Evidence for God from Science

seveneyes wrote: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....

Great question Seven and one that I never pondered till I started questioning evolution. Now let's look at what Richard Dawkins says. Dawkins claims that it's because of the selfish gene. What??????
How could a gene, which is nothing more than chemical matter in the atheistic/naturalistic/materialistic worldview act selfishly????

This is why in the atheistic/materialistic worldview scientists start to look silly when they make a statement that they know is a metaphysical one. Selfishness is a purposefully intent, and a purposefully intent comes from a mind, but because this points inductively to a God Dawkins chooses to make himself look like a sophomore in gradeschool.

Richard Conn Henry the physicist said it perfectly when he asserted that when quantum mechanics was discovered in the 1920's that physicists knew that the universe was mental, behaving more lime a great thought than a great mechanism. A great thought??? Hmmmmnnnn I wonder who mind we are now talking about:)

A timeless, spaceless, immaterial mind of great power:)
Amen

seveneyes wrote: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....

THe thing to understand in the thinking at work here is that evolution as a process is believed by many to be completely chance and there's no such thing as "good" or "bad" elements that evolve, there are only "successful" or unsuccessful" modification that for a variety of reasons including environment, genetic stability and long-term replication, available food supply or adaptation to a changing food supply etc. This is what the term "natural selection" is all about.

What many people are unaware of, or don't factor in when they look at the history of evolutionary science is that evolution as a theory wasn't original with Darwin. There were several before him that gave more or less similar hypotheses. What Darwin offered that was new was the concept of "natural selection" which offered an explanation as to why certain lines of evolution succeeded and why several other didn't. There hadn't been a viable explanation for this before and this was something too that the religious community appealed to beforehand as a "proof" or "evidence" of the need for recognition of God's work in selecting and designing animals and plants.

This has commonly been called since then the "God of the gaps". What it basically boils down to is a logical fallacy that fails to recognize the the absence of evidence for something is not necessarily the evidence of absence. Put another way, just because we don't have evidence that a particular event occured or process is at work, doesn't mean that we can conclude from that that the event didn't occur or such a process is at work. Pointing to a lack of evidence and making an appeal based upon that to draw a definitive conclusion may have a degree of validity in terms of the probability of the evidence existing in light of other evidence that exists and provides context. It cannot however, rule out the possibility that some such evidence does in fact exist and simply hasn't been found yet.

The problem for believers is that appealing to a God of the Gaps type argument, in effect hands a club to your detractor who then proceed to beat you with it when such evidence is found. If you claim that a lack of evidence for a natural process demonstrates the existence of God, then it's reasonable to infer that when such evidence is found that those to whom you made the original claim can then (equally erroneously by the way) assert that these material, naturalistic explanations for previously unexplained phenomena demonstrates that God doesn't exist.

In the end, in terms of the pure science of it, evolution is just a mechanism or a means by which we understand how change takes place within specific populations over time. It neither proves nor disproves God. For those (like me) who accept the existence of God and His interaction with man within His creation, it doesn't really matter to me that such a natural process exists because all that demonstrates to me is that that is a possible or probable method used by God to achieve His ends. The existence of evolution on a small or a large scale begs some questions of course but in the end science lacks the tools to generate evidence or interpret it that can prove something outside the physical and material world.

That's why those elements of evolution as a theory that are rooted in pure science and observable over time pose no threat to a Christian worldview. They simple are what they are and the issues of design and cause outside of that are superflous or secondary to the pure science of it. That's when science gives way to philosophy or religion and the questions are asked of cause and purpose. That is where the conflict lies.

What concerns me as a Christian is that many arguing in this field against evolution on the basis of their fear of the consequences or conclusion that can be drawn in the philosophical realm then go on to summarily reject the actual science of it and in so doing become what has at times sadly defined Christians who do this as anti-intellectual or unwilling to even consider the possibility that their interpretation of Scripture is as susceptable to challenge.

Not to pick on him (as I am prone to in other situations admittedly) but Ken Ham (and I use him because I just recently rewatched a 10 show series of debate with him and Jason Lisle against Hugh Ross and Walter Kaiser) repeatedly and without recognition of any challenges or evidence to the contrary continually defends his position as necessary because if anything is conceded outside of his interpretation of scripture using the literary hermeneutic he employs then in his estimation scripture is then rendered unreliable and everything else drawn from Scripture including our knowledge of God and God's plan of salvation is called into question.

