Evidence for God from Science

First of all, science is not a court of law, nor does it take "evidence" to mean "somebody says they saw something a long time ago that isn't verifiable." If your only evidence for ID is "because the Bible says so," you're insane to think that it makes for legit science. You really must not understand what science is and what makes a scientific theory if you think you can make the Bible into a science textbook.

And as far as the "amazing architecture of the universe" being proof or evidence of ID...You must first quantify what actually implies design. Just saying you think it looks designed is the equivalent of me saying I think my 3rd grade finger painting qualifies it as fine art...it's totally subjective and an opinion, not fact or evidence.

Ivellious wrote:First of all, science is not a court of law, nor does it take "evidence" to mean "somebody says they saw something a long time ago that isn't verifiable." If your only evidence for ID is "because the Bible says so," you're insane to think that it makes for legit science. You really must not understand what science is and what makes a scientific theory if you think you can make the Bible into a science textbook.

And as far as the "amazing architecture of the universe" being proof or evidence of ID...You must first quantify what actually implies design. Just saying you think it looks designed is the equivalent of me saying I think my 3rd grade finger painting qualifies it as fine art...it's totally subjective and an opinion, not fact or evidence.

You make your arguments try and sound well thought out, but you can take your same arguments and turn them on the theory that random chance is responsible for the construct of the universe. You have zero evidence or anything to test to claim any such assertion, and anything you may think you have could also be the product of intelligent design. The thing that you do not have is any eyewitness accounts as to the non-existence of God. Nor can you prove non-existence. So evidence is on the side of ID just by eyewitness accounts alone, never mind what you call subjective opinion which may or may not be opinion at all, especially if the idea expressed has come from an eyewitness of God.

Testimony is valid evidence, especially when science has nothing to test to determine fact or fiction. Where science fails in this issue, intelligence is not bound.

Definition of design
1
: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive
2
a : to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect crime> b : to have as a purpose : intend <she designed to excel in her studies> c : to devise for a specific function or end <a book designed primarily as a college textbook>
3
archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4
a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b : to draw the plans for <design a building>

So, in a non designed universe, the universe would be devoid of any plan, purpose, or function. All of which I do see all around me.

Now if something has a function in nature, that means it came about because of a need to facilitate a purpose. If there is no intelligent design, then what deems the necessity of the function, or facilitates the purpose it serves? This is intellectual proof of intelligent design.

150+ razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we.

seveneyes wrote:Now if something has a function in nature, that means it came about because of a need to facilitate a purpose. If there is no intelligent design, then what deems the necessity of the function, or facilitates the purpose it serves? This is intellectual proof of intelligent design.

Keep in mind that I'm a creationist as I say this, but in the interest of being reasonable and rational the terms you're using here are circular and are not going to convince anyone who doesn't already accept your position.

Those who are not creationists or who deny or doubt the existence of an intelligent designer are not going to accept your premise that something comes about because of a need. That implies an intentional act to solve a problem when the premise of most coming from the opposite point of view is that evolution isn't heading toward any teleological end purpose but is rather by evolution and natural selection which has no presumed designed ends and really has no needs to fulfill but simply results in those organisms that are successful and survive and those that are unsuccessful and die out.

Intelligent design in a proposed scientific level isn't really about any philosophical determination of need, but effectively (at least as I understand it, as I've read in Behe) but about the suggestion that there are elements of "irreducible complexity" meaning that biological "engines' or "system" can be demonstrated to be composed of multiple elements which work together but there cannot be demonstrated a function for the parts individually that would explain their presence and availability to be adapted into such an "engine' or "system" in the first place.

Those who know me, and have heard me discuss this in the past, know that I'm not sold on Intelligent design as it's presently formed. My impression is that as a political movement it's something that has been backward engineered, often times by Young Earth Creationists who now incorporate things from Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists with the belief that they need to do so in order to present a viable option that will at least get them in the door and able to be present in the education system as a viable option to evolution as it is presently taught. To be honest, to the extent that that characterization may be true, I think it reflects poorly on those who would try to do that rather than being up front about their root beliefs and letting the stand on their own merits. That's just me. Add to that, that to me, when I'm honest the concept of "proving" some elements of a more complex system have no explainable seems to me reminiscent of the "God of the Gaps" argument from the past. I don't base my belief in God on the belief that He is necessary to explain the unexplainable. Either positively prove in scientificly compatable that a designer is a reasonable or probable entity by direct proof and positive confirmation or recognize that a wholly materialist process, which is science is and must be, lacks the tools to affirm a presence that exists outside that realm. I'm not threatened by that. That to me is what faith is about, and recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of science is a more mature and healthy approach than to attempt to cloak metaphysical elements in what which can address only the physical.

Of course, outside of that political movement here in the US, there are scientists and mathematicians like Behe and Dembski who are exploring things. Behe is, of course, a prime mover in the irreducible complexity front. Dembski appears to be working with elements of probability and attempting to find a means to demonstrate as an objective proabability the presence of a designer. I understand the skepticism some have and skepticism is part of the process. I don't have a problem with the efforts at that level to be explored as possible hypotheses, but for the most part I see the efforts being used as grist for the mill for the political manuevering and I just can't respect that.

