Evidence for God from Science

Yes, Zoe, my point exactly. Hormones and pesticides being used on food today are most likely responsible for premature growth and aging in humans that consume them (not to mention diseases like cancer). God certainly never meant for all these things to be used in the way they are being used today. And I certainly don't think that people used them in biblical times either. Just more of man messing with God's perfect creations.

jenwat3 wrote:Thanks for the tips, Zoe and Jad. Think I'll stick with the post replies for now though.

yea that made my head hurt ....

Yes you are right!! Its all man damaging and messing up the earth. everywhere. deforestation. pollution. global warming. pesticides. damaging ecosystems, environment. back then ppl didnt maybe know what it all meant. But today we do!! Yet people dont care since "ah i may not live then" and so they cant be bothered. Why so much packaging waste? WHy so little renewable fuels? Its all man's fault. Whose? All those who do nothing about it. Me for example at least try to separate waste and use little electricity, water etc. But for some people this doesnt mean much, unfortunately. the earth is so fragile and something needs to be done if we want our children and grandchildren to have a future!!

I thought some time ago about a potential and realizable thing... that there could be some things to get started. By a small group of people and then expand. For example - PET bottles - not throw them or recycle, but return and refill. Cosmetics packages such as shampoos, soaps, detergents, etc - some of them last even after, including the labels!! why throw em out and make new ones and throw them out and burn or leave to take space and material on a placew where garbage is thrown out? Why not organize to take them back and refill and use the same container hundreds of times? Simple!! Just requires will. So its not just recycling im thinkin about but simple re-using. Also recycling but we definitely dont need to have each small thing packaged in its own. even candy. you buy a packet of 100-200 grams. lots of packaging. then each may have more in itself. then the litter ends up burned or on a landfill for waste. Ridiculous!!
Any thoughts??

You asked for it and here it is. I do not take credit for this as it was posted the other day by a member of this board. That person gets all the credit for finding this article. Go to the link that is provided below and let us know what you think after reading the article.

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm

Amazing!! so an evidence for a creator???
Yeah OK but then - again - how do we explain metaphysically where DNA came from? and all its charactersitics? OK saying God created - thats ok for a believer. And I believe that although God did make it, He didnt make it just appear randomly; there have been processes leading to this very good DNA code. and will science ever be able to explain where it came from? just like universe - we are amazed by how it is arranged, yet... - how did it arise - randomly? Same as for life - only that we dont refer to universe creation of evolution per se.

I realize i may be taking a huge risk in stating this but I'm going to do so.

First, I know I haven't been as active here as of late and many may not know me, so let me point out that I've been here for some time and good or bad, I've been asked to help here as a board administrator. I'm an evangelical Christian, ordained pastor, Old Earth Creationist and father of 5. I have the equivielent of an undergrad degree in Biblical Literature and have done Master of Science level work in Organizational Leadership which is a science based, psychological type degree.

I read the article on Evolution cited above and while there were parts of me that wanted to stand up and cheer I had some warning flags going off as well.

We need to be very careful as Christians not to get caught up in what I see there as something of a God of the Gaps argument. That is a common type of argument where it is stated that because science can't explain something that that is evidence that God must have done something because there is no other explanation. It has often been invoked in the past and then when science makes a breakthrough to explain something, it appears as if God has been disproven. As Christians we can paint ourselves into a corner when we invoke this kind of reasoning.

My faith in God is not based upon whether or not it can be explained plausibly how DNA could construct in a theorhetical form in an evolutionary process.

Do I believe God created everything? Yes. But I don't know precisely how and if God established things in a manner that used or guided what we see as "natural" processes that doesn't detract from His sovereignty or creation in any manner. It simply lends insight as to "how" He did something.

I think we may well be hitting some of the limits as of the natural processes God established. It is possible that the question as to how DNA was programmed is a strong natural argument for the existence of God. It is also possible that more will be learned about it and the argument will continue to grow and change as more is learned.

As a Christian I am not anti-science. I see science as a wonderful tool to learn more about the creation God made and I don't imagine that we have plumbed the depths of all there is to know by any means. I reject materialistic atheism and its reliance upon Evolution as a Science which it then co-opts into the realm of philosophy and accepts as an article of faith which rejects the existence of God.

Too often, as Christians we fall into the trap of imagining that because atheists use science to "prove" the basis of their philosophy that we have to respond in kind and use it to "prove" the flaws in their argument (which I think is legitimate) but then we go the extra step and make the claim that the lack of evidence or lack of an explanation proves our case. My faith in God is strengthened by the complexity of this universe but it is not based primarily upon that.

As I read the article, I see that error present and I'm going to state that great strides are being made in the science of genetics and the human genome which has just recently been completely documented and I think there are potentially amazing to us, discoveries yet to be made. Let's not make the mistake of falling into God of the Gap type arguments only to have to revise and adapt and do it over again when the information progresses or changes. Let's keep things in perspective and realize what is faith and what is knowlege and where our beliefs in God lie foundationally.

Good to see you back Bart. You have been sorely missed.

Byblos wrote:

Good to see you back Bart. You have been sorely missed.

Sometimes you have to go away for a little bit and then come back when there's a whole new crop of people to annoy!

Very well put, Canuckster!

