Evidence for God from Science

Wall-dog wrote:

I think in the long run we're making a mistake by attempting to reintroduce religious thought in the realm of science rather than allowing it to be what it is.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute and follow this line of thought.

What if science shows that there must be a god-like entity? Should we then as a society say, "Well, we know this to be a truth, but we can't teach it to our children because the Supreme Court has ruled that the freedom of religion prevents us from talking about such things in public schools."

Should we really use the Constitution as an excuse to ignore fundemental truths? Should we really teach evolution as fact in spite of the huge hurdles in front of it just because any other view calls for the need of intelligence?

I'm all for the seperation of church and state in things that are purely a matter of religion but to use it as a banner against legitimate theories and to use it to forward things we know to be untrue - well, that's just silly. And yet as a society we do that anyway...

I apparently was not clear enough.

I disagree with the Separation of Church and State in the manner in which it is applied currently. I do not believe the framers ever intended to separate religious thought and theistic philosophy from education. I believe the primary intent was to avoid the establishment of a State Church and the context of the framer's concern was to avoid favor of one particular Christian Denomination over another.

Nevertheless, the consitution was designed to be flexible and change and adjust with the needs of our society and country. I accept that the USA is not a per se Christian country and therefore the government and our education system should not use the education system and tax dollars to promote the establishment of one particular religion or line of philosophic thought over another.

In our education system, I think this line of thought has been stretched to near absurdity to avoid the acknoledgement of even the existence of religion or theistic philosophy and it's presence and implications in our society. Existence and implications can be and should be taught without official endorsement.

Intelligent design, in my humble opinion, is a very carefully designed approach, designed itself by Theist scientists and not so surprisingly at the fore-front, a Christan lawyer, to try to make religion and theism fit a scentific definition in order to provide a platform by which it must be introduced back into the schools. It is a very deliberate and practical attempt to force the courts to arrive at a favorable conclusion by using the very arguments of those who oppose religion and theistic philosophy in education back against them. As such, it is very clever and has a specific end in mind.

I happen to be a pretty staunch evangelical Christian who believes that God exists and that He in fact created this world and designed it by direct intervention and interaction within the natural order that he established when He so chose. I believe that this set of beliefs, the history of its existence and current influence in our society can be and should be taught and acknowledged in our public schools and it can be done without establishing a state sponsored religious entity. Other beliefs are present and can and should be referenced as well. They have not been as prevelent and influential to this point, and so their emphasis should reflect that in my opinion.

Mystic is not particularly being as kind about it as I would like, but his ultimate point is correct. Science is not the vehicle to "prove" intelligent design. I believe intelligent design is inferred. However, the presence and influence of the supernatural by definition cannot be proved by using the scientific method. Inference is not the realm of science. Inference can influence future research and exploration, but inference can never dictate ultimate conclusions.

True science deals only with that which is material and as such is measurable, observable, repeatable etc. A key element to the Sceinctific Method is that any hypothesis or theory must be falsifiable. In other words, a hypothesis, or theory must be defined in such a way that it can conceivably be proven wrong. Intelligent design fails that test. I agree with those who oppose Intelligent Design being introduced as Science into our schools even while I disagree with their goals.

I believe by attempting to introduce intelligent design into the schools as pure science we are effectively conceding and accepting that those who have stretched separation of Church and State to the level of near absurdity have won. Therefore we are adopting their methods and weapons to attempt to beat them back. By doing so we are conceding too much. We're using the ends to justify accepting their means.

I would love to see Intelligent Design taught in the public schools in the proper manner, as a philosophy, not pure science. Scientific discovery can impact philosophy. Look at the crop of philosophy that evolution spawned. Materialism, Communism, Nihlism, etc.

Does that help to clear up what I'm saying?