That puts me at odds with many on this board and with a majority of people who share my progressive creationist views I realize and I'm fine with that. I just have to be honest with myself as to what I see and what my concerns are.

That doesn't justify the methods and covert "trojan horse" like tactics that are used from the "new atheist" direction that I sometime hear cited as a reason to combat it by the same means. I think as creationists if we hold that we're on the high ground that our means need to reflect our stated values and so I reject the justifications offered at that level. I think alternate education and homeschooling are viable options, but not at the expense of a quality curriculum that includes those things that an educated person needs to know to interact with the world as it exists now and as it is understood from various perspectives.

You make your arguments try and sound well thought out

So we resort to personal attacks? Please stick to your arguments instead of launching crap like this to attack my credibility.

The thing that you do not have is any eyewitness accounts as to the non-existence of God. Nor can you prove non-existence.

OK...So why is the burden of disproving God on me? If your argument is predicated on the absolute truth of God, you must prove it, not me. I could construct an idea stating that super-advanced aliens spread life to our world, but if my only argument is "you can't disprove it", I'm going to get laughed at by any reasonable person. so, my friend, YOU need to be the one to provide me with a demonstration or absolute proof for your argument.

So evidence is on the side of ID just by eyewitness accounts alone, never mind what you call subjective opinion which may or may not be opinion at all, especially if the idea expressed has come from an eyewitness of God.

Again, I have fossil records, genetic phylogenies that suggest relationships between species, and so on. You have a book that says God exists and not a single person who can provide me with a demonstration that God exists. The Theory of Evolution does not assert that God doesn't exist, you are saying it does. So even if you can point to eyewitnesses in the Bible, no one witnessed creation. Absolutely no one. So you can't assert that you have eye-witnesses that prove God designed everything, because there wasn't one in the first place.

Testimony is valid evidence, especially when science has nothing to test to determine fact or fiction. Where science fails in this issue, intelligence is not bound.

So you admit that ID is not science. It is superstition and a supernatural explanation that says "science can't answer every question, therefore I'm right." It's God of the gaps. I'm fine with you believing ID/creationism as a religion, but by your admission right here, it goes beyond science and evidence and jumps to something else. You are right, science doesn't have all the answers. But science does continue to work toward explanations that work within what we can see right now. So please don't tell me that ID is science, because it's only argument is "evolution doesn't have all the answers."

Also, if testimony is valid evidence when science can't answer a question...Then by your logic, a thousand years ago a valid, scientific explanation for wind would be: "I saw in a vision that it is God breathing in and out, moving the air on Earth." That's great. It's not right, and we know why wind happens now, but at the time, by your logic, God of the gaps is valid. But lack of evidence in science is not evidence for your supernatural explanations. It's a logical lapse.

150+ razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we.

I've never understood the validity of this argument myself. If Christianity and your interpretation of creation are true, no other life-sustaining planets exist in this universe. Absolutely none. Now, in theory, the number of planetary objects in our universe approaches, but does not reach, infinity. We do not know how big the universe is, because the "visible" portion of the universe (i.e. the number of star systems that have had enough time for their light to reach us) is all we can see. The number of planets could very well be (and probably is) at least around 120 places away from the decimal place (1 with 119 zeroes after it).

Interestingly, by your statistic (which is great speculation, by the way), that means odds are one out of every 1x10^119 should have life sustaining properties. That means the odds are in favor of our one would having this perfect system. Also, this argument presumes life can only form in one way (ours). I'm a firm believer that life is not necessarily restricted to how it happens to be here on Earth. Who is to say that life is not possible in ways that we don't know or understand?

Now if something has a function in nature, that means it came about because of a need to facilitate a purpose. If there is no intelligent design, then what deems the necessity of the function, or facilitates the purpose it serves? This is intellectual proof of intelligent design.

Intellectual proof? Hardly. First of all, take trees. They served a wonderful "function" as recreational, natural playgrounds for me in my youth. Were they designed for this, by your definition? No, but it still had that function.

A more sophisticated counter is this: Animals and plants can have parts that develop new purposes and functions for survival, but they were not initially "designed" in your theory to function that way. Thus, they can have parts which function outside of initial design, and thus, these functions do not demonstrate design.

Through mutation, organisms can undergo changes in their DNA that give advantages in survival. New parts can serve new functions that were not present before, and old parts can be altered for new or improved function. These are also not part of "original design." Now, you might argue that the designer is causing these last two points to happen...But to that I say that through the same process negative effects can occur. New parts may inhibit survival or altered parts can inhibit survival. So I would argue that if you give credit to the designer for new functional pieces, you must also give credit for failures. Which contradicts Christianity.

Oh, and sorry Canuckster...It sounds like I ripped off a couple of things you said but I was typing my bit up as you posted yours...Not trying to steal your points.

