Evidence for God from Science

Good post Hman, I fully endorse your every word. What we are all dealing with here is the worldview we are starting with. The religion one follows during life appears overwhelmingly determined by the cultural/milieu/society/family one is born into. That religious person is an atheist for every other religion and doesn't evaluate his own religion with the same skepticism he bestows on the religion that is not his own. The rituals and dogma of the others are ridiculous, infantile, and based on myths, whereas his own religion gets a pass.

I am approaching this subject with a predominantly scientific worldview. I am convinced that, regardless of human mismanagement of data (such as Judge Jone's plagiarism), use of the scientific method is the closest we're going to come to reality. I believe the Bible is written by man, with all his faults, perhaps somewhat inspired by God, but to me, that is not significant in evaluating any data we might discuss here. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect a large number of contributors here are approaching this differently. Whereas for me, science trumps everything, for others, the Bible/Christianity/religious values definitively color the evaluation of any data that may come to the table.

I am convinced that that baggage is far more important than the logic we bring to the table - when any of us craft our arguments or arrive at our decisions. I attest that is true for me.

DB

While I agree with you for the most part, it's the YEC's that irk me more than the OEC's. I really have no idea what the extent of God's involvement in orgins was. I'm running with the evidence he have right now. I see "created evolution" as a perfectly good mechanism of creation. Most Christians will immediately say "where does it say created evolution in the Bible?" but I don't put much weight in the creation stories and Noah Story. These stories were put in every religious text and none is exactly alike (even Gilgamesh/Noah were not 100% alike). The addition of parables or stories into the Bible does not invalidate the whole text, it is simply meant as a moral guide or maybe even an exciting tale to read to the masses to make them fear God.

The thing is is that evolution (in all forms) is clearly supported by science. However, we still don't know how it all works (and worked) BUT I don't hold that against science. Evolution is still the most robust theory. I have not seen creationism make any predictions or explain when/how/why God created things over the last 4.6 billion years. The Bible has been stretched to fit everything from Flat Earth to Theistic evolution and I'm surprised it hasn't been stretched to accept evolution yet! I do believe in God and that He created the Universe, but to say that the Bible accurately explains science is a stretch. Genesis is so short and so vague that it can be made to say anything. I defend evolution not to debunk OEC/ID, but to simply debunk the ridiculous claims that various creationists make about evolution.

Himantolophus wrote:I don't seem to get why creationists don't understand the answer to this question which they ask over and over again.

Now hold on a sec here Himan, even you have admitted to this panel that you believe that God used natural means to create life. As Kurieuo correctly stated, by using strictly metaphysical terms you are not a naturalist either. The same goes for you too David...

Himantolophus wrote:You can't observe something directly that takes hundreds to thousands to millions of years to occur! That is why the "boundary" between micro and macro is undefined. We can agree that speciation can be called "microevolution" but what do you call genus-level change? Family-level change? Where does it become macroevolution???? We will never directly observe whatever you think macroevolution is (fish to man, even cat to dog).

I agree, you can't observe something that takes hundreds to thousands to millions of years to occur. That is why you can't claim Darwinian evolution as a fact. It's just a theory...

Himantolophus wrote:Lots of micro IS macro. The same changes that occur in microevolution occurr in macroevolution except the much longer timescales allow for a greater accumulation of changes. Therefore, in the opinion of the person looking at the evidence, the organism has the appearance of being "macroevolved". Timescale is the only difference between the two. I don't see how this is difficult to understand.

I understand what you are saying I'm just challenging the evidence for it..... As shown in our general rebuttal to the Theory of Evolution, the extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes we see in organisms is just not sound solid proof even if we want to use the fossil record as evidence. Not all scientists would agree with what you are saying...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

Himantolophus wrote:the explosion was not a "poof". There was an abundance of unoccupied niches and evolution progressed "rapidly" to fill those niches. Similar evolutionary bursts have occurred at multiple times in the Earth's history. Something about mass extinctions seems to trigger punctuated equilibrium. This is pure speculation but my point is that the Cambrian Explosion is not evidence for creation. It is a challenges for conventional evolution but that does not invalidate the entire theory. It has something to do with changing rates of evolution.

