Evidence for God from Science

That's nice, but until everything comes together and science legitimately proves God as you think it will, it's not valid to use that in science. That's be like a string theorist writing a paper saying "my presuppositions will be proved pretty soon, so just pretend it works until then." Hey, if the day comes that we suddenly get shown God through some scientific miracle, it will change some things in science. But you can't call creationism science under the premise of "you'll see that it's right through science someday."

But what empirical evidence is there to tell prove that the development of life is a sole a scientific matter? Is there no meaning that can be derived from it the development? You may just ridicule and block its entrance into thought but that does not help find truth.

Ivellious wrote:That's nice, but until everything comes together and science legitimately proves God as you think it will, it's not valid to use that in science. That's be like a string theorist writing a paper saying "my presuppositions will be proved pretty soon, so just pretend it works until then." Hey, if the day comes that we suddenly get shown God through some scientific miracle, it will change some things in science. But you can't call creationism science under the premise of "you'll see that it's right through science someday."

Let me ask you your thoughts then on this. Since you say that science cannot prove the existence of God as of yet, but cannot disprove it either, then it seems logical to me that science cannot prove that the universe happened by chance either. So chance theory or whatever it is called is not science at all and therefore cannot be taught in schools. Correct? So science cannot make inference as toward a creator or lack thereof?

seveneyes wrote:

Ivellious wrote:That's nice, but until everything comes together and science legitimately proves God as you think it will, it's not valid to use that in science. That's be like a string theorist writing a paper saying "my presuppositions will be proved pretty soon, so just pretend it works until then." Hey, if the day comes that we suddenly get shown God through some scientific miracle, it will change some things in science. But you can't call creationism science under the premise of "you'll see that it's right through science someday."

Let me ask you your thoughts then on this. Since you say that science cannot prove the existence of God as of yet, but cannot disprove it either, then it seems logical to me that science cannot prove that the universe happened by chance either. So chance theory or whatever it is called is not science at all and therefore cannot be taught in schools. Correct? Actually, evolution therefore could only continue to be classified as a theory and taught as such, with the instruction being that there are several theories but science is unable to prove any of them because science has no ability to test the theories in order to validate or disprove them.

It is true that science has no bearing on truth in meaning, since it is limited to the reducible and empirical. But you cannot expect science class to move out of the empirical. Science has no proof that the universe happened by accident or that evolution is fully reducible and without true meaning. The faith that the empirical is the only true source of knowledge itself in this reality is what you should worry about. Read about reductionism and naturalism, find arguments against that and with that argue that evolution theory should be science or not. This seems like the best route to take.

See, here's what I'm trying to say:

The two views in question are this:
That through chance things got to where they are today.
That through God things got to where they are today.

What has to be proven is not the theory, but the mechanism. Again, science is not about proving things, because proving something in science beyond a reasonable doubt is impossible. Hence, science is always open to change if new evidence is presented. The only real requirement is that any mechanism must be capable of being demonstrated and any presuppositions must be facts, not ideas.

The difference in the two ideas is in the mechanism. The problem with your idea is that God is not proven, nor is he a fact in a scientific sense. You believe God is fact, but at this point you cannot demonstrate this to me or anyone else. On the other hand, the current scientific explanation uses a mechanism that is easily and readily demonstrated, that being randomness.

Once again, let me be clear. The theory of evolution is not proven, nor will any scientist ever tell you that. By comparison, atomic theory is not proven, the theory of gravity is not proven, etc. etc. You see, a "theory" in science is not what we use in common talk. A "theory" is actually considered one of the strongest and most powerful aspects of science. For something to be classified as a true theory of science, it must be the most powerful and highly regarded concepts and collections of facts and observations and evidence. It means that it is the absolute best explanation for a natural phenomenon. You cannot "prove" a theory, by virtue of the basic principles of science. It can be disproved, but to disprove a theory would take an incredible amount of evidence and likely a new theory-in-the-making to provide a more accurate explanation.

