Evidence for God from Science

I believe in the Big Bang!
I was just saying some atheist scientists try to disprove it, sorry i said alter.

blind faith and faith are different things, notice how i didn't say blind faith.
However it would be well to remove the word faith with believing as it's what i was going for.

Also on commenting about evolution I think we can all agree that natural selection is taken to drastic measures to explain the diversity of life.

Kurieuo wrote:Yes, it is a huge umbrella, and I think this is one reason why the core IDer's do not currently want it taught in schools as Science. Infact if it was, because ID has no true boundaries, YECs could smuggle in under ID, and then begin teaching a young earth. This, many critics of ID would be proven correct in there claims that ID is just Creationism is disguise.

There are many within, however, that have stressed they should be more forthcoming in defining certain boundaries of their umbrella. For example, noone within the scientific community takes YECs seriously, and even remember reading an admittance I believe that there is no known secular scientist who has been convinced of YECs evidence for a young earth.

Anyway, what seems to be happening is a splintering where people develop their own model under the ID umbrella. Thus, things largely seem to carry on as before. Until ID can define certain boundaries, and propose an overarching model of some sort, then I think they should simply continue pushing that the evidence for and against "evolution" be taught.

Kurieuo.

Well, even if you take the naturalist intelligent design approach (basically scientific theorem + god in case my adopted terminology was unclear) throwing god in there makes it unscientific. Thus, teach the science part of it in the science class and let everyone figure out the why's on their own or in a religion or philosophy class.

I look at it like this: science explains the hows (or attempts to) and theology and philosophy tend to explain the whys, with further hows to fill in the gaps.

vvart wrote:I was just saying some atheist scientists try to disprove it, sorry i said alter.

Oh, well, the point of scientific theories is to test them. Thus attempt to disprove them. The theory of relativity is constantly tested, quantum theory is tested et c. it happens with all theories.

And I have met people who are geninuely into the whole stationary state argument. They make an interesting case and well, if they did manage to disprove the big bang theory then that would be very exciting! It would be a time of enormous growth in the field of astrophysics.

Also on commenting about evolution I think we can all agree that natural selection is taken to drastic measures to explain the diversity of life.

Well, look at the diversity of habitats, the diversities of niches in each ecological system. There are organisms living at the bottom of the ocean near hydrothermal vents, there are organisms living in the most desolate of deserts, in the coldest tundras, in the most plush rainforests... There is no way that a penguin could survive long in the rainforest the same way there is no way a toucan could survive in antarctica. A lion could not survive off grasses no more than a gazelle could survive off hippopotamus meat... Each animal is adapted specifically to its own ecosystem and niche.

vajaradakini wrote:Well, even if you take the naturalist intelligent design approach (basically scientific theorem + god in case my adopted terminology was unclear) throwing god in there makes it unscientific. Thus, teach the science part of it in the science class and let everyone figure out the why's on their own or in a religion or philosophy class.

-- throw naturalistic philosophy in there, and you don't have science. Thus, teach the science part of it in the science class, and let every figure out where the evidence leads part on their own, or in a philosophy class.

vaj wrote:I look at it like this: science explains the hows (or attempts to) and theology and philosophy tend to explain the whys, with further hows to fill in the gaps.

Actually... Science can't explain anything without the reasoning inherent to philosophy. Without such reasoning, you just have a collection of data (if even that, as for data to be data it has to be recognised as such). Yet, the only reasoning you appear to allow in Science is one of philosophical naturalism. This is a worldview, applicable to philosophy which sadly isn't generally a core subject in schools. Now I'd agree with you that philosophical worldviews should be kept out of Science!

Philosophical Naturalism is cloaked behind "Science," portraying "science" as being synonymous for "methodological naturalism." Like or not, I predict this will change, and such a philosophy is already on the way out in my opinion. This philosophy has also set us back in the area of microbiology, for example, "Junk DNA," which was largely ignored until recently because scientists had assumed a "naturalist" approach. Such junky bits of DNA is what we would expect from evolutionary processes, and so it never occurred to naturalist scientists that it mattered. That is, until a purpose in one pseudogene was stumbled upon by Japanese scientists (see http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/health/Pseudogenes.htm)... and now many more are looking into the role such segments play. Just think... we could have been further along perhaps in cure for diseases and whatnot (at least research), if the basic assumption was "design," which would have allowed scientists to assume these "junky" (now "useful") segments serve a purpose. Instead it was dismissed out of hand based on the "naturalist philosophy" cloaked within Science.

