Evidence for God from Science

That's likely ..... I'm from Canada originally and an old Hockey player .... A lot of people don't realize it but Hockey Players wear numbers on their sweaters because sometimes Dental Records aren't enough to identify the body .....

Reactionary wrote: However, the question posed here is how life arised on Earth. I see three possibilities:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Probability of humans repeating the process
God created life, using powers available only to Him ---------------------- None
God created life, by setting up a series of unlikely events ---------------- Low
Life arised by itself, via natural processes ---------------------------------- High

All attempts to create life so far have failed, in spite of the sophisticated technology. My opinion is, if life is something that can arise by itself and evolve over time, it shouldn't be a problem to repeat it in the lab, where we can simulate the most favourable conditions for life. Now, we could say that we may be missing some key ingredients or knowledge (science-of-the-gaps), but to reject theism completely - especially at this point - because it's "unscientific", would be the same thing you accuse religious people of doing. I would be primarily concerned with what is true. Whether or not someone classifies it as "scientific", is less relevant.

Your possibilities seem fine but I disagree with your probabilities.
God created life, using powers available only to Him ---------------------- None - True. What is important here though is: can we show that the creation of life is impossible by natural powers and must involve God?

I don't think either of the two below necessarily follow though.

God created life, by setting up a series of unlikely events ---------------- Low
Mustard seeds are small. It is unlikely that 99% of the seeds from a mustard plant will grow into more mustard plants (probably 0.00001% or so just making up a number). Yet with proper care, in the lab, 99% propagation and growth is straightforward.

Life arised by itself, via natural processes ---------------------------------- High
The sand on the beach was arranged by natural processes (ok, maybe a bad example for an O'Reilly fan). But if someone scoops up a bucket and tries to put back the grains in the exact same order, it will be impossible.



You state that "we can simulate the most favourable conditions for life". No one knows exactly what those are; what chemicals, conditions, etc. But to turn around your broader objection, at what point should scientists give up and accept supernatural explanations? For how many years have we been told that nuclear fusion power generation is just around the corner? Perhaps people should just give up and accept that only God can do that.

Ivellious wrote:It's not necessarily true that natural selection is "thinking" about it...that would imply that natural selection is a designer (hehe...).

That is because it is an anti-god. It is a catch-all for the observations of biological change past, present, and future with the sole purpose of not invoking the name of God. I can't wait until it encompasses both additive (origins and systems development) along with the reductive (natural selection) mechanisms.

- Nathan

sandy_mcd wrote:Your possibilities seem fine but I disagree with your probabilities.

God created life, using powers available only to Him ---------------------- None

- True. What is important here though is: can we show that the creation of life is impossible by natural powers and must involve God?

We can't prove a negative, unfortunately. In such cases, we could only rely on the (im)probability of the event occurring.

sandy_mcd wrote:I don't think either of the two below necessarily follow though.

God created life, by setting up a series of unlikely events ---------------- Low

Mustard seeds are small. It is unlikely that 99% of the seeds from a mustard plant will grow into more mustard plants (probably 0.00001% or so just making up a number). Yet with proper care, in the lab, 99% propagation and growth is straightforward.

I understand - my "low probability" prediction may be misleading. I was referring to a similar process you mentioned below - we would need to identify those unlikely events, and find a way to repeat them. If this idea is true, then we may expect artificial life to be created in the future. No guarantees though.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Life arised by itself, via natural processes ---------------------------------- High

The sand on the beach was arranged by natural processes (ok, maybe a bad example for an O'Reilly fan). But if someone scoops up a bucket and tries to put back the grains in the exact same order, it will be impossible.

That's not the best comparison IMO. A living organism is like a machine - it's consisted of parts that have to work together in order for it to live. Now, we have the blueprint for the machine. We know how it works. We can make new machines if we install parts of already existing working machines in them. However, we don't know how to kick-start a new one. We can build it, part by part, but we don't know what actually makes it work.