To this I respond "Nonsense!!!"

What is rendered unreliable is Ken Ham's interpretation of Scripture. Theology is less defined by it's willingness to adapt and change because it's foundation is somewhat more constant that the state of science which is designed to be flexible and change regularly as more information or evidence is discovered or generated. Theology tends to resist change much more because the source of it (revealed Scripture primarily) is constant. That doesn't mean however that theology doesn't change or that Theology in the past hasn't changed in direct response to natural discoveries. Remember that an element of theological basis includes Natural Theology and it's historically been presumed that this is a contributing element to an overall theological framework. If something in that area disconnects and no longer makes consistent sense, while it's more natural and often more accurate to question science as it is the more changable and flexible side of things, but that doesn't mean that it is exlusively science that must be pushed into the mold of existing theology. Given enough time and enough evidence for something if it calls an element of interpretive theology into question, that too is a legitimate (if less common) possibility to consider.

YEC itself as it stands often accuses OEC and theistic evolutionist as having compromised with science and departing from a Biblical foundation. In a subtle way, however the same is true of the modern YEC movement. YEC is as much a reaction against modern science as what YEC proponents claim is the positive influence of it upon those who disagree with them. When you define yourself by what you are against you then cede control to define the argument to a source outside of your own belief system. That's true whether it's direct or indirect.

Anway, sorry for rambling. Hopefully this makes some sense and adds something to the conversation. If not, just let it slide by.

Canuckster, very good analogy. I am an OEC because I followed the evidence and I was open to all 3 views and still am if it can be shown to me. I cant understand why science and theology cant work hand in hand as they have for centuries past. Science has always been good at answering the how, but not the WHY.

byblos wrote:

Whatever dude. I honestly have to question what is your purpose for being here. If it's only to hear yourself offer snide remarks then be my guest, you've done a good job. But I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage such juvenile non-answers.

There are options:

You could always resort to ad hominem.

Or, you could put blinders on and selectively choose to pretend that complexity refers to the structure of God rather than address the implications that complex design would have for its designer. (Interestingly, as an aside observation, the theoretical structure of God is so “simple” that some theologians call him a trinity.)

Or, you could explain how complex design could arise from a single simplistic cause, as you claim God to be. Of these three options, this is the one you have left to do. (And you might even discover, quite unexpectedly, that you are a big hit with the atheists once you can achieve this.)
.

coldblood wrote:byblos wrote:

Whatever dude. I honestly have to question what is your purpose for being here. If it's only to hear yourself offer snide remarks then be my guest, you've done a good job. But I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage such juvenile non-answers.

There are options:

You could always resort to ad hominem.

Or, you could put blinders on and selectively choose to pretend that complexity refers to the structure of God rather than address the implications that complex design would have for its designer. (Interestingly, as an aside observation, the theoretical structure of God is so “simple” that some theologians call him a trinity.)

Or, you could explain how complex design could arise from a single simplistic cause, as you claim God to be. Of these three options, this is the one you have left to do. (And you might even discover, quite unexpectedly, that you are a big hit with the atheists once you can achieve this.)
.

Coldblood, reading back through this thread it's a little late for you to attempt to claim the high ground. You're a smart enough person I believe to understand our Board Purpose and Discussion Guidelines. Referring to God as a "Simpleton" puts your feigned surprise at the response you received in a pretty easy to see mode.

Byblos is likely concerned about invoking his moderator status given his interaction with you on this issue, but I don't have that problem.

Please consider this a warning. Read our board purpose and discussion guidelines if you haven't or reacquaint yourself with them. Disagreement is fine within those guidelines. Ridicule and mocking of the God this board stands for doesn't fall within those perameters and becoming indignant when it's reflected back to you leaves your reaction rather lifeless and transparent.

If you can keep to those guidelines you're welcome here. If you can't or won't then there are other boards out there geared for debate on these issues that will likely work better for you.

Thanks,

bart

coldblood wrote:byblos wrote:

Whatever dude. I honestly have to question what is your purpose for being here. If it's only to hear yourself offer snide remarks then be my guest, you've done a good job. But I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage such juvenile non-answers.

