Evidence for God from Science

From a purely natural observation, we can't know where they came from.

We can look to our examples and iner (and I believe they are strong inferences), but we can't really prove by science.

I think this is the danger of God of the Gaps.

For instance, say in 10 years we understand the conditions whereby RNA and DNA were formed and successfully created a very simple replicating life form in the lab. Have we disproven God? Have we shown that God wasn't invovled? Of course not.

To some degree, I think we place ourselves in a very dangerous position. We have defined for the atheists the conditions for the existence of God. We have stated now that "because this doesn't exist, God does". or "it needed God".

Well, shoot, unfortunately we can never have a control universe....we can never isolate God from this universe and say, "see, DNA and RNA could not be made, therefore, in this universe A, without God, shows that God exists"...

If they show how DNA or RNA can come together in a lab, would this crumble the faith? Would we not perceive that God would be working through those events as well?

Ultimately, I'm not sure we could "measure" God.



And selection isn't a force or an entity. I don't see where selection is a problem for the Christian. We can see the effects of seletion on plenty of organisms. What we aren't sure of is simply whether mutations are powerful enough to provide the variation needed for selection to work.

touchingcloth wrote:DannyM - Sorry to be ignorant, but what do you mean by "100% inference"? I don't know of any situation where your logic here would hold.

EDIT:
The logic here is about as sound as saying that "I, nor nobody else, know of no time that after the sun goes down it doesn't come up. Therefore the sun will always come up after going down."
I really hope you can see that this logic is unsound.

This is becoming a little tedious, TC, but I don't have you down as a deliberately obstructive character so I'll continue to try to get this point across to you...I'm infering, based on all other codes known to mankind having come from an intelligent mind, that DNA, being a code, has to have come from an intelligent mind. There is no known code to mankind that arose naturally or from anything other than an intelligent mind. Therefore DNA, based on what we know of the origin of all other codes, has come from an intelligent mind. It is not a proof; it is 100% inference. Again, this is just logically and rationally watertight.

touchingcloth wrote:I didn't say that it's nothing. I said that it does nothing...it's the name given to the fact that better organisms survive. Believe in micro or macro evolution and you give a tacit nod to the fact that the phenomenon exists. To deny that it exists you'd also have to deny that different organisms have differential survival rates.

So now you say natural selection does nothing? Oh boy this is going to be a long night.. This is absolutely crazy...

Phenomenon exists... But how it performs is a philosophical question.

Do you get it now?

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:DannyM - Sorry to be ignorant, but what do you mean by "100% inference"? I don't know of any situation where your logic here would hold.

EDIT:
The logic here is about as sound as saying that "I, nor nobody else, know of no time that after the sun goes down it doesn't come up. Therefore the sun will always come up after going down."
I really hope you can see that this logic is unsound.

This is becoming a little tedious, TC, but I don't have you down as a deliberately obstructive character so I'll continue to try to get this point across to you...I'm infering, based on all other codes known to mankind having come from an intelligent mind, that DNA, being a code, has to have come from an intelligent mind. There is no known code to mankind that arose naturally or from anything other than an intelligent mind. Therefore DNA, based on what we know of the origin of all other codes, has come from an intelligent mind. It is not a proof; it is 100% inference. Again, this is just logically and rationally watertight.

So is the inference that sunset -> sunrise also logically and rationally watertight? In that case we don't even have anything as perturbing as the 2 codes of unknown origin we have in DNA and RNA...

As zoegirl says it's classic god of the gaps stuff...hypothetically what would you say if it was demonstrated that DNA or RNA could br produced by simple stepwise processes? Is that all your faith in god hinges on?

Touch wrote:As zoegirl says it's classic god of the gaps stuff...hypothetically what would you say if it was demonstrated that DNA or RNA could br produced by simple stepwise processes? Is that all your faith in god hinges on?

