Evidence for God from Science

vvart wrote: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?

I "know" ID pretty well. I can't say I "get it" though, because it's not a scientific hypothesis. But I know many of the versions: the teleological argument, the "watchmaker" fallacy. the Kalam argument, ... and about 20 versions more.

In any case, my point was quite simple: science means "naturalistic explanations". If the explanation is not natural, it's not scientific. It's something else. Maybe something better, maybe not... but definitely different.

Maybe I didn't get Kurieuo's point (even though the thread title does say "modern science"), but that was mine.

Oh, and about "switching over", evolutionists "switch over", creationists "switch over".... you don't actually believe that tells us anything about the veracity of either, now, or do you?

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

I agree. On both accounts.

Science has no say whatsoever in the "God/no God" issue.

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

I don't either. As long as it is understood that evolution is science and ID is not.

vvart wrote: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.

Vart, a scientific theory is not simply something that scientists accept. I mean, it's not like the presidential elections, where you take personal "beliefs" and count the votes to determine what is scientific and what is not.

It's way more complicated than that.

Very succinctly, a scientific theory is something that has undergone through all the steps in the scientific method. ID has not undergone those steps.

The fact that it has not undergone those steps does not imply that it is wrong. It just means it's not scientific. Some scientists can believe in it if they choose to. It makes no difference. It's not scientific until it has complied with the requisites of the scientific method.

We can go through those steps, if you want (epistemology is one of my passions), and if you are receptive I'm sure you will understand why we cannot consider it scientific.

Golem

Golem wrote:In any case, my point was quite simple: science means "naturalistic explanations". If the explanation is not natural, it's not scientific. It's something else. Maybe something better, maybe not... but definitely different.

Actually science does not mean "explanations" (whether natural or not), although science encompasses them. Anyone can provide a natural explanation without science, but according to you such would perhaps still be science because it is natural. I think you need to look into the distinctions between "Naturalism" and "Science."

I'll pose to you a question I posed earlier. Can you please explain to me how Mount Rushmore was formed naturally?

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote: Actually science does not mean "explanations" (whether natural or not), although science encompasses them. Anyone can provide a natural explanation without science, but according to you such would perhaps still be science because it is natural. I think you need to look into the distinctions between "Naturalism" and "Science."

I think I've done my share of studying "naturalism" and "science" during my university years and over 20 years after that constantly keeping myself updated on both science and epistemology.

Thank you for the advice anyway. You might want to take it up yourself.

I said science is all about natural explanations. I didn't say that all natural explanations were science. Only natural explanations that have been obtained using the scientific method are science.

"Science" actually means two things (depending on the context we use the word): one is a method by which we obtain a description of the physical world (scientific method) and the other is the set of descriptions themselves obtained using that method (which I would call "explanations").

Kurieuo wrote:
I'll pose to you a question I posed earlier. Can you please explain to me how Mount Rushmore was formed naturally?

Kurieuo.

What do you mean? You mean Mount Rushmore before they carved the faces in it?

Same as any other mountain, I suppose. There are many books about how mountains form. If you explain to me your point and how my looking it up instead of your doing it yourself would have a purpose, I'd be happy to take the time.

Golem wrote:I think I've done my share of studying "naturalism" and "science" during my university years and over 20 years after that constantly keeping myself updated on both science and epistemology.

Sorry to have insulted your intelligence.

Golem wrote:I said science is all about natural explanations. I didn't say that all natural explanations were science.

Err... you said science "means" natural explanations, and I believe I did get it the right way around.

Golem wrote:Only natural explanations that have been obtained using the scientific method are science.

I believe you're confusing the natural part of science, which is its examination of nature, to draw the conclusion that science can only ever point to (?) natural explanations. Yet, if an explanation (theory, model, what have you) makes predictions testable by scientific enquiry, and has explanatory power, then I see no reason why such shouldn't come under science.

Golem wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'll pose to you a question I posed earlier. Can you please explain to me how Mount Rushmore was formed naturally?

What do you mean? You mean Mount Rushmore before they carved the faces in it?

I mean how it currently is today. Did you see people do the carving? How could you know by examining it scientifically, that "someone" created the faces?

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote: Err... you said science "means" natural explanations, and I believe I did get it the right way around.

I said (quote) 'science means "naturalistic explanations" ' Again: not that all natural explanations are scientific.