Ivellious wrote:Oh, and sorry Canuckster...It sounds like I ripped off a couple of things you said but I was typing my bit up as you posted yours...Not trying to steal your points.

No problem. They're not original on my part, obviously. I'm an odd duck in this area. I stand in a place where I can be hit by traffic in either direction .....

Cool Canuck. Great post. I did assume that a no-design person would not accept what I wrote, but I also did think that was great food for thought in answer to his question. Maybe I am just dense...lol. Simple and complex both work perfectly when coming from the truth. He may deny my stance, but he can never prove his own.

Hope I'm making sense too .... I have some challenges right now that at times result in ineffective typing and or incoherant phrases. I'm used to being able to just shoot on a single pass and not going back to edit. Sorry for that and if anyone needs me to clarify just ask. In the meantime, I'll try to slow down and go back and edit.

Ivellious, you wrote too much for me to want to respond to all of it. Of course I disagree with most everything that you wrote. Specifically that I must prove God. We have agreed that science cannot prove or disprove God, but that doesn't make either true or false. Anything that I say that points toward the existence of God, you will not accept as valid regardless of it's actual validity. Your hypothetical vision of wind is a non existent hypothetical that was not collaborated by other witnesses in order to be known to be valid. Even if someone actually claimed the wind to be Gods breathing, although an interesting and beautiful thought because nothing is actually apart from God and his purpose, it would be irrelevant unless we wanted to change the wind through prayer, and we can already do that breath of God or not. God can change the winds and does take requests often. Still, there were no collaborating accounts and therefore not established.

Ultimately we are talking about the origins of the universe and not plants etc, even though plants have a purpose and function and show design. Adaptations would therefore also be a part of a function or design even if they were detrimental for the unit itself. We see the old giving way to new often in nature. Extinction and change happens and serves a higher function and purpose.

BTW, there is nothing whatsoever in Christianity or the bible that would in any way suggest that humans are the only life forms in the universe. In fact. The bible does proclaim intelligent non-human life, but not of a physical nature. As far as physical life forms it does not speak of any other planets nor does it claim any prejudice for or against physical life elsewhere.

If you say that since I make the claim, I must prove. I say the same to you. You claim random chance, prove it. You cant, and as far as any evidence, at least (even if you dont accept it as evidence) I have something that points toward my claim, whereas any of your statements could still be the product of ID and show nothing resembling the proof of chance over ID.

I never said there was proof on either side. Science really doesn't "prove" anything. It explains things to the best of the scientific community's ability using tangible evidence and inferences based on those pieces of evidence. Words are not tangible evidence in any case. The problem the vast majority of scientists have with ID is that it violates everything about science. It tries to "defeat" science with it's basic principles, and like Canuckster said, most scientists see it as thinly-veiled anti-evolution rhetoric that isn't about finding truth but rather ousting ideas that ID proponents don't like.

As far as why I said it was your job to "prove" God to use him in your arguments, whenever you use a premise or presupposition in science it needs to first be either a known fact, a fact that you can prove, or you enter a realm of speculative science or non-science altogether. So, if you are going to use God so explicitly, it simply isn't science as of now, because that isn't something that is scientifically valid at this juncture.

What I see from chance evolutionists is this: You cant prove God because science does not have the capability and we will not accept anything except science as proof. As for your irreducible complexity or purpose theories, we can still see a POSSIBILITY that it is not by design, no matter how unlikely, so we will not accept what you bring forward. We will keep our own view even though we cannot scientifically prove it and anything we theorize could still be the result of ID, but we will not acknowledge that at all.

We just dont believe in God and dont want to.

If science cannot answer the questions, why follow it regarding those questions? Ultimately I see a flawed logic at work. and sorry if I offended earlier.

Also, the mechanism of chance vs. the mechanism of God is quite simple. My presupposition is that chance exists in this universe, which is accepted scientifically. God as a mechanism is not an accepted theory because unlike chance, we can't really demonstrate God for everyone to see.

My claim isn't that you must prove your theory, but your presumptions and your mechanisms. I know that I can't prove the universe happened this way over billions of years. But I can prove the concepts used to make the theory. ID can't do either one.

OK, we might not be clear with each other's ideas here. Again, I don't discredit the supernatural altogether, I just don't think it should be presented as science. I don't want ID taught in public schools as scientific theory because it is religion, not science. I seriously am not attacking the belief, but rather the assertion that it should be accepted as a scientific theory. I'm totally cool with people believing what they want, or having faith in the supernatural. Just keep it away from being taught as science.

If God is true, it will come to light through quantum physics although it may take a while. God is the author and is absolutely findable through honest study and research. Laws of causality and learning that we are in a finite universe where matter and time both came into existence at some point directly points to the origins of the universe having come from a non-physical (spiritual) and eternal realm. Science can already see that some things have no beginning and no end, but not in the physical universe. More and more science points directly towards an eternal spirit who created everything...