Evidence for God from Science

In general, you do not seem to understand the aspects of different sciences. The quantatative and spatial scientific aspects do use deductive logic as you describe, but to ascribe that line of reasoning to any of the experimental aspects is a category error.

Please define "analytic logic", so that we have a common understanding of your terminology.

mathmystic wrote:

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).

Ok, why don't you stipulate what demarcates science from pseudo-science? Also show how analytic logic applies to the biological sciences, for example.

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

Please show the difference between the two, and how it applies to natural science. What is "natural science"?

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.

For someone that claims to have read literature related to ID, you seem to be either quite ignorant, or intent on willfully misrepresenting what ID states to serve your own arguments. If you insist on building up strawmen to knock down, this conversation has no value.

Also, please show why it is neccessary to know the identity of the designer in order to detect design.

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.

Again you misrepresent. In archeology, part of the study would be to distinguish between a rock and an arrowhead, for example. That is where the analogy ends.

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.

I have asked you before, why don't you lay out the logic? Preferably as a syllogism.

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.

Please use analytic logic to prove that analytic logic is true.

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.

Using your statement above, all natural sciences are ultimately reduced into nonsense, since you can never tie this line of reasoning back into the scientific method. You seem to imply that you can reach conclusions with absolute truth value through an inductive process.

Of course you can pick when to start the logical process, otherwise you have no starting point.

mathmystic wrote: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.

Look, let me just be clear here about something. I agree with you that God is not "proveable" by science, because in order to do any science, you must pressupose the existence of God, so it is not even open for debate.

The disagreement I have with you is purely around how you choose to define ID, and by the public admission of every ID scholar I know of, and also those that I have privately corresponded, ID has nothing to do with proving God. I certainly do not consider it to have any truth value in proving God, since you cannot experimentally prove an absolute.

How do you feel it incumbant upon you to principally redefine ID?

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.

Perhaps. But can you not study one without studying the other?

Intelligent design is a carefully crafted theory that started out in the 1800s as a hypothesis going something like this: If you found a watch in a field, you would pick up with watch and immediately recognize that it was designed and that intelligence was a part of that design process. If you look at other things in the natural world some of them may be equally recognizable as having been designed.

At that point all you have is a hypothesis. But then about 50 years ago something really unexpected began to occur. Science began to point more and more toward the existence of God. Suddenly scientists began to look at the world around them and realize that the naturalistic philosophy which had been for the previous couple hundred years been considered inseparable from science, was wrong. Unfortunately though 200+ years of naturalism had left a mark on science that ran pretty deep.

When you say 'naturalist science' you are referring to naturalism, which is the presupposition that all things must have natural causes. That is not science. That is a philosophy. Evolution is a theory based on naturalist thought.

Evolution however has been effectively disproven as an explanation for the origin of species. This lead scientists to begin looking for other hypothesis that might explain how species came about. Some of them began to look at Intelligent Design, which you may remember was the hypothesis that some things in the natural world may be shown to have been designed.

It didn't become a theory until it began to be investigated according to the scientific method. Scientists however began to look at such things as the Cambrian explosion and the single cell organism and began to formulate mathematical tests to determine the likelihood of a thing having been designed. These formulas could be tested against things like cars that are known to have been designed and against ice crystals which are known to occur naturally.

A theory of course is unproven. If you prove it, it becomes a law. ID is unproven. Is it falsifiable? You bet. All you have to do to disprove it is show an alternate causeway - one that does not require intelligence.

ID then is not the study of the designer, but the study of the design. As the things designed are in the natural world, scientific methodology can be and has been used.

If it is scientific then it belongs in the realm of our public schools. We should teach evolution as something that occurs within the species level and as something that can be theorized to occur at other levels but not at the phyla level or earlier. At those levels. ID is the only game in town. Teaching evolution as the origin of species in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence against it is just plain wrong. It did not happen and yet our schools teach it is fact. It would be better if they just simply said they don't know.

mathmystic wrote: That's exactly my point Cobra!!

I believe in God. I reject ID (which is proposed as a scientific theory)

If by Intelligent Design you mean the movement to get it in the classroom, then I agree. But God had to be intelligent to design (the most intelligent at that). Therefore, even though we can't scientifically prove that God exists, believing in God is believing in intelligent design.

It would be better if they just simply said they don't know.

The truth? Oh! noes! we can't have truth interfere with the naturalist agenda!

IRQ Conflict wrote: The truth? Oh! noes! we can't have truth interfere with the naturalist agenda!