In any case, that's just semantics. The point is science ONLY deals with natural explanations.

Kurieuo wrote:I believe you're confusing the natural part of science, which is its examination of nature, to draw the conclusion that science can only ever point to (?) natural explanations. Yet, if an explanation (theory, model, what have you) makes predictions testable by scientific enquiry, and has explanatory power, then I see no reason why such shouldn't come under science.

There are many reasons. One of them is that a model cannot be testable by scientific enquiry if it is not natural. Scentific inquiry can only be done on natural phenomena.

Kurieuo wrote:I mean how it currently is today. Did you see people do the carving?

Yes!!!!!

Well... not personally. But there was a documentary on the Discovery Channel about it not long ago. Should I not believe the documentary?

Kurieuo wrote: How could you know by examining it scientifically, that "someone" created the faces?

There is no need to examine them "scientifically". You can simply watch the documentary or, if you suspect some sort of "conspiracy" (is that what you are driving at?), you talk to the surviving workers who built them. The faces were carved in the 1920s, I believe, but there's probably some of them still around.

I don't know. There are a thousand ways to determine that they were carved by people. The above is maybe the easiest I can think of.

Please state what your point is.

Golem

Mastermind wrote: Your problem is that you lack the ability to understand. If God made nature, then ignoring Him will get us nowhere.

It will?????

We have gone to the moon, we have sent probes outside the solar system. Longevity has been duplicated within the last 100 years. We can cure several types of cancer. We can communicate over long distances by just typing on a keyboard.

I could go on and on. But the point is that none of that has needed us to consider a "God" hypothesis.

You still think we are getting nowhere?

Mastermind wrote: Science is about learning of the world around us, but it is by no means limited in an atheist state.

You are right, it isn't. Believers can also do science.

Science is absolutely independent of beliefs or non-beliefs about God.

Mastermind wrote: Who said they are supernatural? He simply stated that a designed mechanism would not need pseudogenes, while a naturalistic one would.

What would it "need" them for? What does "need" or "not need" have to do with science or nature?

If pseudogenes are there, they are there. Period. They would be a natural characteristic. If they are not, they are not. The LACK of them would be a natural characteristic.

Science simply describes things as they are. Not as they "need" to be.

Mastermind wrote: Since scientists assumed naturalism, they ignored pseudogenes, but it is turning out that they DO have a purpose, pushing it closer to a designer.

I think you should re-read the article. Scientist ignored them because they had not found any use for them in protein production. Now some scientist have found that they do have use.

That's how science works. Somebody finds out stuff.

It happens all the time.

Mastermind wrote: 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?

Cool!!!

I have found that when the other party stops argumenting and can only resort to personal insult it means I have said something right and they are desperate for others not to notice.

Kurieuo wrote: 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.

It is wrong to force observations. But it is definitely good to assume there is a natural explanation.

Look how far that assumption has taken us. We have progressed more in the last 100 years than we had in all of the rest of human history put together. So whatever science is doing, it's working.

Now, if your next contention is that it could be working better, you may be right. But, you see, in the history of science there have been many non-scientists telling scientists how to carry out their jobs. But just TELLING them how to work has never given any results.

The way the science method has progressed is when somebody demonstrates that they can obtain useful results by doing something differently. Once there is a demonstration, it is incorporated into the method and we are all happy.

But just SAYING "scientists should use this other approach" has never in history helped science advance. It's the actual demostration that a change in the method works that has had any significance.

So if you want to propose a change in the scientific method, the only way you would be taken seriously is by you yourself embarking in a scientific project, implementing those changes, and producing usable and verifiable results.

Kurieuo wrote: Perhaps this is why you perceive ID as such a threat?

I don't perceive ID as a threat. I just don't perceive it as anything that would have to do with science. It's a religious bellief.

Nothing wrong with religious beliefs. But we must learn to distinguish one from the other.

The rest of the message I will skip as I had addresed that in another message.

Golem

It will?????

We have gone to the moon, we have sent probes outside the solar system. Longevity has been duplicated within the last 100 years. We can cure several types of cancer. We can communicate over long distances by just typing on a keyboard.

I could go on and on. But the point is that none of that has needed us to consider a "God" hypothesis.

You still think we are getting nowhere?

