Evidence for God from Science

Yehren wrote:You can ignore the evidence, but it remains. As I said, most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith.

You see it. You can check on it, if you choose.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opiinions, but no one is entitled to his own facts."

Find a way to accept it.

I am a bit hesitant in getting into this discussion as it is clear that emotions are a bit charged (of course that hasn't stopped me before and it won't now so here goes it).

Yehren, you seem to be saying that the opinion of the majority is the only one that counts. Using that same argument then we can say that 1940 Germans were justified in their actions (the majority supported Hitler, at least on the surface) or that the Russians were justified in invading Eastern Europe as the majority supported communism (again, at least they appeared to be).

To say that "ALL Catholics acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith" presupposes that somehow you've interviewed the majority of Catholics and know first-hand what they believe.

If your argument is stemming from the opinion that that is a doctrine of the RCC, it is not. The official RCC position is very clear (as you posted it above), which is that the RCC takes no official position with respect to evolution simply because it deems it irrelevant. That is hardly an official RCC doctrine 'completely harmonized with the faith'.

What it does is, it leaves room for Catholics to make what they want with respect to advancements in science without affecting religion in any way. The official doctrinal position is that evolution does not contradict religion in any way, not that it is completely harmonious with it. Two different things.

On the other hand (to Jbuza and August), is it not possible that God intended for things to evolve exactly as they seem to have evolved? This is not a very foreign concept. In fact it is the very foundation upon which this site was built. The idea that God and science can be harmonized, as after all, if we believe that God created the universe (and of course we do) then there could be nothing in science that could possibly contradict God.

Whatever the case might be, neither opinion is relevant to salvation, IMHO. And however the discussion proceeds, though, please let us keep it clean and respectful.


God bless,

Byblos.

Byblos wrote:On the other hand (to Jbuza and August), is it not possible that God intended for things to evolve exactly as they seem to have evolved? This is not a very foreign concept. In fact it is the very foundation upon which this site was built. The idea that God and science can be harmonized, as after all, if we believe that God created the universe (and of course we do) then there could be nothing in science that could possibly contradict God.

Whatever the case might be, neither opinion is relevant to salvation, IMHO. And however the discussion proceeds, though, please let us keep it clean and respectful.


God bless,

Byblos.

Hi Byblos,

Of course it is possible that things evolved exactly as God intended, in fact, that is similar to what I believe. That is not the point. The point is that the ToE states that it happens randomly, with no predetermined outcome. If God directed it, then the outcome is predetermined, and the process is not random. And do you think if God designed the process and directes it, and thereby determine the outcome, we should be able to detect it scientifically?

Would you agree with that?

The answer has metaphysical implications, for example on the origins of man, and whether God is deist or theist in nature.

gone

August wrote:

Byblos wrote:On the other hand (to Jbuza and August), is it not possible that God intended for things to evolve exactly as they seem to have evolved? This is not a very foreign concept. In fact it is the very foundation upon which this site was built. The idea that God and science can be harmonized, as after all, if we believe that God created the universe (and of course we do) then there could be nothing in science that could possibly contradict God.

Whatever the case might be, neither opinion is relevant to salvation, IMHO. And however the discussion proceeds, though, please let us keep it clean and respectful.


God bless,

Byblos.

Hi Byblos,

Of course it is possible that things evolved exactly as God intended, in fact, that is similar to what I believe. That is not the point. The point is that the ToE states that it happens randomly, with no predetermined outcome. If God directed it, then the outcome is predetermined, and the process is not random. And do you think if God designed the process and directes it, and thereby determine the outcome, we should be able to detect it scientifically?

Would you agree with that?

If you're asking do I agree that the process is not random then yes, I would totally agree with that. I'm not sure, however, how different that is from Yehren's position (his opinion with respect to natural selection not being random notwithstanding).

[quote="August"}The answer has metaphysical implications, for example on the origins of man, and whether God is deist or theist in nature.[/quote]

I would agree with this as well.

Jbuza wrote:I don't see how an account that differs from the one in Genesis can be considered compatible. IT says kind produces kind, not that kind will produce kinds. Yehren's claim is empty. I don't see how the majority of Christians (the ones God knows, not the ones that say they know God) can harmonize the naturalistic evolution espoused by science and the Creation events in Genesis. But some around here have a mgic wand with which they create facts.

This 'majority' thing is meaningless and you know where I come from. Whatever the process, there's no question that God is very much involved in His creation. It is not a wound clock that's running its course. I do agree as well with the kind produces kind. There simply is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

This 'majority' thing is meaningless and you know where I come from.

It only says what Christians say about evolution. Most of them agree that evolution is consistent with our faith.

You could argue that Christians have it wrong, of course. That's conceivable, but I don't think it's very likely.

You are quite right in saying that God remains involved with all of His creation.