In science, all of these that I listed are classified as theories and taught as such. But you can't call ID a theory and say it stands up next to evolution. Because ID is not a theory, it's an idea in science and most scientists don't see it as science, but rather a concept or a supernatural explanation. By your wording, you are saying that in physics class students should learn that gravity "isn't proven, so we don't know if it's real." One would probably find that to be a ludicrous statement, but in science, saying that exact thing about the Theory of Evolution is equally as ridiculous. So, if you'd like to call for evolution to be put alongside ID, you are also probably arguing that gravity should be taught alongside "cosmic billiards" or something like that.

It's a common misunderstanding to see "theory" and regard it as a "hunch" when in fact it is stronger than anything in science. So, at least as far as evolution is concerned, you are wrong and right at the same time. Right in the sense that it should be taught as a theory but wrong to say that other scientific theories exist.

As far as cosmic origins of the universe, count me among the "cosmic agnostics" here. I don't claim to say that science knows much about the origins of the universe and it's a heated debate, and I highly doubt we'll ever truly understand it using science. As far as how the Earth formed and so on, scientists have put together a rather strong timeline, so to speak, of how the Earth formed and changed and how the moon got there and so on, backed by loads of geologic evidence and it checks out with the laws of physics as well. Was something pushing that process along the way it did? Like hell do I know. I also don't find it particularly relevant scientifically, though I personally believe that if God made the laws of physics and chemistry, they don't seem to be violated by our understanding and timeline of the Earth's history. So I'd say it's really impossible to tell. We have the process pretty well understood. I'll leave it to the philosophers to debate whether it was divinely inspired or not.

Ivellious if that is what you say science defines as a theory that Darwinian evolution fails that test miserably. One of the most important aspects of Darwinian evolution is macroevolution and even evolutionary biologists themselves know the evidence for macroevolution isn't scientific itself and yet it's being taught as fact to us in schools.

I was fully indoctrinated into it when I came out of college. If you claim that macroevolution fits into sciences definition as a theory please show me where it's been observed or even shown to be true in a lab. Over a million years of equivalent time for the fruit flies have shown that the mechanisms of evolution, namely random mutations and natural selection fail miserably. This test alone shows that evolution doesn't qualify to be called a theory by the very same definition you gave.
Again I ask why is Darwinian evolution being taught as a strong scientific theory in our school systems?

It is inductive at best. No proof of macroevolution, no proof from the fossil records, Cambrian explosion also blows it right out of the water. To me it makes much more sense to teach that ID in the classroom because it is much stronger inductively than the blind chance for mechanisms of Darwinian evolution.
In the history of human civilization we have never observed integrated complexity or language come about by random chance or chemicals. If I saw a car parked on a sidewalk would I think that it was there through random mutation and natural selection combined with blind chance? No, I would rightly concur that it was built by a mind. If we believe this about a car how can we not believe this with a cell that is infinitely more complex than a car, or DNA which is the language of life.

Well, the fruit fly experiment you referenced is an interesting one. I think I've read a bit up on it, and here are my problems with it: First, according to the fossil record fruit flies haven't changed very dramatically in millions of years of REAL time...so I don't know what they were expecting in a few decades. Also, I don't think they were subjugated to much external need to change. You see, insects and bugs in general are a remarkable group of animals, capable of withstanding monumental changes in climate and environment and still survive. Hence, insects are a poor choice for studying evolution in that sense because even what scientists believe about macroevolution is that insects aren't greatly affected by evolution because millions of years ago they were so adaptable that they've remained similar ever since. I understand that choosing insects was a good idea financially and for convenience but its failure is understandable for the reasons I've stated.

Also, who says a scientific theory needs to be examined in order to be usable? We absolutely have not "witnessed" things on a submolecular level but we have entire theories devoted to our understanding of it. We have a theory of how the Earth formed over the past 4.5 or so billion years, but we certainly didn't witness it. It's all based on residual evidence.