Many say that ID is just an argument from ignorance, you can't prove that it's not true so it must be true. This is the classic God of the gaps argument. We don't know how it works yet so we say God did it. But we see this true with Darwinism all the time also with the origin of life, the origin of the phyla, the decent of man, in other words we don't know how it works yet, but we are going to say that evolution did it. So there is no difference between God of the gaps and evolution of the gaps. We say it's not testable; clearly you can't take bunch of non-living chemicals, expose it to the right conditions and get a cell to come out. It's something that took place in the past, we can't test this. We can't take a reptile, and expose it to radiation or gama rays, and get it to grow feathers.

It's the same argument...

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:I didn't say that it's nothing. I said that it does nothing...it's the name given to the fact that better organisms survive. Believe in micro or macro evolution and you give a tacit nod to the fact that the phenomenon exists. To deny that it exists you'd also have to deny that different organisms have differential survival rates.

So now you say natural selection does nothing? Oh boy this is going to be a long night.. This is absolutely crazy...

Phenomenon exists... But how it performs is a philosophical question.

Do you get it now?

For an example the phenomenon of the mercury in the thermometer moving, does now change the external temperature...it's a measure or an observation of the temperature.

In an analagous manner natural selection is the observation that better phenotypes are present in greater numbers than poorer ones. Natural selection isn't the process by which this happens (predation, sickness, non-viable offspring, efficiency of food processing, etc., are)...the mercury isn't the process by which the temperature outside increases...both are ways of thinking about a separate phenomena.

zoegirl wrote:From a purely natural observation, we can't know where they came from.

We can look to our examples and iner (and I believe they are strong inferences), but we can't really prove by science.

I think this is the danger of God of the Gaps.

For instance, say in 10 years we understand the conditions whereby RNA and DNA were formed and successfully created a very simple replicating life form in the lab. Have we disproven God? Have we shown that God wasn't invovled? Of course not.

To some degree, I think we place ourselves in a very dangerous position. We have defined for the atheists the conditions for the existence of God. We have stated now that "because this doesn't exist, God does". or "it needed God".

Well, shoot, unfortunately we can never have a control universe....we can never isolate God from this universe and say, "see, DNA and RNA could not be made, therefore, in this universe A, without God, shows that God exists"...

If they show how DNA or RNA can come together in a lab, would this crumble the faith? Would we not perceive that God would be working through those events as well?

Ultimately, I'm not sure we could "measure" God.



And selection isn't a force or an entity. I don't see where selection is a problem for the Christian. We can see the effects of seletion on plenty of organisms. What we aren't sure of is simply whether mutations are powerful enough to provide the variation needed for selection to work.

Zoe, i disagree. This is not a "god of the gaps" thing at all. The scientific process continues and no one is calling for a halt to all further research on the matter. The god of the gaps argument is a ruse by some evolutionists/atheists, a straw man built up to simply just knock down again, thus trying to ridicule any proponents of an intelligent cause behind DNA or the universe etc.

Ask yourself: is God unintelligent, then? Is he a bit of a thicky? I personally am not trying to fill any gaps; on the contrary, I'm following the rationality and the logic. Evolutionists who trot out the old "ongoing research" and "who knows what we might discover in ...years" are just stating the blindingly obvious and, in doing so, some are actually attempting to STIFLE all other ideas with this vagues appeal to the future... This is like throwing their white coats over the gaps so no one can posit any other ideas...

Gman wrote:

Touch wrote:As zoegirl says it's classic god of the gaps stuff...hypothetically what would you say if it was demonstrated that DNA or RNA could br produced by simple stepwise processes? Is that all your faith in god hinges on?

Many say that ID is just an argument from ignorance, you can't prove that it's not true so it must be true. This is the classic God of the gaps argument. We don't know how it works yet so we say God did it. But we see this true with Darwinism all the time also with the origin of life, the origin of the phyla, the decent of man, in other words we don't know how it works yet, but we are going to say that evolution did it. So there is no difference between God of the gaps and evolution of the gaps. We say it's not testable; clearly you can't take bunch of non-living chemicals, expose it to the right conditions and get a cell to come out. It's something that took place in the past, we can't test this. We can't take a reptile, and expose it to radiation or gama rays, and get it to grow feathers.