I see no setbacks if one has the assumption of design. It was such an assumption that lead to the certain scientific fathers including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal to examine things around them (see http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... ence.shtml). At least within design, one assumes everything is relevant, and so one should examine everything closely to figure out how it works. It provides the perfect foundation for scientific investigation to flourish!

Kurieuo.

Attempting to explain existence using purely natural means is hardly philosophical. Theories are made, which may require intuition or guesswork and the theories are tested repeatedly until something fails... At which point a theory is revised or disgarded and the process begins anew with the new theory.

The thing is that in highschool science things are all presented as being exactly factual, when indeed, the theories are works in progress. Scientists aren't saying "we know with 110% certainty that it happened like this." When it comes to say, the theory of relativity, they'll say "We're 99.9999999% certain that it works and does so like this..." with evolution, while it is certain that it occured, the mechanisms are less certain. However, not being a biologist, I can't really go any further down that route.

However, science relies on the use of the scientific method, which is essentially make basic observations, make a hypothesis, make in depth observations, see how the observations fit the hypothesis, revise hypothesis, make a new one if necessary and then think of another way to test it. The scientific method may not rely entirely on thinking about something linearly, like say mathematical proofs, but when you make a random stab, you have to find the evidence to support your stab... or get someone else to (theorists and experimentalists usually don't do both so much)

Simply presenting evidence with no attempt at explanation is rather silly. It makes sense to throw out the scientific theories regarding the observations in a science class. That is sort of the point.

vajaradakini wrote:Attempting to explain existence using purely natural means is hardly philosophical. Theories are made, which may require intuition or guesswork and the theories are tested repeatedly until something fails... At which point a theory is revised or disgarded and the process begins anew with the new theory.

It is philosophical if one assumes from the outset that all existence derives form "natural" processes (I quote "natural," because I've discovered most can't even provide a reasonable definition of what "natural" means). Instead one should make no assumptions, and let the scientific evidence show where it leads.

I'm wondering. Do you care to explain to me how Mount Rushmore was formed, by purely "natural" processes unhinged by intelligence?

vaj wrote:The thing is that in highschool science things are all presented as being exactly factual, when indeed, the theories are works in progress. Scientists aren't saying "we know with 110% certainty that it happened like this." When it comes to say, the theory of relativity, they'll say "We're 99.9999999% certain that it works and does so like this..." with evolution, while it is certain that it occured, the mechanisms are less certain. However, not being a biologist, I can't really go any further down that route.

And this is relevant to our discussion because...?

vaj wrote:However, science relies on the use of the scientific method, which is essentially make basic observations, make a hypothesis, make in depth observations, see how the observations fit the hypothesis, revise hypothesis, make a new one if necessary and then think of another way to test it. The scientific method may not rely entirely on thinking about something linearly, like say mathematical proofs, but when you make a random stab, you have to find the evidence to support your stab... or get someone else to (theorists and experimentalists usually don't do both so much)

That's nice, but you are preaching to the choir.

vaj wrote:Simply presenting evidence with no attempt at explanation is rather silly. It makes sense to throw out the scientific theories regarding the observations in a science class. That is sort of the point.

I refer you back to my previous post(s) to do with presenting models that predict. Additionally, theories incorporate reasoning and so forth applicable to philosophy. Ergo, not all philosophy in science is bad, otherwise scientific investigation could not be carried out. Now if a "scientific" theory is something that can be proved and disproved with certainty by scientific investigation, then there appears to be some models from the design arena (such as RTB's) that fits the bill.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote: Philosophical Naturalism is cloaked behind "Science," portraying "science" as being synonymous for "methodological naturalism." Like or not, I predict this will change, and such a philosophy is already on the way out in my opinion.

I don't quite understand what exactly it is that will change.

Science is about nature. It's the natural explanation of the physical world. If you find an explanation about the physical world that is not natural, you're not changing science. What you are doing is inventing something new. Something that is not science.