Science "cannot" and "never will" prove that there is a God-Like entity. All science could theohetically do is establish that there is a point of irreducable complexity, beyond which there has been no satisfactory, naturalistic explanation "yet." ID ultimately is the old "God of the Gaps" argument dressed in new clothes. The God of the Gaps argument is ultimately damaging to our cause because when we take a stand that Science can go no further in its explanation of this world and God is the ultimate solution, then when Science does go further we have set the rules by which others can then claim that God doesn't exist. We've planted the seeds of our own failure. We're foolish to do so.

I happen to personally believe that there is a point of irreducible complexity beyond which it is reasonable to leap to the existence of God. I recognize however that once I do that, I am no longer in the realm of pure science. I also recognize that I don't know what that point is.

Hope that clears it up at least as far as what I'm saying. I'm fine if you don't agree with it. I'm still learning and progressing in my thinking and faith.

mathmystic wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:... Science can't prove anything. ...

KMart stumbled on the truth.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:...What is proof? Let's start with that.

KMart hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened

You're no William Dembski are you.

Maybe you don't get it...you answer my questions, and stop trying to make fun of me by trying to say 'hey, Kmart saying this is SOMEHOW contradictory, YEAH!"

Nice post though I take issue with this.

Inference is not the realm of science.

Science is very much about inference it is what lead to fruitful hypohtesis.

Jbuza wrote:Nice post though I take issue with this.

Inference is not the realm of science.

Science is very much about inference it is what lead to fruitful hypohtesis.

Inference certainly can be part of the process. Science cannot by definition accept inference as a conclusion.

Jbuza wrote:Perhaps a higher beings design would be beyond anything we could ourselves design

Exactly. It would surpasss all understanding. Hence to try to study it (as ID does) would be folly.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Nice post though I take issue with this.

Inference is not the realm of science.

Science is very much about inference it is what lead to fruitful hypohtesis.

Inference certainly can be part of the process. Science cannot by definition accept inference as a conclusion.

And yet the leading theory of origins does just that. They infer macroevolution from observations and tests of microevolution.

So I guess that makes Intelligent Design fine when comapred beside evolution.

I agree with you, personally, though.

mathmystic wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Perhaps a higher beings design would be beyond anything we could ourselves design

Exactly. It would surpasss all understanding. Hence to try to study it (as ID does) would be folly.

SO we should dispense with the field of biology yielding its medical advancements?

Simple calling a club a spade doesn't make it a spade. Intelligent design is being studied everyday.

Jbuza wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Nice post though I take issue with this.

Inference is not the realm of science.

Science is very much about inference it is what lead to fruitful hypohtesis.

Inference certainly can be part of the process. Science cannot by definition accept inference as a conclusion.

And yet the leading theory of origins does just that. They infer macroevolution from observations and tests of microevolution.

So I guess that makes Intelligent Design fine when comapred beside evolution.

I agree with you, personally, though.

I think we're in agreement. I do think evolution as a science has been used in the public schools to endorse and promote philosophies and values that are not ultimately science. There is a double standard.

I think the ID movement is accepting that as a starting point and attempting to work within that system. I think it concedes too much. I favor changing the system.

Canuckster1127 wrote: I favor changing the system.

<applause> <cheer> <standing ovation>

Children should be given an over view of all the theories even the bad ones, quasi scientific ones, the whole gammit, and then trained how to use the processes. It should be about the correct use of logic and reason, not about indoctrination.

I must be careful I could easily rant about his several paragraphs, so I will leave it as it is.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Inference certainly can be part of the process. Science cannot by definition accept inference as a conclusion.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Firstly I think that "science" is an extremely broad term, and if necessary, we can get into how it can be more defined. I subscribe to science being made up of different aspects, each with it's own unique characteristics and methodologies.

For physical and biotic aspects, the methodology is inductive, i.e. we investigate specific phenomena, and from that, arrive at general conclusions should we observe consistency. That certainly is inference, we infer a general theory, made up of specific observations. Since we cannot ever observe every conceivable specific occurence, there will always be inference in those sciences.