The first key piece to macroevolution is the fossil record. There are thousands of fossils of animals and plants that we have never seen. Through geologic and carbon/radioactive element dating, in conjunction with geographic locations of those fossils, we have established series of links between ancient, long gone species and current species. Are we to say these were just prototypes for a current design by God? Regardless, the arguments against using the fossil record are silly, in my opinion. Do we have a record of every species ever? Of course not, but there are dozens of well-established lineages that clearly show drastic change over time. This kind of residual evidence is totally valid, and ID certainly has no explanation for the magical appearances and disappearances of species that fit together in apparent lineages.

Secondly, genetic information about modern species is staggering. I won't and can't go through a few years worth of genetics courses right here, but I can safely say that the public's understanding of the subject is hideously ignorant, which is understandable and sad when that misunderstanding is exploited by anti-evolutionists.

Those are the biggest indicators of evolution. Here is the basic argument against evolution, courtesy of talkorigins.org:

Evolution has never been observed.
I went over this, that logic is fallacy-ridden,
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Once again, the anti-evolution camp using a fundamental misunderstanding of a scientific concept to mislead the public.
There are no transitional fossils.
Total B.S., because it equates "there are some transitional fossils missing" to "there are none."
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
OK...Welcome to science. Also, the Theory of Evolution says literally nothing about the origins of life, just the origins of today's species.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
I went over this earlier. This one is the worst of all, because it absolutely spits in the face of its audience because they don't know what a theory is in science. Again, gravity is "just a theory" and hasn't been proven. Oops. Guess gravity is a lie as well, according to this argument.

Ivellious wrote:See, here's what I'm trying to say:

The two views in question are this:
That through chance things got to where they are today.
That through God things got to where they are today.

What has to be proven is not the theory, but the mechanism. Again, science is not about proving things, because proving something in science beyond a reasonable doubt is impossible. Hence, science is always open to change if new evidence is presented. The only real requirement is that any mechanism must be capable of being demonstrated and any presuppositions must be facts, not ideas.

The difference in the two ideas is in the mechanism. The problem with your idea is that God is not proven, nor is he a fact in a scientific sense. You believe God is fact, but at this point you cannot demonstrate this to me or anyone else. On the other hand, the current scientific explanation uses a mechanism that is easily and readily demonstrated, that being randomness.

Once again, let me be clear. The theory of evolution is not proven, nor will any scientist ever tell you that. By comparison, atomic theory is not proven, the theory of gravity is not proven, etc. etc. You see, a "theory" in science is not what we use in common talk. A "theory" is actually considered one of the strongest and most powerful aspects of science. For something to be classified as a true theory of science, it must be the most powerful and highly regarded concepts and collections of facts and observations and evidence. It means that it is the absolute best explanation for a natural phenomenon. You cannot "prove" a theory, by virtue of the basic principles of science. It can be disproved, but to disprove a theory would take an incredible amount of evidence and likely a new theory-in-the-making to provide a more accurate explanation.

In science, all of these that I listed are classified as theories and taught as such. But you can't call ID a theory and say it stands up next to evolution. Because ID is not a theory, it's an idea in science and most scientists don't see it as science, but rather a concept or a supernatural explanation. By your wording, you are saying that in physics class students should learn that gravity "isn't proven, so we don't know if it's real." One would probably find that to be a ludicrous statement, but in science, saying that exact thing about the Theory of Evolution is equally as ridiculous. So, if you'd like to call for evolution to be put alongside ID, you are also probably arguing that gravity should be taught alongside "cosmic billiards" or something like that.

It's a common misunderstanding to see "theory" and regard it as a "hunch" when in fact it is stronger than anything in science. So, at least as far as evolution is concerned, you are wrong and right at the same time. Right in the sense that it should be taught as a theory but wrong to say that other scientific theories exist.

As far as cosmic origins of the universe, count me among the "cosmic agnostics" here. I don't claim to say that science knows much about the origins of the universe and it's a heated debate, and I highly doubt we'll ever truly understand it using science. As far as how the Earth formed and so on, scientists have put together a rather strong timeline, so to speak, of how the Earth formed and changed and how the moon got there and so on, backed by loads of geologic evidence and it checks out with the laws of physics as well. Was something pushing that process along the way it did? Like hell do I know. I also don't find it particularly relevant scientifically, though I personally believe that if God made the laws of physics and chemistry, they don't seem to be violated by our understanding and timeline of the Earth's history. So I'd say it's really impossible to tell. We have the process pretty well understood. I'll leave it to the philosophers to debate whether it was divinely inspired or not.

