not fulfilling unless you buy a lot of stuff, this has occurred a couple of times which God has done for me to see what the atheistic worldview is like and how bad it is. And no, I was on nothing that would do this thing to me. My dad is a well known doctor and he knows science of the brain and whatnot, and so I listen to him. Him being a Christian too as well as his brother and sister. One thing is that we have been getting secular medical journals in the mail that actually prove that prayer works, but they don't know why, it just does. As with everything we are and what is around us, why are we here if there is no God (which is logically impossible).

Matthew_O wrote:***The fossil record doesn't show in between forms.***

Remember, the fossil record of intermediate forms (esp. any creature with bone) is a pre-requisite for evolutionary theory. There is no way to experimentally falsify a fossil as being transitional. Instead, they need to meet a reasonable standards test of intermediate characteristics that allow the development of a phylogenetic tree. This record is then used to make robust predictions, which give you the factual evidence for evolutionary theory. That these fossils do not exist is incorrect:

Cheirolepis, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, Pholidogaster, Pteroplax

This list are transitional fossils candidates for bony fishes to amphibians. They are fossilized in appropriate strata, are now extinct, and have a bundle of characteristics that fit both taxonomic areas.

***The amount of genetic material in the numerous gene pools of the numerous species doesn't all point toward a common ancestor***

Name a class or order level organism that based on the predictive model (phylogenetic) that did not fit a genetic trace sequence (cytochrome or otherwise). I've never seen one, and if one did exist, the major anti-evolution organizations would have made it public. That is their goal in life after all.

***We fail to see speciation like evolution suggests***

Speciation has been witnessed in the lab and in nature. Cichlid fishes, mole rats, fruit flys, maggot flys come to mind off the top of my head.

***The fact that in recorded history species have been unable to adapt and have shown a steady history of extinction show that adaptation doesn't have the power that evolution hypothesizes it does***

Many species have adapted to nature. Smaller organisms with shorter generational cycles (and many offspring) are far more suited to handle environmental change. Also, highly specific organisms that evolve to a niche but share a limited gene pool are destined to go extinct, as they cannot handle environmental changes. This does not preclude the initial adaptation to the niche. Evolution predicts mass extinction events to follow major changes in environment. There is a strong correlation between the yucatan peninsula meteor and mass extinctions of dinosaurs. What you address is a significant issue of mankind's impact on the environment. You are correct in that adaptation is not powerful enough to handle the mass-scale changes humans have inflicted on the environment in the industrial age. This is why we are seeing the high-level extinctions that were saved for catastrophic Gaia events of the past.

***Evolutionary origin's fail to address the unique abilities of man. The adaptive powers of logic and reason should be seen throughout the animals. Guilt, Good, and evil have no explanation from evolutionary perspective.***

Evolutionary theory deals with human development quite well. Social anthropologists spend their lives studying it and making predictions of human behaviour based on evolutionary principles. It is incorrect though that powers of logic and reason should be seen. There is no prime direction evolution travels in. There are no inevitable results due to the probabilistic nature of beneficial alleles being passed on. As for constructs of guilt, good, and evil, these ideas work well within the evolutionary paradigm.

Overall, your position on this topic does not address any of the evolutionary evidences out there. You may disagree with specific evidences, but to prima facie dismiss them without an argument against the accepted position is an untenable position.

Wow, each of these require a thread on their own. I will comment on a few items, but there is much more to discuss.
1. Please show how arranging fossils in a lineage is a falsifiable hypothesis.
2. There are a few examples of phylogenetic incongruencies, such as the 188 different genes from 5 different light-harvesting bacteria (Jason Raymond, et. al., "Whole-Genome Analysis of Photosynthetic Prokaryotes," Science 298 (2002): 1616-1619). There is also a study done on bats (Emma C. Teeling, et. al., "Microbat Paraphyly and the Convergent Evolution of a Key Innovation in Old World Rhinolophoid Microbats," PNAS, 99 (2002) 1431-1436.), which show incongruencies in the development of echolocation. The reason that phylogenetic incongruency is not often discussed, is because it is not an on/off type issue, there are grades of incongruency. There is therefore no falsifiable position on incongruency, all grades of congruency are assumed to be sufficient by evolutionary biology. Therefore any argument challenging it is met with the answer that it does not prove anything. It is also my impression that it is not touted too widely as evidence for evolution, as it can also be construed to be evidence for design.
3. Speciation has been observed in the fruitfly experiments, but did not produce any new viable species, every new species produced by the experiments I read about died off within 3 generations. There is also the e-coli experiments which carried on for 20,000 generations and produced no speciation so far. I would also add that in my opinion the argument is not so much about speciation, as it is about observing the formation of new phyla through the evolutionary mechanisms. If that can be shown, then speciation would be more of a non-issue, I would think. As far as I could determine, there has been no new phyla for at least 500 million years, through 2 catastrophic events, and several severe climate changes.
4. I would like to see more resources of how human consciousness developed via an evolutionary mechanism.