Now, my objection was, if we can't create life by emulating the best life-sustaining conditions in lab (using some sort of intelligent design ), it seems very unlikely to me that life would arise by itself. Even if a series of extremely unlikely events happened, and all necessary parts of an organism get accidentally assembled, it still wouldn't mean anything. We can assemble a cell in lab as well, yet it doesn't work. There has to be something more to it, and in my opinion, if humankind can't achieve it, a primordial soup certainly can't either.

sandy_mcd wrote:You state that "we can simulate the most favourable conditions for life". No one knows exactly what those are; what chemicals, conditions, etc. But to turn around your broader objection, at what point should scientists give up and accept supernatural explanations? For how many years have we been told that nuclear fusion power generation is just around the corner? Perhaps people should just give up and accept that only God can do that.

As a curious person by nature, I'm always for research and science. I was objecting to abiogenesis being presented as factual, because according to the evidence available at the moment, it's far from being such.

Reactionary wrote:Now, my objection was, if we can't create life by emulating the best life-sustaining conditions in lab (using some sort of intelligent design ), it seems very unlikely to me that life would arise by itself. Even if a series of extremely unlikely events happened, and all necessary parts of an organism get accidentally assembled, it still wouldn't mean anything. We can assemble a cell in lab as well, yet it doesn't work. There has to be something more to it, and in my opinion, if humankind can't achieve it, a primordial soup certainly can't either.

I think you are vastly overestimating the present knowledge of scientists. Life is at least a very complex phenomenon. Scientists at the moment cannot even reproduce relatively simple natural processes. A number of organisms can fix nitrogen - convert N2 gas into NH3, ammonia, at ambient conditions. The best science can do to make fertilizers is an energy-expensive high temperature and high pressure reaction. We learn more about the natural catalyst enzyme all the time

current Science wrote:Nitrogenase Yields Its Secrets
Nitrogenase catalyzes the reduction of dinitrogen to ammonia, which requires activating the strongest chemical bond—the triple bond of dinitrogen. The industrial process that achieves the same reaction, the Haber-Bosch process, accounts for over 1% of global energy consumption, and chemists have long sought to understand the mechanism of nitrogenase catalysis. The identity of a light atom observed in crystals of the iron molybdenum (FeMo)–cofactor at the nitrogenase active site has been unclear (see the Perspective by Ramaswamy). Spatzal et al. (p. 940) and Lancaster et al. (p. 974) used structural modeling, sophisticated spectroscopy, and computational studies to provide evidence that this interstitial ligand is most likely to be a carbon.

But scientists can't even reproduce one simple process which has been studied for years, so I think it is premature to say anything about producing life.

I'm not out to disprove God, but I agree with Sandy...just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean we should insert God into the solutions and call it a day. That is where the science ends. Again, just because 500 years ago we didn't understand how the Earth moved around the sun, that didn't mean we should blindly say "well, God is the only possible answer because you scientists don't have one." ID does just that. It's only point is that evolution hasn't provided every answer about life that we can think of, hence God needs to be the answer.

I agree that numerous scientists are and have been Christians throughout history (though don't forget to credit the even larger number of non-Christian scientists throughout history). But those scientists did not get things done by using God in their science. They made advancements in science, not superstition. On numerous occasions, Christians defied long-held Christian beliefs in order to advance science. See: Galileo, Richard Owen, even Darwin himself! I see no scientific theory or law or fact that is credible today that lists a higher power as its only mechanism, even those discovered by Christians. So, why does being a Christian as compared to anything else even matter?

If you want "truth," then that's where things get touchy. Some Christians believe that science is fake and everything is just God. Some atheists think just the opposite. Here's the thing...science tries to explain the natural world around us using evidence and observations together with experimentation. Science is only in the business of going after the truth from a perspective of the material, not the supernatural. Science isn't out to prove God or disprove God, because that treads on areas that humans simply cannot hope to understand or unravel. And because of that, God cannot be accepted into science as science.

Would most Christians accept Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, and Ancestor-worship concepts being introduced as scientifically acceptable? I daresay not, which is why I find it most hypocritical for Christians to get upset when their Christian stories aren't accepted as valid science. So, even beyond the fact that religion and scientific study are separate fields of interest, it would be problematic to say the least when you consider that by accepting Christianity, science would also have to adhere to the oft-conflicting stories of ever other faith in existence. Have fun trying to sort that out.

sandy_mcd wrote:I think you are vastly overestimating the present knowledge of scientists. Life is at least a very complex phenomenon. Scientists at the moment cannot even reproduce relatively simple natural processes. A number of organisms can fix nitrogen - convert N2 gas into NH3, ammonia, at ambient conditions. The best science can do to make fertilizers is an energy-expensive high temperature and high pressure reaction. We learn more about the natural catalyst enzyme all the time (...) But scientists can't even reproduce one simple process which has been studied for years, so I think it is premature to say anything about producing life.