There are options:

You could always resort to ad hominem.

Or, you could put blinders on and selectively choose to pretend that complexity refers to the structure of God rather than address the implications that complex design would have for its designer. (Interestingly, as an aside observation, the theoretical structure of God is so “simple” that some theologians call him a trinity.)

Or, you could explain how complex design could arise from a single simplistic cause, as you claim God to be. Of these three options, this is the one you have left to do. (And you might even discover, quite unexpectedly, that you are a big hit with the atheists once you can achieve this.)
.

Another alternative would be for you to actually interact with others and bother to simply read the material I linked where all these points you raise are answered and have been answered for hundreds of years.

But here's the kicker though, you marvel how we simpletons could believe that such complexity could possibly arise from a 'single simplistic cause' as you put it (which right there tells me you have no clue what divine simplicity even entails), you marvel at that when you yourself believe that such complexity arose from, wait for it, ... absolutely nothing.

Like I said, whatever dude, to each his own.

This is how the bible starts:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So we see that the Earth was pre-existing with water before any creatures walked upon it or the main creation happened. Now, reading the rest of the creation story it becomes clear to me that the author was a person from long ago who did not know much of anything about actual science and so God who knowing that this story would eventually be canonized and read for centuries used this man and his ignorance to put forth what we needed to understand in a rudimentary way. The man would not have understood anything about mathematical equations or physics to have written anything along those lines, but he was capable of hearing basic principals like "Let there be light" which tells us that Gods will and decision brought such things into play. Future allegorical problems as far as the stars being put into place on the fourth day are also not an issue for God. Evidently since the earth was pre-existing the more extensive creation, one can pretty easily assume that other things in space were in fact there also, yet it was enough for God to have us see that the stars etc are at least in part there for us to have a reference point toward understanding the universe and the world that we live in. Hence the written: 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

There are underlying truths here that shine through the ignorant mans writing concerning our origins which basically are that God had a plan, a purpose and that other things in the universe have a function within that. That is enough for us to begin and to understand and to come to grips with the existential questions of our hearts. The fact that we all are supposed to be here and that there is a plan and a purpose to life. The creation story was never meant to be a chart and guide to the nuances of quantum mechanics, although we will and do find as we learn more about such things that, for instance; light and water are essential ingredients to life as we know it, and there are many other such truths contained within the creation story.

The book of Genesis is much less a story about creation and more a story about our fallen spiritual state resulting from our freedom of choice being used to do things that we knew God had commanded us not to do. It is good of God to give us what we needed and knew would help guide us toward him.

Bippy and Seveneyes, I'm afraid yo don't understand the mechanism of evolution fully, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to make the arguments you did. First of all, evolution does NOT say that fish can jump out of water and magically grow wings and legs...The key point of evolution is that individuals do not evolve, but populations do.

Take your fish example. According to the theory of evolution, the fish in question cannot "will" itself to avoid being eaten and suddenly gain the ability to avoid its predators. Instead, the story would play out more like this: A species of fish lives in a lake and is the prey for a larger, more advantageous animal. But, one day, a fish might be born with a certain mutation. For instance, its lower fins might become stronger so it can swim faster. This fish will likely survive more easily than its unchanged counterparts. It will be more likely to survive and reproduce, and its offspring will have that same advantage. Over several generations, all or most of the remaining fish will have this advantageous ability. Now say those bones in the fins become stronger over time as well. They might become "fingers." Indeed, if natural circumstances began to select for only fish with different oxygen intake systems (a change in the water chemistry/makeup could do this) some fish might become capable of living outside of water, using the previously developed "fingers" to move. This is an abbreviated possible method of a fish species becoming land dwellers (or more likely amphibians).

As far as bacteria, who you claim should "obviously" have macroevolved in a lab by this juncture. That, my friend, is a laughable assertion. Say I have a lab with several thousand, or even millions, of bacteria. Say I keep them there for several weeks. Now, they didn't evolve into multi-cellular organisms? How strange...Let's look at the history of organisms on Earth. For MILLIONS of years single celled organisms were the only things alive on Earth. On literally every inch of this planet. Did you know the combined mass of every bacteria on Earth right now outweighs the combined mass of all humans? By several times? Now multiply that number today by 3 or 4 to get the amount living for those millions of years. As you point out, is it extremely unlikely that single-celled organisms would jump to multi-cellular organisms. I don't know, can you replicate that many generations with that many individual organisms in a lab? Until then, it's ludicrous to assume it "must" have happened by now. Also, for the record, scientists have found preliminary results that include single-celled bacteria forming multi-cellular collectives with specialized functions...so your point may be moot anyway.