Good post, nice job. I edited my earlier post after reading up on the theory of evolution- actually more about what a theory is, and I get it. Teaching scientific findings is completely relevant, but proclaiming a theistic or atheistic view within the framework of "science" is not because of what science actually is. I think people on both sides of the issue have some misconceptions about much of the wording. I just browsed a little and understand a lot more than I did. I suppose there could be a scientific study on the existence of God, but current science can only test and or demonstrate physical things and processes, so maybe science is inadequate to deal with any spiritual or emotional issues at all. This shows that science is not the last word on truth, only a mechanism to empirically study physical processes... (probably not the most accurate definition but you get my meaning).

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I don't hold science as an absolute truth, nor do I see any religion in that light. They both take a look at the same world through different lenses. To discount one or the other for any reason is just blinding one eye, so you might be able to see, but in a room of truth your lack of depth perception will have you stumbling around for a while until you let the other side see as well (sorry if that was a horrible analogy, it's 2 AM and I'm tired haha).

Just wanted to be clear, I don't just go around bashing religion or anything.

Again Ivellious, it takes right back to my assertion that evolution is a failed theory that is being held up as a scientific one. As far as the fossil record is concerned those are not transitional fossils, they are missing links in the chain that do not show the intermediaries at all. When we are talking about I intermediaries we are talking about the the arm that wasn't there and then a pseudo arm developing gradually, or else we are back to our assertions that the arm magically appeared and evolution went into overdrive (punctuated equilibrium) and that theory that was put forth by an evolutionist Steven j Gould . Do you know why he put it forth in the 1980 Chicago conference? Because he knew the fossil record didn't show Darwinian evolution, in fact the fossil record was more in line with divine creation, which Gould knew so he came up with PI to try to save evolution's face with another theory that can't be tested and has neve been shown to be observable in nature.

As far as your assertion about fruit flies there is yet another problem. This test has been done with bacteria with even worse results . If bacteria can't be shown to go through macro evolution this right here tells us that evolution is impossible. If bacteria can't macro evolve how did more complex species evolve out of the bacteria that were there in the Precambrian fossil record. Evolutionists used to hide behind the statement that softbodied animals couldn't fossilize , but when soft bodied fossils were found in the precambrian fossil beds it only proved what I have been saying all along, that macroevolution didn't happen. High schools and u overworked are still teaching the same garbage to students, even though it's been proven false.

Notice that all of my statements have nothing to do with how life began. Darwnian evolution is inductive in it's major foundational beliefs. This is why I believe that both inductive theories should be taught in school so students can have both sides of the story so that they can make up their minds.

Ivellious I have heard many biologist claim that evolution is a fact, that the scientific evidence is so strong that it shouldn't even be questioned, and whoever questions it should be ostricized from the scientific community.

Seveneyes the reason why science isnt equipped to test for the supernatural is because in the last 150 years it's been subverted by methodological naturalists . Nde's give compelling evidence to the contrary and even the top skeptics said that if psi was being held to the same scientific standard as other evidences then it is great evidence. This is when the materialist, instead of admitting to the evidence instead made the rediculous claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Science is supposed to be the search for truth, not just the search for materialistic truths

I had a powerful encounter with God and know for a fact that God created the universe. What I don't quite know is how all of it ties in together with what is seen in science. I know that the link is there, but cant be sure at this moment of what precisely it is. So, while the atheistic doctrine of evolution has no merit to the existential questions of mankind and the innate knowledge of divinity within our hearts, it does observe natural occurrences, that it either is mistakenly making assumptions about, falsely labeling, and categorizing what it see's because of ignorance and flawed preliminary perceptions, or it does in fact have some merit yet is failing to see the big picture at play. Which I personally think would change the methodology of the science and label of the theory while retaining some of the parts because they are solid. I think that the latter is most likely. There is much solid data being compiled.