Longevity has DOUBLED because people don't kill each other as much anymore. No, we don't need to factor God into the equation, however, we're not discussing ALL science here, we are discussing origins of life. As such, cancer, communications, and satellites sent to take data of useless rocks don't matter. If there is a God pulling the strings, His existance WILL be necessary the deeper we go into both origins and the existance of the universe.

You are right, it isn't. Believers can also do science.

Science is absolutely independent of beliefs or non-beliefs about God.

In which case we should make no assumption. Yet a naturalistic assumption is made and you support it. Make up your mind.

What would it "need" them for? What does "need" or "not need" have to do with science or nature?

If pseudogenes are there, they are there. Period. They would be a natural characteristic. If they are not, they are not. The LACK of them would be a natural characteristic.

Science simply describes things as they are. Not as they "need" to be.

Except naturalism isn't science, it's philosophy. The lack of them would not be a natural characteristic, and simply making that statement proves you know nothing about evolution. Neutral genes will always survive. Genes that supposedly do not cause harm will play absolutely no part in either mutation or natural selection. In a naturalistic world, they have every "right" to be there, useless or not. In a designed world, everything has a purpose, and as such, the lack of them would be a design characteristic.

I think you should re-read the article. Scientist ignored them because they had not found any use for them in protein production. Now some scientist have found that they do have use.

That's how science works. Somebody finds out stuff.

It happens all the time.

It would happen faster without assumptions.

Cool!!!

I have found that when the other party stops argumenting and can only resort to personal insult it means I have said something right and they are desperate for others not to notice.

Desperate? There is nothing to argue, you didn't even understand K's point. Frankly, I'm getting sick of atheists purposefully manipulating data and claiming a monopoly on logic and science. If you choose to act like an ass(which you did, and you did it before me, so don't even start with "resorting to insults" when you are the perpetrator), I will act like an ass in return.

Are you a scientist?
NO!

why are you still talking about this. Anyone with logic can see that ID is scentific. It's a model, you know like evolution. Macroevolution hasn't undergone all the steps for scientific method, so i fail to see what your point is.

By the way we are in the process of changing science as we know it. If ID is to be taught in a biology class it will finally result in the overdue acknowledgement of God where he belongs.

By the way scientific advancements are weak at best, i mean having a man land on the moon is like having an obese man walk a step. He hasn't gotten anywhere worthwhile but he views it as an achievement.

Hey everyone, i find it hard to see how others dont have the same interest as many people i know who love to research into the bigger meanings, i actualy think i found god in science, it is an interesting idea to wonder why he/she didnt explain it all in the bible, but if god told us everything, how interesting would life be, he gives us guidelines, not detailed instructions. doesnt he?

Science for me has provided evidence for God, but the way its interpreted by atheists is to make it seem as if science refutes theology in some way.
Majority of scientists controlling how science is presented are atheists.

Although i'm content ID will win out in the end, my main problem is how Evolution is taught in the classroom which makes most agnostics lean towards atheism from what I've gathered.

What amuses me the most about evolution (since this is where the thread has gone) is that it is not science. Neither is the Big Bang. Why? The mythical Big Bang (great name whoever thought it up by the way...) cannot be repeated and scientifically observed, and evolution can't be observed either. Besides, science loses credibility once it starts delving into the past. It's like a cop coming to the scene of the crime after an hour, as opposed to actually seeing the murder....do my analogies work? Anways, what else is funny is that evolution is adding on "epicycle" after "epicycle." When a conflict with evolution and reality is found, another "epicycle" is added. (An epicycle was used to explain a now disproven belief that the planets spun in perfect circles around our planet by saying that planets had two orbits, one around us, and another small orbit around the middle line of their path (I think it was earth as opposed to the sun).

Tell me if I make sense, I'm afraid at times I might actually think in reverse.

Your right Darwinian Evolution is where atheists get their philosophical beliefs from and claim it to be science or the Truth.

AKS wrote:Why? The mythical Big Bang (great name whoever thought it up by the way...) cannot be repeated and scientifically observed, and evolution can't be observed either. "

Can I recommend http://www.swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/t ... epwolf.php to you.

Also, the "big bang" isn't something to be feared by Christians, and it has been confirmed by many observations. Additionally, it has also in a sense been observed through cosmic microwave background radiation mapping.

Kurieuo.

The big bang IS something to be feared by YECs like kmart though.