Also, thank you Canuckster for the detailed "God of the Gaps" explanation. The best phrase is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It applies both to God in science and to the entire ID movement's arguments against evolution. ID's only argument is "evolution doesn't have this answer, so obviously this is evidence of ID." That is what you keep insisting on pushing forward as "science."

Canuckster1127

I am not surprised by anything. However, I will admit that I had never heard of, thought of, or in any way conceived of God as “simple” until introduced to that concept by Byblos. Certainly I never posted anything to that effect EXCEPT in reply to Bablos.

I suspect my beliefs in an eternal God and a God-created universe are in agreement with those of Bablos. What I do not support is inconsistent logic. I do not think it does Christians any good to be inconsistent. If I am wrong, show me. I can listen.

Bablos’ idea of a simple God is new to me. It seems counterintuitive to the creator of a complex universe. I have asked Bablos to explain this. How does complexity arise from the singularly simple? How does order arise from non-order? Or, if ordered, then why does an orderly universe imply a creator while an infinitely more ordered God does not?

If these questions are too hard, or are out of place, or simply make someone uncomfortable then ban me. Or, I will go away on my own. You needn’t threaten me; just ask me. It is not my intention to hurt anyone.

Having said all this, if my rhetoric has been too sharp, I apologize. I do admit to highlighting contrasts between what a person says and what is reasonable. However, I have never belittled another poster; questioned their motives, called them Dude, told them their posts were juvenile, or the like.

Every person I exchange ideas with is a human being, just like me. I respect each of them even as I do myself. That is not to say that I think every person’s ideas are always sound; and it is to the ideas that respond.

coldblood,

Nothing would please me more for this to just be a blip on the radar and I hope you'll find this a place you can interact and benefit as well as give us the benefit of your thoughts and perspectives, even if they are not always in alignment with our board's purpose.

Just take a look again as a reminder if necessary, the purpose and guidelines and be aware that it's a public board that involves more than just the immediate participants in a conversation. Your interaction in my estimation in this particular instance did come across as somewhat harsh and mocking.

If you have any other questions or I can help, then pm me or any other member of the moderating team and we'll be glad to help you find where that balance lies.

Thanks for the understanding. We're not afraid of hard questions. If you're intersting at addressing or just observing something in this line at a fairly deep level I would suggest you find the current thread going on about divine simplicity and the nature of God and you'll find that what Byblos was suggesting in his communication with you involved more than you might have initially realized. just a suggestion.

bart

Byblos

Another alternative would be for you to actually interact with others and bother to simply read the material I linked where all these points you raise are answered and have been answered for hundreds of years.

I did read into it, as far as I felt I needed to go. I will not characterize it but I will say, strictly IMO, that we run into trouble when we try to invent God. (My apologies if that offends you. I realize you do not recognize their efforts as anything of the sort, and may view someone who does as being terribly misguided.) Also, I will say that a question’s being old is no reason for evading its answer. I wasn’t around hundreds of years ago and, anyway, the answer to how complexity arises from simplicity has yet to filter its way down to me.

But here's the kicker though, you marvel how we simpletons

I never said you, or anyone else, was a simpleton. You introduced the idea of simplicity when you said God was the opposite of complex, that he was absolutely simple, etc.

could believe that such complexity could possibly arise from a 'single simplistic cause' as you put it (which right there tells me you have no clue what divine simplicity even entails),

I agree with you there. I absolutely have no clue as to what divine simplicity entails; and I am sure you will forgive me if I have my doubts about what you understand, as well; (please, nothing personal). However, to the extent that the complex can be created by the simplistic, here is an opportunity for you to explain.

you marvel at that when you yourself believe that such complexity arose from, wait for it, ... absolutely nothing.