I never said the Cambrian Explosion is evidence for creation. I'm also only saying that it is a challenge to Darwinian evolution as well.... Again, my belief, as you have heard me state before is that our science today should not be a closed book to either evolution nor ID. Technically speaking, I doubt if we will ever find the reason's to our origin's using science. I firmly believe it will ever be a mystery... It's practically faith based on both sides of the coin.

Himantolophus wrote:I'm surprised at you GMan since you have provided a lot of interesting information on this site. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of evolution will NEVER use the "fish turning into a human" argument. That flies in the face of everything that evolution predicts!

Well I guess I'll be the fool then.... We have never seen it happen, so what we have here is perhaps pure speculation. I think we can agree on many things such as Noah's local flood, OEC, and many other things.. But I won't stoop down to the so called "facts" of Darwinian evolution. If you want to say that God used some evolution in his creation that is fine by me, but I don't believe in metaphysical naturalism, a term that clearly explains the origin of life without God or a god, I won't do it and I don't see why you would either... Again, NO ONE has all the answers. What we have here are only weights of evidence in favor of one view and sometimes neglecting the other.

By the way for the record I'm not a republican either... I'm an Obamian..

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Open any dictionary and look up 'Religion.' You will find something along these lines:

Religion: The body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances and social practices found within a given cultural context. (Merriam Webster)

Here, from a French dictonary (my translation):

Religion: 1. A system of beliefs and dogmas defining man's relationship with the sacred. 2. A system of practices and rites relating to a given faith. (Le petit larousse)

So, ID isn't a religion because it doesn't fit the definition of a religion.

FL

Romans 1
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

To some, evolution is a religion. Emphasis on verse 25.

Kurieuo wrote:Are you arguing that ID necessarily includes supernatural and religious tenets? Certainly it may lead to such, and it does not exclude them, but to say it includes I think is just a baseless materialist reactionary critique.

I'm saying that "intelligent design" as crafted by the Discovery Institute is inherently religious because it invokes the supernatural and was created specifically as part of a religious apologetics movement.

Kurieuo wrote:

McGrew wrote:Later, the document states: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". IOW, it invokes the non-material (i.e. the supernatural), which is specifically identified as the Christian God.

Your IOW is putting words where they are not spoken.

?????? If their aim is to "reverse materialism", what else besides the non-material do you think they want to replace it with?

Kurieuo wrote:"The Wedge" certainly allows alternative viewpoints not bound to the materialist (metaphysical naturalist) view,

It not only allows the Christian God, it was crafted with the express intent of engaging in apologetics for said god.

Kurieuo wrote:however from that page you provided it does not: 'argue against and remove references to science seeking "natural explanations"

????? What do you think "replace it with a science consonant with the theistic and Christian worldview" means?

Kurieuo wrote:(e.g. their efforts in Kansas) speaks directly to ID invoking the supernatural' (your original assertion).

In Kansas, the Discovery Institute attempted to remove the phrase "science is the search for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe". Now why would they want to remove reference to "natural explanations" if ID doesn't involve non-natural explanations?

Kurieuo wrote:In fact ID is compatible with methodological naturalism.

Can you give me an example of something ID isn't compatable with?

Kurieuo wrote:It does not rule out natural explanations at all, but rather seeks to free scientific inquiry from the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism.

Science does not operate according to "the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism", but rather operates according to methodological naturalism.

It seems your argument is not scientific as much as it is philosophical/religious.

Gman wrote:Why are you deleting my posts?

?????? I've done no such thing. I didn't even know I could delete any posts other than my own.

Gman wrote:Again.. A majority of scientists have already accepted that the existence of intelligent life could exist elsewhere in the universe and that life could be the result of “seeding” by aliens known as the “panspermia” hypothesis...

Do you have some statistics to back up this assertion?

Gman wrote:This does not require a deity...

Is that what ID is about, alien seeding? Is that the view you hold to? The view most of those on this board hold to?

Gman wrote:

Gerald McGrew wrote:Science does not "totally prove" things. Since every population we've ever studied evolves (we've never seen a population not evolve), why should we conclude that populations in the past didn't evolve?

I disagree... There are many scientist that believe that evolution is an undeniable FACT.... It has already been proven... End of story.

Evolution is a "fact" because we see it happen, right before our eyes.