If it is more useful than science, then we can lock science in the drawer and embrace the new "epistemology". It is conceivable that that might happen (highly unlikely, but conceivable). But it would have to start by proposing some kind of knowledge that might at least seem like it will become useful in the future and which is somehow "supernatural". I haven't seen anything even remotely resembling that. So it would seem that if such epistemology where to come, it won't be within our lifetimes.

Kurieuo wrote: This philosophy has also set us back in the area of microbiology, for example, "Junk DNA," which was largely ignored until recently because scientists had assumed a "naturalist" approach. Such junky bits of DNA is what we would expect from evolutionary processes, and so it never occurred to naturalist scientists that it mattered. That is, until a purpose in one pseudogene was stumbled upon by Japanese scientists (see http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/health/Pseudogenes.htm)... and now many more are looking into the role such segments play.

I read the whole article and am still waiting to see what the supposed "supernatural" explanation is. Please explain.

I found nowhere in the article any statement that would suggest that "pseudogenes" (if they exist) are supernatural. Where's the punchline?

Kurieuo wrote: Just think... we could have been further along perhaps in cure for diseases and whatnot (at least research), if the basic assumption was "design," which would have allowed scientists to assume these "junky" (now "useful") segments serve a purpose. Instead it was dismissed out of hand based on the "naturalist philosophy" cloaked within Science.

What did I miss? What does "design" have to do with any of this? Ok, let me read the article again...

Nope! After a second read through, I can't figure out what you are talking about.

They even say stuff like

In continuing studies, the researchers hope to show the pseudogene-gene interaction is a general mechanism taking place in many cellular interactions.

In other words, the japanese researchers are trying to demonstrate that the process is NATURAL of many cellular interactions.

Kurieuo wrote: I see no setbacks if one has the assumption of design. It was such an assumption that lead to the certain scientific fathers including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal to examine things around them (see http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... ence.shtml). At least within design, one assumes everything is relevant, and so one should examine everything closely to figure out how it works. It provides the perfect foundation for scientific investigation to flourish!

Kurieuo.

What assumptions about "design" did any of the names you quote assume which might have helped them in any of their relevant discoveries?

Science does not need more to examine. Science works because it's a method that allows us to examine less. If we were to examine ALL the probable causes for which a planet moves, we would have to examine angels pushing them, demons pulling them with a string, deities carrying them in chariots, ... Literally thousands, if we were to look only at the explanations religions proposed. Galileo would have spent his whole life trying to find in his telescope a reflection on an angel's wings when they were pushing Venus closer to the Sun.

We would still be discarding possibilities even today. And imagine doing the same for every single bit of knowledge about the physical world.

Science works because it reduces the number of possibilities we need to examine. If it didn't do that, it would never have advanced as much as it has.

As a matter of fact, in order for science to work we need to reduce the possibilities to exactly one That singe possibility is either accepted or discarded. If discarded we look for one more. But we are never at a lack of finding possibilities. Our problem is actually reducing the number.

I believe Kurieuo was referring to macroevolution, not science in general.

Golem you don't seem to get ID very well, its a valid theory and some evolutionists have switched over because they as well believe it's a better fit for what we see in nature. What was your point again?

Science is not about being atheist and disregarding God, however thats the path naturalism is going towards.

I don't see anything wrong with teaching both ID and evolution in schools.

ID is a valid scientific theory, people don't seem to get that. Some scientists have accepted it and since both Vaj or you Golem are not credited scientists, I dare say your opinions on what science is aren't really valid.

"Its a revolution in evolution"
- Thompson (Thomas Moore Law Center)

I don't quite understand what exactly it is that will change.

Science is about nature. It's the natural explanation of the physical world. If you find an explanation about the physical world that is not natural, you're not changing science. What you are doing is inventing something new. Something that is not science.

If it is more useful than science, then we can lock science in the drawer and embrace the new "epistemology". It is conceivable that that might happen (highly unlikely, but conceivable). But it would have to start by proposing some kind of knowledge that might at least seem like it will become useful in the future and which is somehow "supernatural". I haven't seen anything even remotely resembling that. So it would seem that if such epistemology where to come, it won't be within our lifetimes.

Your problem is that you lack the ability to understand. If God made nature, then ignoring Him will get us nowhere. Science is about learning of the world around us, but it is by no means limited in an atheist state.

I read the whole article and am still waiting to see what the supposed "supernatural" explanation is. Please explain.