Like I said, each of these topics probably deserve a thread of it's own, but let's go from here.

Matt Wrote:
Remember, the fossil record of intermediate forms (esp. any creature with bone) is a pre-requisite for evolutionary theory.
[T]he development of a phylogenetic tree. This record is then used to make robust predictions, which give you the factual evidence for evolutionary theory

So evolutionary theory proves itself, this is great.
__
Matt wrote:
Name a class or order level organism that based on the predictive model (phylogenetic) that did not fit a genetic trace sequence

Well lets start with the great blue whale, and see how the genetic material of single celled organisms carried efficient DNA to transform into that.
__
Matt wrote:
Speciation has been witnessed in the lab and in nature. Cichlid fishes, mole rats, fruit flys, maggot flys come to mind off the top of my head.

Yep. So? I guess your definition of speciation is pretty weak then.
__
Matt wrote:
What you address is a significant issue of mankind's impact on the environment. You are correct in that adaptation is not powerful enough to handle the mass-scale changes humans have inflicted on the environment in the industrial age. This is why we are seeing the high-level extinctions that were saved for catastrophic Gaia events of the past.

How can you argue man is a product of the environment and then complain about what he does? You talk out of this side of your mouth that the mass-scale change that humans cause is somehow not natural, while other causes are. In spite of the fact that you believe evolution, you know it is garbage.
__
Matt wrote:
Evolutionary theory deals with human development quite well. Social anthropologists spend their lives studying it and making predictions of human behaviour based on evolutionary principles. It is incorrect though that powers of logic and reason should be seen. There is no prime direction evolution travels in. There are no inevitable results due to the probabilistic nature of beneficial alleles being passed on. As for constructs of guilt, good, and evil, these ideas work well within the evolutionary paradigm.

So are you saying the most beneficial traits are not passed on? Evolution does a poor job of explaining the uniqueness of Man. IT is explained more easily by creation theory
__
Matt wrote:
Overall, your position on this topic does not address any of the evolutionary evidences out there. You may disagree with specific evidences, but to prima facie dismiss them without an argument against the accepted position is an untenable position.

What specific evidences that evolution has occurred are you talking about?
Overall, your position on this topic does not address any of the CREATION evidences out there. You may disagree with specific evidences, but to prima facie dismiss them without an argument against the accepted position is an untenable position.
__

I'm going to reserve the right to not respond to Thinker's post.

However, I will respond to Jbuza and August.

Jbuza first (simply because my e-journal access is down atm)

***So evolutionary theory proves itself, this is great.***

I did not say that. The predictions made through evolutionary models leave much room for falsification.

***Well lets start with the great blue whale, and see how the genetic material of single celled organisms carried efficient DNA to transform into that.***

Blue whales are an excellent example of the predictive value of evolutionary theory. Physical characteristics of blue whales (warm-blood, live births, vestigal leg bones) placed them in taxonomically as closer relatives to primates than to other sea animals. This was a very unintuitive prediction. However, cytochrome comparisons have given evidence to the closer lineage of primates to blue whales than other sea life.

***I guess your definition of speciation is pretty weak then.***

The most glaring evidential problem in history for evolution was the lack of witnessed speciation. It was a Creationist cornerstone for decades. This problem has completely disappeared, and now has to move up the taxonomic tree to the next unwitnessed stage.

Your next point does not address my line of argumentation.

***So are you saying the most beneficial traits are not passed on?***

Sort of. What I'm saying is that they are not necessarily passed on. There is nothing guaranteeing that an extremely beneficial mutation might still be lost due to the untimely and/or unlucky death of the sole genetic carrier.

***Evolution does a poor job of explaining the uniqueness of Man***

Human uniqueness is a product of increased brain size and speech. Evolution explains these developments very well.

***What specific evidences that evolution has occurred are you talking about?***

1.) Biogeography of marsupials and their cytochrome C comparisons.
2.) Psuedogene consistency in primates
3.) Endogenous retroviruses

Where is the scientific evidence for Creationism? Can you please detail any of it?

This is quite Interesting... Can't wait for your reponse to August.