I see that the term evolution itself is a label that reflects the perception of a happening or of several happenings, while deeper understandings of the same things arriving from a different initial perspective might call it something else entirely. The term "Fractal Order Syncopation" might be an example (yes I made that up out of the blue and didn't thing too hard about it- well kinda)...There are many terms that could be derived that would be completely valid to the extent of the knowledge being drawn from anyway. That is the key isn't it. To the extent of the knowledge combined with the spiritual disposition. A being with all knowledge would not use the therm evolution at all because a perspective coming from all knowledge would have an ultra superior grasp of quantum physics and quantum mechanics. That perspective would probably use terms that our minds couldn't comprehend at all.

Ultimately it is important to me to challenge atheism because it is dogmatically pursuing deeper ignorance, but I do want to give credit where credit is due. Science has learned much over the years and we all benefit from it. It is important, but it is important to keep it honest, and to show that science cannot be the principal preacher of truth to mankind. Atheism is not science, nor can science fill that hole in ones existential heart.

I think that what I am actually saying is that it is 3am and I am so tired that I cant see strait...

God is forever Praised

Ivellious you claim that according to the fossil record that fruit flies havent changed in millions of years yet this research article in PBS stated something different.
http://nittygrittyscience.com/2012/02/1 ... itive-edge


In the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, a group of at least 4 male-specific genes have rapidly evolved together in the last 5.4 million years. So apparently fruit flies have been rapidly evolving together for quite sometime, yet when random mutations+random selection + harsh environmental conditions being bombarded on them in the lab nothing has ever come out of them but other fruit flies. These experiments were specifically done to speed up the evolutionary process. So your assertion that you clinged to that fruit flies haven't evolved simply isn't reality.

Evolutionary scientists were expecting something but what they found frustrated them. Remember also that in the very short time period(in evolutionary term) between the precambrian and Cambrian there was a sudden explosion of all the new phyla that arrived on the scene as if they were created and no new phyla has ever came about since.

When Darwinian evolution finally falls, it's destroyer will be information itself. Simply put Darwinian evolution is at a complete loss to account for the incredible burst of information between the different kinds. Information has only been shown to arise from a mind, never naturally. This is why I'll keep saying that Darwinian evolution is a philosophical belief and not a scientific one. Dont get me wrong, micro evolution is observable (the galapacos finches are a great example of microevolution). Creationists as well as evolutionists as well as ID people believe in it, but no matter how many times they try to fit the evidence in, it just doesn't match up well.

One thing that I don't understand and I have never heard spoken about is how the heck a chance, non-intelligent function like adaptation know what adaptations to make. Sure mating with a stronger or faster mate would make stronger offspring, but other adaptations like fish coming out of water. What purpose could that serve and how would the mindless function of adaptation come to put that correct adaptation into place?

ok, so a fish is being eaten all the time and while trying to escape predators it jumps out of the water. Soon (according to evolutionist theory) it might grow wings and become a flying fish. A mindless function I do not see as being able to come to the conclusion that wings would best suit it's needs....

Hey seven, I get what you mean about it being late, I guess this is where my OCD gives me an advantage.
I think the link you are looking for here could be information. This is what I feel (can't prove it yet) that information is driving everything from life to the laws of the universe, and what we know about complex information is that it is immaterial.

When you read a book, you know that the words written in the boom are made up of ink, but you also know that the words represent much more than just the ink. There are ideas, thoughts and these thing are much much more than just the ink. There was some talk of this during the DVD show called the fabric of time (a DVD on the shroud of Turin) from one of the heads of the noetic science group who talks about I formation being on par with energy and mass in the universe as a separate entity of it's own.

DNA is a language, and if there is a burst of complex information coming in between different kinds of animals then there must be a mind willing this information in there.

Takes us right back to genesis: In the beginning there was the word and the word was with God and the word is God" . Right back to information. Whats amazing is that genesis was written thousands of years ago.
Yet another proof of just scratching the surface of the amazing power of God.

Ok I promise, I'm going to bed ( slaps myself to sleep hehe)
Good night everyone and God bless u all