Well, I didn't know that. As I said, I'm no biologist, but having heard what some naturalist scientists say about the topic, I got an impression that they know nearly everything. I guess it's the attitude...

Ivellious wrote:I'm not out to disprove God, but I agree with Sandy...just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean we should insert God into the solutions and call it a day. That is where the science ends. Again, just because 500 years ago we didn't understand how the Earth moved around the sun, that didn't mean we should blindly say "well, God is the only possible answer because you scientists don't have one." ID does just that. It's only point is that evolution hasn't provided every answer about life that we can think of, hence God needs to be the answer.

If we continue like this, the discussion won't get too far... You seem to be repeating the same thing - accusing ID of making a God-of-the-gaps fallacy, not being aware that at the same time, you're commiting a science-of-the-gaps fallacy. How do you know that evolution will provide the answers about life? The truth is that at the moment, we don't know. All I'm saying is that we should be fair and do what a true skeptic would do - remain open-minded about the answer of the question of life.

Furthermore, your remark about how we didn't understand the Earth's movement in the past, is a straw man. "God did it" is not an argument for God in any way. It's ignorance, which is a part of human nature, because people of all worldviews commit that fallacy - and as you've proven yourself, even nonbelievers. If I'm wrong, I challenge you to show me an argument for God, but a proper one, not a straw man, that has been eliminated by science and proven to be invalid.

Ivellious wrote:I agree that numerous scientists are and have been Christians throughout history (though don't forget to credit the even larger number of non-Christian scientists throughout history).

I don't know about the number, but if we talk about the most influential and creditable, then Christians are definitely in the majority:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... faith.html

Ivellious wrote:But those scientists did not get things done by using God in their science. They made advancements in science, not superstition.

Actually, they realized that science and faith are not in conflict, something that many people nowadays can't accept. Those scientists had a philosophical framework that enabled them to justify knowledge, so their conclusions were consistent with their worldview. Christianity is not superstitious, as seen in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. It seems such to you, because you're obviously full of prejudices about it.

Ivellious wrote:On numerous occasions, Christians defied long-held Christian beliefs in order to advance science. See: Galileo, Richard Owen, even Darwin himself!

Galileo never renounced his belief in God and the Bible as far as I know. Darwin IMO was never a Christian to start with. As for Owen, I don't know enough about his beliefs to make conclusions.

Ivellious wrote:I see no scientific theory or law or fact that is credible today that lists a higher power as its only mechanism, even those discovered by Christians. So, why does being a Christian as compared to anything else even matter?

Because science, by definition, deals with the observable and repeatable.
You could, of course, be a naturalist and a scientist just as successful as a Christian, or even more, but what you wouldn't have is a consistent philosophical framework that justifies knowledge and reason. If you believe that your thoughts are random electrical discharges in your brain, prone to laws of physics and chemistry, why would you trust them to be true? You would have to eliminate free will and would get in a self-refuting position very soon.

Ivellious wrote:If you want "truth," then that's where things get touchy. Some Christians believe that science is fake and everything is just God. Some atheists think just the opposite. Here's the thing...science tries to explain the natural world around us using evidence and observations together with experimentation. Science is only in the business of going after the truth from a perspective of the material, not the supernatural. Science isn't out to prove God or disprove God, because that treads on areas that humans simply cannot hope to understand or unravel. And because of that, God cannot be accepted into science as science.

I've got no objections to that. Science, however, can only get us to a certain point if we pursue the "truth". At that point philosophy and/or religion will have to take over. If we research origins, that research can't be purely scientific, exactly because we can't go back in past to observe what happened and how everything was created. The only thing that remains is to make conclusions based on the evidence we have at this moment, which could be called "historical science" if we extend the definition, but it doesn't have the experimental aspect in it, and as such is prone to interpretations that often aren't objective.