Science holds a very high standard. Few things (if anything) can be proven to exist. Our own senses may be lying to us. We may not even exist at all and are just a figment of someone's imagination (that would really suck) like in the Matrix. What you know to be true and what you believe to be true are two different things. I don't have proof that God exists, but I believe He exists because not everything that is real you can prove.

But from a scientific view point, the only honest answer is that you don't know.

So why are 'unkowns' put forth in the classroom as 'fact' as if it is known? I think it's high time people stop deluding themselves, wake up and start caring wether or not that we live and love lies.

I for one cannot tolerate lies, of any magnitude!

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

IRQ Conflict wrote:So why are 'unkowns' put forth in the classroom as 'fact' as if it is known? I think it's high time people stop deluding themselves, wake up and start caring wether or not that we live and love lies.

I for one cannot tolerate lies, of any magnitude!

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Yes, evolution is not being taught as a theory. It can be taught a theory, but it should also be pointed out as a very flawed theory. The author of this site does a good job showing that genetics thoroughly disproves evolution.

In other words, I believe that evolution can be taught, but it should come with a disclaimer saying that this theory is full of holes and is likely ready to fall apart. Get on board at your own peril. lol.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for a great discussion. Inevitably, however, we seem to have digressed off-topic a bit in the last few posts, back to evolution. I kindly request that we all stay on topic, namely the discussion of ID.

Thanks

In the meantime, instead of restating many things already discussed, I encourage you to read: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1341

August,

Thank you for the link. That was a great read!

I would suggest we could take it even a step further and ascertain that some fully natural processes, such as the micro-evolutionary changes in which survival of the fittest are a part, mimic 'intelligence.' While none of these 'pseudo-intelligent' natural forces mimic intelligence sufficiently to address all of the areas intelligent design encompasses, certainly the existence of pseudo-intelligent natural forces makes it possible to postulate other pseudo-intelligent natural forces that have yet to be discovered.

Thus the 'intelligent designer' need not be an entity at all.

In the absence of any pseudo-intelligent forces that mimic intelligence sufficiently I would say that the existence of an intelligent designer as an entity or 'mind' is a reasonable inference, but I think we should be clear that it is only an inference. ID does not debunk naturalism anymore than evolution would debunk theism. And it doesn't have to be one natural pseudo-intelligent force. There could be many working together. If you really break-down evolution into its critical components, couldn't it be classified as an argument for natural forces mimicing intelligence? Thus evolution could be classified as a study within ID instead of as a competing theory.

ID is not a study of the designer. ID is simply a study of the design. The implications of that study are currently outside the realm of science but the study of the design itself is a legitimate part of science that scientists are increasingly accepting. I would suggest that one day it will take it's rightful place in public schools as the best theory currently available for a number of complex circumstances, such as the nature of the mind, the origin of species, the fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of the universe, and the existence of irreducibly complex mechanisms.

The fact that there currently are no known natural forces that mimic intelligence sufficiently to answer these questions should not be used to detract from the theory that intelligence was a part of those processes. The fact that the theory of ID has theist connotations does not detract from the validity of the scientific findings backing it up.

Coming from the scientific view point, one cannot prove the existance of a desinger. However, direct proof is not necessary to believe something. We do know that the universe is endlessly complicated and only two conclusions have been derived: it was done on purpose or by accident. Experience tells us this. Therefore, even though no one has been able to record the existance of a Creator, we have examined that the odds of everything falling perfectly into place are next to impossible. Therefore, we acknowledge that there is a Supreme Being out there, despite the lack of direct evidence.

Cobra wrote:Coming from the scientific view point, one cannot prove the existance of a desinger. However, direct proof is not necessary to believe something. We do know that the universe is endlessly complicated and only two conclusions have been derived: it was done on purpose or by accident. Experience tells us this. Therefore, even though no one has been able to record the existance of a Creator, we have examined that the odds of everything falling perfectly into place are next to impossible. Therefore, we acknowledge that there is a Supreme Being out there, despite the lack of direct evidence.

Science is based on ideas, presumptions, beliefs and then goes on to test these through experiments. In other words, as I heard one prof say, "Science is based on the Faith of the scientist." Before the hypothesis comes the idea and belief and presumptions and then comes the experiments and theories.

To declare that all science is based solely on logic is not correct as the scientist is merely testing and idea and a presumption about a belief and thens simply defines it thru testing it.

After all Gravity existed before Newton and Dogs were being trained before Pavlov rang his famous bell. All these guys did was test and define what they saw and believed about what they saw.

However, does a tree make noise when it falls in the forest when their is no one around to hear?