Gman wrote:

Gerald McGrew wrote:That may be your opinion, but the overwhelming opinion of the earth and life sciences community has been the exact opposite for over a century.

Overwhelming opinion? Legally it's the ONLY opinion...

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Gman wrote:

Gerald McGrew wrote:See the post above; we've seen it happen. And you still haven't answered the question: What makes macroevolution unscientific?

No, that is the point. We have not seen it happen. Our web site challenges that opinion, not fact, here.

Well, now you're moving the goalposts on me. Earlier, you posted a link that gave the following definition for "macroevolution":

"Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species"

I operated in good faith from that definition (and even stated, "If you define macroevolution that way....."). You did not immediately point out that you defined "macroevolution" differently. But now that I've given an example that fully satisfies the above definition of "macroevolution" (that you provided), you suddenly present a new link that offers a completely different definition: "Extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes in body designs, speciation, appearance of new phyla, etc."

Why did you do that?

Gman wrote:

Gerald McGrew wrote:Can we stay focused on the topic at hand? I'd be happy to discuss the Cambrian in another thread, but for now I'd prefer to fully address the current topics before we start throwing in more (especially given that you have yet to answer some of my questions).

No... You have not provided any concrete evidence. What about the Cambrian explosion then? That is about all you can do it seems is ask questions...

I provided an example of the evolution of a new species, which is "macrovevolution" as defined by the link you provided.

As I said, I would be happy to discuss the Cambrian with you, but I would prefer to cover the topics we are discussing now first. Would you like to start another thread on the Cambrian?

Gman wrote:

Gerald McGrew wrote:Can you provide a citation or reference to a scientific source claiming that "a fish morphing into a human" is what macroevolution entails? Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of argument via straw man?

That was the way it was taught to me.

By whom? Please be specific. And can I take it then that you are unable to provide a citation to a scientific source that claims "macroevolution is a fish morphing into a human"?

Gman wrote:How else to you propose that humans came into being?

Homo sapiens evolved from their primate ancestors.

Gman wrote:Ok, then show us how the first cell created itself via chemical evolution.

As I said, I would prefer to cover the topics at hand before we introduce all manner of new topics.

Gman wrote:Are you familiar with logical fallacy of an invisible man argument? These one's don't even exist...

No, I'm not familiar with what you're referring to.

Gman wrote:Misquoted? Are you denying the fact that Gould wrote that?

Of course not. But it's obvious S.J. Gould held the opinion that transitional fossils are "abundant" and that he was very annoyed when creationists took his quotes out of context to make it seem as if he held the opposite view. Earlier, David stated that "transitional fossils" were evidence for macroevolution. You responded:

"Not according to evolutionist Stephen J. Gould."

Now, why would you quote a man who believed that transitional fossils are "abundant" and claim that he believed otherwise?

Gman wrote:Ok maybe you would prefer Richard Dawkins. When he was recently asked how life got started he calmly replied, "No one really knows how life got started."

I agree with Dawkins' statement. But it has nothing to do with the subject Gould was talking about.

David Blacklock wrote:Judge Jones is unquestionably a plaigarist.

What a moron! How could he expect not to be discovered!

Actually, utilizing submitted "findings of fact" when writing rulings is quite common. It's why both sides write "findings of fact. Each side writes up their "here's how we think you should rule" document and submits it to the court, hoping the judge will agree with them.

The fact that judge Jones utilized the plaintiff's findings merely demonstrates that he agreed with all their arguments.

Personally, I find it very telling that the ID creationists can only offer "but he copied from the ACLU" as their main rebuttal. Apparently, finding fault with the actual ruling is too difficult.

Well I guess I'll be the fool then.... We have never seen it happen, so what we have here is perhaps pure speculation. I think we can agree on many things such as Noah's local flood, OEC, and many other things.. But I won't stoop down to the so called "facts" of Darwinian evolution. If you want to say that God used some evolution in his creation that is fine by me, but I don't believe in metaphysical naturalism, a term that clearly explains the origin of life without God or a god, I won't do it and I don't see why you would either... Again, NO ONE has all the answers. What we have here are only weights of evidence in favor of one view and sometimes neglecting the other.

We won't ever directly observe "fish to human" happening. It stinks for ToE but it's true.