I found nowhere in the article any statement that would suggest that "pseudogenes" (if they exist) are supernatural. Where's the punchline?

Who said they are supernatural? He simply stated that a designed mechanism would not need pseudogenes, while a naturalistic one would. Since scientists assumed naturalism, they ignored pseudogenes, but it is turning out that they DO have a purpose, pushing it closer to a designer.

What did I miss? What does "design" have to do with any of this? Ok, let me read the article again...

Nope! After a second read through, I can't figure out what you are talking about.

Again, you miss the point. He is saying your pathetic atheist BS has set us back in discovering cures that could possibly save people. Want me to spell it out for you?

In other words, the japanese researchers are trying to demonstrate that the process is NATURAL of many cellular interactions.

What process? The genes are an useful part of the mechanism, they're not a process. Learn to read.

What assumptions about "design" did any of the names you quote assume which might have helped them in any of their relevant discoveries?

Science does not need more to examine. Science works because it's a method that allows us to examine less. If we were to examine ALL the probable causes for which a planet moves, we would have to examine angels pushing them, demons pulling them with a string, deities carrying them in chariots, ... Literally thousands, if we were to look only at the explanations religions proposed. Galileo would have spent his whole life trying to find in his telescope a reflection on an angel's wings when they were pushing Venus closer to the Sun.

We would still be discarding possibilities even today. And imagine doing the same for every single bit of knowledge about the physical world.

Science works because it reduces the number of possibilities we need to examine. If it didn't do that, it would never have advanced as much as it has.

As a matter of fact, in order for science to work we need to reduce the possibilities to exactly one That singe possibility is either accepted or discarded. If discarded we look for one more. But we are never at a lack of finding possibilities. Our problem is actually reducing the number.

As opposed to atheists who limit their search? Now, you are right that less is better, however how do you know that the "less" things you pick to research are relevant? Like that article mentioned, scientists ignored those genes because they thought they werent relevant. What if in their atheistic zeal, they ignore something important, like the cure for aids? I'd like to remind you that the scientific revolution was started by CHRISTIANS. Noth atheists, CHRISTIANS. They wanted to learn all they could about God's creation. Atheists lack the imagination necessary to discover new things. The only thing they are good for is grunt work in boring systematic study and efficiency improvement.

And Golem, being a **** when debating with a moderator is a really, really bad idea.

Golem wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Philosophical Naturalism is cloaked behind "Science," portraying "science" as being synonymous for "methodological naturalism." Like or not, I predict this will change, and such a philosophy is already on the way out in my opinion.

I don't quite understand what exactly it is that will change.

Well nevermind then... but if I'm correct, you'll eventually understand.

Golem wrote:Science is about nature. It's the natural explanation of the physical world. If you find an explanation about the physical world that is not natural, you're not changing science. What you are doing is inventing something new. Something that is not science.

Science is about observing and understanding nature. Explanations are devised based upon such observations, of which a natural explanation is one, and one I advocate should always be taken where the scientific evidence suggests such. It is wrong however to begin with the conclusion that the natural explanation exists, and than force observations into any such models. Perhaps this is why you perceive ID as such a threat? Because you think, in the same manner, that ID will be presumed from the start... that's not how scientific "investigation" works. Science works with observed phenomena. Theories and models are developed around such phenomena. These theories and models are then tested to see whether what they predict is accurate. I see nothing in such a process that says nature is science, or that models developed within the ID umbrella aren't testable. Indeed, I've previously made reference to one model in particular that makes scientific predictions, and as such, is therefore testable.

Golem wrote:What did I miss? What does "design" have to do with any of this? Ok, let me read the article again...

The fact the Mastermind understood shows that your missing what I said was not because I was unclear. So I'll leave it in your court to try work it out further.

Kurieuo.

K, you know what shmuck means, right?

Mastermind wrote:K, you know what shmuck means, right?

is Yiddish for jerk and slang for some other name calling that Christians should not lower themselves too
not to mention a varient of schmuck.

My theory on the Big bang theory is that it was the world before ours that God created,
All his angels are the righteous from that world, all the rest were destroyed with their world because they ignored the ample warnings of God, and this time to make sure his point gets across, he even created himself in Jesus to walk among us and teach us.

Mastermind wrote:K, you know what shmuck means, right?

Better than what it was ... but please try to refrain from any kind of insults.

Kurieuo.