Ivellious wrote:Would most Christians accept Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, and Ancestor-worship concepts being introduced as scientifically acceptable? I daresay not, which is why I find it most hypocritical for Christians to get upset when their Christian stories aren't accepted as valid science. So, even beyond the fact that religion and scientific study are separate fields of interest, it would be problematic to say the least when you consider that by accepting Christianity, science would also have to adhere to the oft-conflicting stories of ever other faith in existence. Have fun trying to sort that out.

Christianity is, as far as I know, the only religion that can stand up to the 21st century scientific scrutiny. Why would any concept, religious or not, be introduced as scientifically acceptable, if it's not?

What stories are you referring to? The Flood, the Exodus, Jesus, his life and resurrection...? Those "stories" are accepted historical facts. If you're talking about the Genesis, I don't see a part of it that conflicts with science - of course, if you interpret it right.

Ivellious wrote:That is where the science ends.

And that is precisely the problem. Science is elevated from a tool to a universal truth, equated with rationality, and (mis)used as a means of political authority. Reason assigns little validity to the assertions and fruits of creativity in logic or art - how much less so with biology. The concept of the universe as God's painting versus a mechanism of chance are completely at odds, so none of this science v. God matter is terribly surprising.

It is much less a matter of facts and much more a matter of schemata. Is God allowed in your sandbox or not? If He is, you will find Him. We have seen all sorts of belief structures politicized and weaponized throughout history - this scientific one is no different.

-N

Ivellious wrote:... just because 500 years ago we didn't understand how the Earth moved around the sun, that didn't mean we should blindly say "well, God is the only possible answer because you scientists don't have one." ID does just that.

You do realize that ID is already used in many scientific disciplines, don't you?

Reactionary wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Would most Christians accept Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, and Ancestor-worship concepts being introduced as scientifically acceptable?

Christianity is, as far as I know, the only religion that can stand up to the 21st century scientific scrutiny.

NB -
I forgot to note that, since Judaism and Christianity share certain historical roots, Book of Genesis is part of both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian OT.

Byblos wrote:You do realize that ID is already used in many scientific disciplines, don't you?

ID, as in the proposed alternative to evolution? Or a somewhat different meaning of the term? What is an example?

sandy_mcd wrote:

Byblos wrote:You do realize that ID is already used in many scientific disciplines, don't you?

ID, as in the proposed alternative to evolution? Or a somewhat different meaning of the term? What is an example?

No, ID as a scientific mechanism by which certain traits are identifiable.

- Anthropology
- Archeology
- Forensics
- S.E.T.I.

to name a few.

Ummmm...I was talking about "Intelligent Design" on this thread...And that isn't used in any scientific disciplines.

Byblos wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

Byblos wrote:You do realize that ID is already used in many scientific disciplines, don't you?

ID, as in the proposed alternative to evolution? Or a somewhat different meaning of the term? What is an example?

No, ID as a scientific mechanism by which certain traits are identifiable.

- Anthropology
- Archeology
- Forensics
- S.E.T.I.

to name a few.

The only mention on the seti website I can find regarding ID is an article from 2005 on the teamseti site by Seth Shostak the, still, senior astronomer at seti. It seems he rather strongly disagrees with you:
http://www.teamseti.org/page.aspx?pid=1011

Byblos wrote:No, ID as a scientific mechanism by which certain traits are identifiable.

- Anthropology
- Archeology
- Forensics
- S.E.T.I.

As Proinsias' link explains and as Ivellious remarked, these areas do not use ID http://www.discovery.org/a/3059.

An archaeologist does not look at a knapped flint and see features which had to be designed. What these scientists primarily do is look at an object and compare it with known natural and manmade objects. When rocks erode, they do not form arrowhead shaped fragments. [Cutters or scrapers are much harder to distinguish from natural objects.] The location or context (other items nearby etc) and a perceived purpose also contribute to the identification of something as manmade.
Youngsters of today walking on the beach might stumble upon a rundown watch and not recognize it as something designed to keep time. But they will immediately deduce that it is manmade - brass is not found naturally, especially in regularly patterned pieces, etc. Again, here it is not some element of design but a knowledge of what occurs naturally and what is made by humans.
When applied to life, the theory of ID is lacking these crucial references. What are known examples of designed and undesigned lifeforms and universes? What is a bacterium compared to determine if if is natural or artificial?