August wrote: Of course it is possible that things evolved exactly as God intended, in fact, that is similar to what I believe. That is not the point. The point is that the ToE states that it happens randomly, with no predetermined outcome. If God directed it, then the outcome is predetermined, and the process is not random. And do you think if God designed the process and directes it, and thereby determine the outcome, we should be able to detect it scientifically?

No, can we determine scientifically that when I flip a coin and it lands on head that God intended it?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:And do you think if God designed the process and directes it, and thereby determine the outcome, we should be able to detect it scientifically?

No, can we determine scientifically that when I flip a coin and it lands on head that God intended it?

August, do you think that God is incapable of designing something without leaving evidence behind for us to find ? What would be the modern role of faith ?

NIV John 20:29 wrote:Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

sandy_mcd wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:And do you think if God designed the process and directes it, and thereby determine the outcome, we should be able to detect it scientifically?

No, can we determine scientifically that when I flip a coin and it lands on head that God intended it?

August, do you think that God is incapable of designing something without leaving evidence behind for us to find ? What would be the modern role of faith ?

NIV John 20:29 wrote:Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Yes, I'm sure that God is capable of anything, but that is not what the Bible tells us. In fact, it is very important that we recognize God's role in the creation, because that is the reason that men can be without excuse.

Romans 1:20-21 (NIV)
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

I understand what you are saying about the verse in John, that referred to those that have not seen Jesus, yet still believed that He walked the earth, and in His saving grace. We have very specific first-hand eyewitness accounts of His life and death so I assume that the matter taken by faith is God's saving grace, which I guess would be very hard to find evidence of, since it pertains to the soul, and not to creation.

I don't hink I have seen any Scripture that says we should have faith in God's creation in the same way. But why do you think, if the heavens and the earth cry out to the glory of God, there would be no evidence?

Psalm 19:1 (KJV)
To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

How do we then presume to make say that the creation is for His glory, yet it came about through a random process with no evidence that God did it? How does saying that God created it all, but sorry, we don't see any evidence that He did, give glory to God? I honestly cannot reconcile the two, and if you and Yehren and Bgood can, that is your prerogative.

August wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:August, do you think that God is incapable of designing something without leaving evidence behind for us to find ? What would be the modern role of faith ?

NIV John 20:29 wrote:Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

I understand what you are saying about the verse in John, that referred to those that have not seen Jesus, yet still believed that He walked the earth, and in His saving grace. We have very specific first-hand eyewitness accounts of His life and death so I assume that the matter taken by faith is God's saving grace, which I guess would be very hard to find evidence of, since it pertains to the soul, and not to creation.

I don't hink I have seen any Scripture that says we should have faith in God's creation in the same way. But why do you think, if the heavens and the earth cry out to the glory of God, there would be no evidence?
Psalm 19:1 (KJV)
To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
How do we then presume to make say that the creation is for His glory, yet it came about through a random process with no evidence that God did it? How does saying that God created it all, but sorry, we don't see any evidence that He did, give glory to God? I honestly cannot reconcile the two, and if you and Yehren and Bgood can, that is your prerogative.

It's all about perspective, a room from the inside is warm and cozy, from the outside it can be a mysterious and forboding doorway.

Or for another example, the governmental perspective, death tolls and other statistics are taken to keep track of government spending, people relegated to statistics for the purpose of governing.

From the perspective of the victims families we have a completely different picture.

So in conclusion.
From the analytical scientific perspective life is a complex machinery.
From the human perspective its a wonderous thing which fills one with awe and amazement.

From different perspectives the same thing can be taken in a completely different light. People like Yehren beleive that from the scientific perspective that the process is random, yet he knows deep inside that God meant for everything to unfold exactly as he wills.

Just as I flip a coin, does God will it's outcome?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:It's all about perspective, a room from the inside is warm and cozy, from the outside it can be a mysterious and forboding doorway.

Or for another example, the governmental perspective, death tolls and other statistics are taken to keep track of government spending, people relegated to statistics for the purpose of governing.

From the perspective of the victims families we have a completely different picture.

So in conclusion.
From the analytical scientific perspective life is a complex machinery.
From the human perspective its a wonderous thing which fills one with awe and amazement.

From different perspectives the same thing can be taken in a completely different light. People like Yehren beleive that from the scientific perspective that the process is random, yet he knows deep inside that God meant for everything to unfold exactly as he wills.

But that still does not resolve the issue for me. Are all we do not supposed to be the glory of God? Many scientists have no problem ascribing everything to God, yet still are good scientists. What does it benefit us to assert randomness over providence? Here I am stupid, so maybe you can explain to me how it helps if say in science that something is random. How does that contribute to the scientific outcome? Does it help in future inquiry?

Making it a moral issue, aka it depends on your perspective, implies that we should leave our Christianity at the door when we enter the lab. I don't believe that is what God intended for His servants.

Just as I flip a coin, does God will it's outcome?

Yes.

(Proverbs 16:33) The lot is cast into the lap;but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

Yehren, you seem to be saying that the opinion of the majority is the only one that counts.

No. I have pointed out that there are good and learned people on all sides of the question.