The mistake that opponents of ID make is that they present ID to be deductive, i.e. starting from the absolute knowledge position that there is a designer, and deducting that we should therefore see design. And if that was the case, I would agree that the identity of the designer would be very important, since it would be axiomatic to the theory.

This is not what ID states though. ID is also inductive, postulating that from certain observations of specific phenomena, we can arrive at the general inferred conclusion that it was designed. That is where it ends. We can argue about whether the observations are interpreted correctly, or whether they necessarily lead to a conclusion of design, that is all a valid and necessary part of the discussion. But to state that ID has to be deductive and identify the designer is to misrepresent what it states by definition.

The philosophical implications of that general conclusion leads us to further discussion, as with all teleological sciences.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:you answer my questions, and stop trying to make fun of me

Fair point Kmart. More respect all round. Please accept my apologies.

Jbuza wrote:Children should be given an over view of all the theories even the bad ones, quasi scientific ones, the whole gammit, and then trained how to use the processes. It should be about the correct use of logic and reason, not about indoctrination.

I wholeheartedly agree, but I agree with Canuckter (great post ) that this should be in the philosophy classroom and not the science classroom.

As a corollary though, I wonder how willing Muslims might be to debate whether Mohammed really had a book dictated to him by Angels .. etc etc

mathmystic wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:you answer my questions, and stop trying to make fun of me

Fair point Kmart. More respect all round. Please accept my apologies.

You have yet to give in to my request.

August wrote:I think that "science" is an extremely broad term ... each with it's own unique characteristics and methodologies

This is exactly what natural science (Phys/Chem/Bio - not Archaeology etc)has been striving against, particularly since the beginning of the 20th century with the formalization and use of analytic logic (as expressed in Boolean Algebra) and a large job has been throwing out the junk (or pseudo-science as it has been more politely called).

August wrote:For physical and biotic sciences, the methodology is inductive, i.e. we investigate specific phenomena, and from that, arrive at general conclusions should we observe consistency

Sorry, that is exactly what natural science is striving against. It's analytic logic now, not this weaker systemic logic.

August wrote:The mistake that opponents of ID make is that they present ID to be deductive, i.e. starting from the absolute knowledge position that there is a designer, and deducting that we should therefore see design.

No, that's not what we are doing. It is ID that postulates "intelligent design", and thereby an"intelligent designer". You can't have one without the other.

I have to take you back to the analogy that ID proponents use comparing ID with Archaeology. In Archaeology the designer(s) is assumed, and then researchers go looking for the evidence.

August wrote:if that was the case, I would agree that the identity of the designer would be very important, since it would be axiomatic to the theory.

Within an analytical logical system the identity of the designer is as important as any corollary or any axiom. You can't escape the implied conclusions in analytic logic - that is why it is such an immensely powerful tool.

August wrote:...ID states ...that from certain observations of specific phenomena, we can arrive at the general inferred conclusion that it was designed. That is where it ends.

Again, analytic logic does not allow you to stop or end anywhere. It actually uses set theory to formulate the next conclusion that is then open for testing.

Design -> Designer -> identity of Designer -> nonsense

You can't pick and choose when to start and stop the logical process. That is why ID has no place amongst the natural sciences.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You have yet to give in to my request.

Ok Kmart, but I courteously ask you to plug into the theme of this thread -August, Canuckster, Jbuza and co are coming up with some terrific stuff

Meanwhile, you have correctly made the point that science can't prove anything, but how can that possibly be true???

a) Science studiously seeks to incorporate Math and Logic, which is a field where proof (as in the definition of proof) can be found.

b) Science incorporates arithmetic, which uses the "unbreakable convention" of the Real Number system.

c) Science is always hostage to the accuracy of its measuring equipment , but attempts are made to minimize this via calibration on the principle that the speed of light (in vaccuo - thanks August ) is constant in any frame of reference.


Meanwhile, surely it is better not to try to subject God to an investigation by scientific logic. Surely it is better to be confident that Science couldn't prove anything anyway, and leave God to be found outside the realm of science - heaven forbid through pure unabashed spirituality.