Science is based on ideas, presumptions, beliefs and then goes on to test these through experiments. In other words, as I heard one prof say, "Science is based on the Faith of the scientist." Before the hypothesis comes the idea and belief and presumptions and then comes the experiments and theories.

Science is based on theories that are tested to be seen to be true. However, if the theory is proven false, a scientist will abandon it. A fanatic will not. Gravity is still just a theory, we cannot prove 100% that it exists.

In fact, we don't even know what gravity is. It is a word that is used to describe the force that mass uses to pull on other mass.

In short, the standard of science is too high to effectively prove anything. That is why I choose to use reason and logic to believe in something, even without proof.

However, does a tree make noise when it falls in the forest when their is no one around to hear?

Yes it does, it emits sound waves that go out in every direction. Just because there is no appuratus to detect the waves doesn't mean they don't exist.

Ok, I'm back, and what a great collection of posts to demonstrate my point.

August, please allow me to answer the general thrust of your questions with some examples from the last 24 hours.

August wrote:I agree with you that God is not "proveable" by science … The disagreement I have with you is purely around how you choose to define ID

I think we'll agree on a lot more. Meanwhile I'm not trying to define ID, but with (great) respect you appear to be trying to redefine the rules of science. To use an analogy, you are like a soccer player coming to play rugby and complaining about the ability to handle the ball.

ID is proposed as science, and so it is subject to the rules of science. One such rule is that if one assumes ID to be correct, and then extends mathematical/logical reasoning to draw a contradiction with a tautology or a definition, or demonstrate a mathematical/logical inconsistency then the Assumption is deemed to be false.

You can't stop logicians starting with the assumption that ID is correct, and then demonstrating contradictions or logical inconsistencies. Ernest Rutherford, had he been alive, may have not been particularly happy that his work ultimately led to the Atom bomb. Tough. Just because ID proponents carefully avoid identifying the Intelligent Designer, someone else can legitimately use set theory to show there aren't any possibilities for his identity anyway, and that is logically sufficient to refute the primary assumption that ID was correct. In this case tough for Bill Dembski, Mike Behe and the rest.

My point is stay clear of science, because there are some big ugly dudes out there ready to nail you at their game.

Now let's examine some recent comments on this thread …

Wall Dog wrote: But can you not study one without studying the other?

Yes, as an individual. No, you can't stop others from doing so, bringing the two together and demonstrating contradictions. You can't isolate ID from the rest of science or logic.

Cobra wrote:God had to be intelligent to design … believing in God is believing in intelligent design

This reaches right into the issue. “Intelligent' and “design” are just words in human vocabulary - ambiguous and incomplete, representing ill-defined human concepts, created in an attempt to summarize our limited and finite encounter with reality. They represent no absolute Plato-like existence. Cobra, mate, where on earth did you get the impression you could use limited/faulty/inept human conceptualization to describe and define God? God, who surpasses all understanding. God who is beyond the limited/finite scope of the human brain. God who is beyond any science. The path to God is not in his description, it is through absolute faith. Faith in God without words. Faith in that faith as being sufficient. Faith in that faith also being sufficient. Infinite Faith in faith. Absolute faith.

I think we'll agree on a lot more. Meanwhile I'm not trying to define ID, but with (great) respect you appear to be trying to redefine the rules of science. To use an analogy, you are like a soccer player coming to play rugby and complaining about the ability to handle the ball.

As the rules of science are man-made, why are august's views worse than the views that you are working with? What standard do you compare them to, because, as you ought to know...from august's point of view, the current rules of science (aka naturalism) are bad.

ID is proposed as science, and so it is subject to the rules of science. One such rule is that if one assumes ID to be correct, and then extends mathematical/logical reasoning to draw a contradiction with a tautology or a definition, or demonstrate a mathematical/logical inconsistency then the Assumption is deemed to be false.

Please quote some snippets from Dembski and Behe where they claim that ID proponents beg the question by assuming design. Or, if you've been lying about your arguments with these men, then quote something from their books perhaps? Or something? Stop making up what ID proponents say.

My point is stay clear of science, because there are some big ugly dudes out there ready to nail you at their game.

The reason these big ugly dudes are "out there" is because they're hiding from august currently.

This reaches right into the issue. “Intelligent' and “design” are just words in human vocabulary - ambiguous and incomplete, representing ill-defined human concepts, created in an attempt to summarize our limited and finite encounter with reality. They represent no absolute Plato-like existence.

I'm on my game tonight. You've defeated yourself. You start out by claiming that science is the exact opposite of

ambiguous and incomplete, representing ill-defined human concepts