It's the same argument...

We can make testable hypotheses about the ToE though. We can propose situations that, if true, will render the theory false. It emphatically isn't a matter of looking at a given situation and saying "yup, evolution did that".

DannyM wrote:Ask yourself: is God unintelligent, then? Is he a bit of a thicky? I personally am not trying to fill any gaps; on the contrary, I'm following the rationality and the logic. Evolutionists who trot out the old "ongoing research" and "who knows what we might discover in ...years" are just stating the blindingly obvious and, in doing so, some are actually attempting to STIFLE all other ideas with this vagues appeal to the future... This is like throwing their white coats over the gaps so no one can posit any other ideas...

DannyM - you really aren't following the logic, not in a sound manner. You can say things like "no code known to man *was definitely not* made by an intelligence, and then conclude that all codes you ever encounter must be made by an intelligence, but to follow that logic totally would lead you to absurdities like my sunrise claim. Or perhaps the rational conclusion that every day you brush your teeth and every day you have not been murdered...therefore brushing your teeth protects you from murder.

EDIT - to follow your logic completely you'd have to conclude that DNA and RNA were made by man...

touchingcloth wrote:For an example the phenomenon of the mercury in the thermometer moving, does now change the external temperature...it's a measure or an observation of the temperature.

In an analagous manner natural selection is the observation that better phenotypes are present in greater numbers than poorer ones. Natural selection isn't the process by which this happens (predation, sickness, non-viable offspring, efficiency of food processing, etc., are)...the mercury isn't the process by which the temperature outside increases...both are ways of thinking about a separate phenomena.

I think Richard Dawkins explains it better...

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.” — Richard Dawkins

touchingcloth wrote:We can make testable hypotheses about the ToE though. We can propose situations that, if true, will render the theory false. It emphatically isn't a matter of looking at a given situation and saying "yup, evolution did that".

Out of what? Nothing?

touchingcloth wrote:So is the inference that sunset -> sunrise also logically and rationally watertight? In that case we don't even have anything as perturbing as the 2 codes of unknown origin we have in DNA and RNA...

As zoegirl says it's classic god of the gaps stuff...hypothetically what would you say if it was demonstrated that DNA or RNA could br produced by simple stepwise processes? Is that all your faith in god hinges on?

Zoegirl is bang wrong and so are you, TC. I have given you the logic of all other known codes coming from an intelligent source. The talk of "god of the gaps" is just your attempt to stifle any theory of an intelligence behind the genetic code. Name one code which arose naturally...? You can't. So where's your logic in refusing to see the inference?

Your hypothetical scenario is just nonsense; I'd like a coherent model out of you rather than vagueness. My faith in God doesn't hinge on this at all, and for you to even ask that question is just another ruse; where on earth have I even hinted that this is all my faith hinges on...? What I see here is you putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la" to the totally correct inference that I have made.

Name me one code that did not come from an intelligent mind...Just one code, TC? Then, when you tell me you can't name one, show me how you hold the logical ground and I don't...

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:We can make testable hypotheses about the ToE though. We can propose situations that, if true, will render the theory false. It emphatically isn't a matter of looking at a given situation and saying "yup, evolution did that".

Out of what? Nothing?

Who said out of nothing?

touchingcloth wrote:Who said out of nothing?

You stated earlier that NS is not a process, it doesn't observe, it doesn't create, it doesn't learn. So what's left? Sounds blind to me...

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Who said out of nothing?

You stated earlier that NS is not a process, it doesn't observe, it doesn't create, it doesn't learn. So what's left? Sounds blind to me...

I've repeatedly stated that natural selection is just the name given to the fact of (non random) differential survival between different phenotypes. What do you mean by "blind" and what do you mean by "out of nothing"?