Using that same argument then we can say that 1940 Germans were justified in their actions (the majority supported Hitler, at least on the surface) or that the Russians were justified in invading Eastern Europe as the majority supported communism (again, at least they appeared to be).

No. I made no argument that the majority was right. I only pointed out what is the majority.

To say that "ALL Catholics acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith" presupposes that somehow you've interviewed the majority of Catholics and know first-hand what they believe.

Yes. But of course, I didn't say that. I merely noted that this is what Catholics say. There are 1.1 billion of them. Surely they don't all say it, just as many protestant evangelicals recognize that evolution is consistent with their faith.

If your argument is stemming from the opinion that that is a doctrine of the RCC, it is not. The official RCC position is very clear (as you posted it above), which is that the RCC takes no official position with respect to evolution simply because it deems it irrelevant. That is hardly an official RCC doctrine 'completely harmonized with the faith'.

No, that's wrong, too. The position of the Church is that evolution is consistent with Christian faith, but since it is a scientific theory, the Church does not have a doctrine on whether or not it is true. Two different things.

The official doctrinal position is that evolution does not contradict religion in any way, not that it is completely harmonious with it. Two different things.

I don't see a difference. Indeed the present Pope says it is virtually certain. You don't have to believe in evolution to be a good Catholic, you only need to understand that it is consistent with Christian faith.

Whatever the case might be, neither opinion is relevant to salvation, IMHO.

If we can believe Scripture, that is true. And we can believe Scripture.

And however the discussion proceeds, though, please let us keep it clean and respectful.

Amen to that.

August wrote:But that still does not resolve the issue for me. Are all we do not supposed to be the glory of God? Many scientists have no problem ascribing everything to God, yet still are good scientists. What does it benefit us to assert randomness over providence? Here I am stupid, so maybe you can explain to me how it helps if say in science that something is random. How does that contribute to the scientific outcome? Does it help in future inquiry?

If I as a science teacher said that when I flipped a coin it's result is because of the will of god. Do you think that people will see this as science?
Explanation of the mechanics of a phenomenon is science.
IE the rate of random oxidation of iron into rust is constant over time... etc...

August wrote: Making it a moral issue, aka it depends on your perspective, implies that we should leave our Christianity at the door when we enter the lab. I don't believe that is what God intended for His servants.

Are you impling that they should go beyond preaching to their co-workers???
Are you saying that scientist should taint their work???

Sort of like a Newpaper editor injecting scriptural quotes into stories in the Newspaper?

Or a Federal Judge ignoring the constitution and making the Catholic Church the official church of the United States.

A scientist can only do his job, and that is to make observations so that others can use them to formulate hypothesees.

August wrote:

Just as I flip a coin, does God will it's outcome?

Yes.

Very well then.

If I as a science teacher said that when I flipped a coin it's result is because of the will of god. Do you think that people will see this as science?

BGood, stop being nonsensical

Explanation of the mechanics of a phenomenon is science.

Then you now admit, ID is science. There we go.

Are you saying that scientist should taint their work???

BGood, you are the epitomy of hypocrisy. You're about as bad as liberals with your "do as I say, not as I do" garbage. You always demand everyone else to claim "I don't know!" while you get away with not having to say that garbage. No, because for some reason Asians who run from stuffed lions don't have to question THEIR worldview that makes about as much sense as a corpse with a heart beat. How is being consistent with one's worldview equivalent to tampering with one's work?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:But that still does not resolve the issue for me. Are all we do not supposed to be the glory of God? Many scientists have no problem ascribing everything to God, yet still are good scientists. What does it benefit us to assert randomness over providence? Here I am stupid, so maybe you can explain to me how it helps if say in science that something is random. How does that contribute to the scientific outcome? Does it help in future inquiry?

If I as a science teacher said that when I flipped a coin it's result is because of the will of god. Do you think that people will see this as science?
Explanation of the mechanics of a phenomenon is science.
IE the rate of random oxidation of iron into rust is constant over time... etc...

August wrote: Making it a moral issue, aka it depends on your perspective, implies that we should leave our Christianity at the door when we enter the lab. I don't believe that is what God intended for His servants.

Are you impling that they should go beyond preaching to their co-workers???
Are you saying that scientist should taint their work???

Sort of like a Newpaper editor injecting scriptural quotes into stories in the Newspaper?

Or a Federal Judge ignoring the constitution and making the Catholic Church the official church of the United States.

A scientist can only do his job, and that is to make observations so that others can use them to formulate hypothesees.

August wrote:

Just as I flip a coin, does God will it's outcome?

Yes.

Very well then.

I don't know if you expected an answer to this silliness.

Your continued assertion that evolutionary science is a neutral, a-religious practice has been shown to be wrong many times here, despite your dogmatic denials.

The post above is a great example of the slippery slope fallacy that you and the other atheist evolutionists so like to commit, whenever faced with the reality that the theory necessarily has metaphysical implications that are contrary to theism.

Why do you even bother coming to this board?