Either way, you better believe that I marvel! It is all beyond me; WAY beyond me. Eternal God? Come on, I can’t even begin to fathom that. Yet something-from-nothing is, in some way that I can’t explain (much less defend), far more difficult to believe. But, I will go one better; I can’t even fathom nothing.

If you marvel, too, then we are not that different. Yet this was never what I intended to point out in my original post. My initial intent was to point out a problem I have with IDer logic.

ID logic is that the universe had to be designed and my claim was that, if they were to extend that logic to God, they would have to conclude that God, too, had to be designed. I see their cherry-picking as to where they apply their logic as a flaw in their reasoning. My problem is with their cherry-picking.

NOTE: I did NOT say God had to be designed, or anything like that. I am saying, only, that is where IDer logic would take you.

I’ll try paraphrasing and simplifying my original post, but this time being careful to avoid the word complex. (I had no idea of the sidetracks that word, “complex” would take.)

[ID logic] The universe is too ordered to have just happened-[ergo: had to have been designed].
God is infinitely more ordered than the universe; therefore he, too, could not have just happened-[ergo: had to have been designed].

Or syllogistically:

The known universe is too great to have just happened.
God is greater than the known universe.
Therefore God is too great to have just happened.

It is the logical extension of ID.

Just to jump in real fast- science can conclude that there are things that have always been and will always be, just that in the physical universe, this is impossible. -The "logical" argument that even God had to have a beginning isn't logical anymore... Funny how logic fails with the light of knowledge.

The known universe is too great to have just happened.
God is greater than the known universe.
Therefore God is too great to have just happened.

Huge stretch in my opinion. You assume that the physical and metaphysical operate as equals under the same rules and not one subject to the other and therefore above the rules set by the one for the other. You're reading in your own presupposition perhaps and circling back, but in any event, it's not a logical given nor a strong argument in my opinion.

Ivellious again you have not addressed my posts completely and have cherry picked parts of it. As I have rightly claimed there has never been a macro mutation that has been beneficial. The fruit fly experiment showed many many different mutations but not one single mutation was beneficial to the organism. I'm sorry Ivellious , the problem is I do understand the mechanism of evolution and that is why I assert that macroevolution is a fairy tale with little true science to back it up. You still haven't addressed this question, and while your at it please address to us the mechanism of macro evolution, because at the 1980 Chicago conference of the top evolutionists in the world they even admitted that macroevolution can't be scientifically extrapolated from microevolution.

So I'm waiting for the great scientific evidence for macroevolution. Please point it out to me since evolutionary biologists don't have it and yet it is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution.
If not you can always hide behind punctuates equilibrium like Steven j Gould did because he himself knew the evidence for it in the fossil record is nonexistent. If you don't believe me all you need to do is look up gould's quotes himself.

Ivellious again your not understanding what was done with the fruit flies and the bacteria. When the environment has been stable for millions of years ( as it has been shown to be during periods of time in between the turmoils that came in between for example the permian exctinction and the beginning of the triassic period just as an example) organisms dont need to micro evolve, but when harsh conditions come about this is when they try to adapt to survive. With the fruit fly experiment just as with the bacteria experiment harsh conditions of all types were simulated to speed up the evolutionary process. Your simply wrong in asserting that this cant be done because it has been done. Im wondering why you didnt even think of this point.

When harsh conditions happen adaption has to happen quickly or the organism dies out, its simple as that, and again this takes me back to my assertion that when the evolutionary time process has been speeded up and random mutation is produced along with the mechanism of natural selection there is absolutely nothing but bacteria and fruit flies. For you to assert that the time process of evolution cant be speeded up is plain wrong. Scientists have done this, and yet they keep asserting macroevolution is a scientific fact is false as there is no evidence to claim this but their materialistic worldview which is not science but philosophy.


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

which shows that this is far from what you have asserted. Again your defending a theory thats supposed to be packed with incredible scientific evidence and defending yet, but it just doesnt stand up to scientific rigor, and yet they are teaching only this in biology classes. I have no problem with micro evolution as fact but when they try to teach us macroevolution as fact (and teh biology texts state this as such) then there is a problem with science itself. This is a worldview philosophy that just isnt backed up with scientific fact.

Now Lets get to your single celled experiment in which they formed multi cellular colonies with specialized functions.
Ill just use an article from this site By Richard Deem himself to debunk this.