You still don't have a good answer for the micro vs. macro thing. The same mechanisms that drive "microevolutionary" change drive "macroevolutionary" change. You agree with microevolution, right?

So what makes "Darwinian evolution" aka macroevolution, different from microevolution? The only difference is timescale, nothing more. The "macro" changes are only evident after the passage of time. If you scale the changes down to <1000 years, you will only see species or subspecies-level change. Continued accumulation over longer periods leads to greater divergence. Maybe even enough to transcend "kinds". If you disagree, explain how the mechanism changes from micro to macro and where this boundary exists.

Yes I'm not a naturalist in pure form, but I don't see God creating evolution as negating the creative power of God... does creation by evolution (evolution designed by God) less glorifying to creationists than hands-on creation?

>>Actually, utilizing submitted "findings of fact" when writing rulings is quite common. It's why both sides write "findings of fact. Each side writes up their "here's how we think you should rule" document and submits it to the court, hoping the judge will agree with them.

The fact that judge Jones utilized the plaintiff's findings merely demonstrates that he agreed with all their arguments<<

I didn't know this and it might exonerate Jones from the plagiarism conviction I assigned to him. Was the ACLU draft a preexisting document or was it prepared specifically as "findings of fact" for Jones? Either way, is it a common practice for a judge to use terminology found in "findings of fact" in his decision paper? Could you elaborate?

DB

David Blacklock wrote:Was the ACLU draft a preexisting document or was it prepared specifically as "findings of fact" for Jones? Either way, is it a common practice for a judge to use terminology found in "findings of fact" in his decision paper? Could you elaborate?

CLICK HERE to see all the findings of fact material from the Kitzmiller case. As I stated earlier, you'll notice that the defendants (the ID creationists) also submitted their own to the court.

Also, others have done the math and calculated that the "Judge Jones copied over 90% of the ruling" accusation is rather exaggerated.

As far as showing that findings of fact are common, that's rather hard to do, other than via Google search results.

Hope that helps.

Gerald McGrew,

Personally (and I don't know about others here), I am quite bored to death of your comments given that you have only posted 17..err 19 of them. Rest assured, that you have presented nothing short of repetitiveness to the table. There is obvious logical flaws in your arguments right when you try make the case that Darwinian Evolution wins because DI started ID.

You should know that you will get all the support you need on this board, this forum is now composed of mostly Darwinbots who have more religious faith in Darwinian Evolution then I or anyone else in here does in God.

They are far from being YEC'rs, OEC'rs, ID'rs, TTrs, etc... While many here argue for Design based on purely observable evidence Darwinbots constantly argue the unobservable by the simple algorithm Darwin cooked up 150 years ago, Natural Selection and Random Variation. This algorithm from an Engineering POV is completely insufficient to explain anything beyond a really unconvincing micro level. If you want to argue Macro evolution, then consider that your deeply held religious belief.

Hi Gerald,

Based on the info you posted, it does appear that judges frequently do - and are even expected to - use the terminology suggested to them in official briefs given to them by attorneys from both sides. So it appears to me that what is plagiarism in school is considered completely acceptable for a judge when he writes his decision. Therefore, I exonerate Judge Jones.

DB

I wouldn't expect anything less from you David.

For the record however, much of ACLU's argument was directly responded to by the FTE. Jones was lazy. He did no evaluation of the evidence presented. His mind was made up from the get go. He ignored the response produced by the FTE which revealed many untruths in the ACLU brief Jones just went along with.

At the end of the day this was not a trial against ID anyhow, but rather Creationists who did not understand ID using it for their own purposes (which I stated this on these forums well before any ruling took place). As I have previous pointed out on this board, there are two kinds of ID. ID Creationism (for example, YECs who use ID for their own purposes, or by the same token OECs), and then there is what I consider to be the more authentic ID which focuses more on the science rather than caring about who the designer is.

David,

You'll also notice that the plaintiff's findings of fact wasn't written by the ACLU. Right wing conservatives just throw "ACLU" in there as a buzzword to raise the ire of their fellow fundamentalists. They see "ACLU" and have an immediate negative reaction.

It's hardly surprising to see the ID creationists still expressing sour grapes over the ruling. ID really got it's butt kicked in just about every way you can imagine.