As soon as we place the arguement for God in the "we can't explain it" department, we have unwittingly given atheists the standards to reject God. AS soon as they can establish a mechanism, they can use our "Standard" to reject the idea of God. And God can certainly be in full control and still use "mechanisms" and "processes" that may *seem* naturalistic.

Canuckster1127,

WOW! So very well said! I couldn't agree more.

This kind of 'God of the Gaps' argumentation I see lots of in the ID movement as well and I find it frustrating.

Jad wrote:Canuckster1127,

WOW! So very well said! I couldn't agree more.

This kind of 'God of the Gaps' argumentation I see lots of in the ID movement as well and I find it frustrating.

Jad,

I agree with you that this is a risk in the Intelligent Design movement. My concerns with the ID movement are more practical ones. I think ID is primarily categorized by two things as it is being expressed in the US.

1. I believe ID is a movement that some see and are using as an attempt to work within the bounds of certain legal rulings to introduce an alternative to evolutionary science. As such, there are elements to it that seem to me to be "reverse engineered" to make it fit the narrowing scope of what the courts deem allowable to avoid the introduction of religion into the schools. I usually get screams of protest when I say that, but I have to be honest with myself that I see that present and it calls into question how scientific it really is.

2. Intelligent Design isn't new. It's been a part of philosophy for all recorded history. What is new now is that some are seeking to introduce elements of probability on a more scientific basis and I think that is a very intriguing and worthy goal though I'm not sure I understand enough of it in that realm to really make comment.

The idea of irreducible complexity is really interesting to me. I have no problem, of course, as a Christian and a creationist believing that God can speak something into being out of nothing. I accept that on faith. In terms of my personal faith and thinking with regard to origins I don't believe anything happened by accident.

I think divide ID into 2 categories. As a science movement I'm glad this alternative approach is being looked at as I think it is valuable for there to be challenges to entrenched ways of thinking that help to lead to new discoveries. I think science is served well by that and over time there may be some good things that come from it. As a social movement, I'm a little wary because I think as Christians we need to be upfront and not simply mold our beliefs to fit what a legal system says we can teach. I'm concerned about ID as a movement there, not because it says too much, but because I think it may achieve too little and compromise too much in its efforts.

A lot of people whom I have a great deal of respect for think otherwise though and I'm continually trying to work through it as it develops more.

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote: Jad,

I agree with you that this is a risk in the Intelligent Design movement. My concerns with the ID movement are more practical ones. I think ID is primarily categorized by two things as it is being expressed in the US.

1. I believe ID is a movement that some see and are using as an attempt to work within the bounds of certain legal rulings to introduce an alternative to evolutionary science. As such, there are elements to it that seem to me to be "reverse engineered" to make it fit the narrowing scope of what the courts deem allowable to avoid the introduction of religion into the schools. I usually get screams of protest when I say that, but I have to be honest with myself that I see that present and it calls into question how scientific it really is.

2. Intelligent Design isn't new. It's been a part of philosophy for all recorded history. What is new now is that some are seeking to introduce elements of probability on a more scientific basis and I think that is a very intriguing and worthy goal though I'm not sure I understand enough of it in that realm to really make comment.

The idea of irreducible complexity is really interesting to me. I have no problem, of course, as a Christian and a creationist believing that God can speak something into being out of nothing. I accept that on faith. In terms of my personal faith and thinking with regard to origins I don't believe anything happened by accident.

I think divide ID into 2 categories. As a science movement I'm glad this alternative approach is being looked at as I think it is valuable for there to be challenges to entrenched ways of thinking that help to lead to new discoveries. I think science is served well by that and over time there may be some good things that come from it. As a social movement, I'm a little wary because I think as Christians we need to be upfront and not simply mold our beliefs to fit what a legal system says we can teach. I'm concerned about ID as a movement there, not because it says too much, but because I think it may achieve too little and compromise too much in its efforts.

A lot of people whom I have a great deal of respect for think otherwise though and I'm continually trying to work through it as it develops more.

Bart

Thanks again Bart for your insightful comments. I agree with both points you make, mostly.

I've said this elsewhere on godandscience.org but I'll say it again here as I am very interested in your response; I think there are a few arguments that are used to support ID which are flawed. The first is the watchmaker analogy, that a watch by design implies a watchmaker. A painting implies a painter is also another one. The problem I have with this type of argument comes from something John Stewart Mill said in the early 1800's. He said "Watches imply watchmakers only because we know by previous experience that watches are things made by watchmakers. In like manner one would not know that dung was something left by an animal unless he had previously observed animals deposit dung."

I think he makes a good point. And it's a comment that isn't against ID arguments alone, it can be argued against evolution in some cases as well. Things can only 'appear' like processes of Darwinian evolution etc.

I too am glad that this alternative approach of ID is being looked at and is a challenge to other entrenched ways but in the same token must we limit God's creation to only what looks like design to the human mind? I agree with you that nothing happened by accident. I don't believe in any kind of true randomness or chance but there are certainly some things that 'appear' random or caused by chance. That doesn't mean actual true 'chance' is occurring here, it simply means that at the moment it appears like something happened by chance to us humans. What the study of the natural sciences seems to chip away at every day when finding new discoveries though, is true chance or randomness. It is continually becoming extinct in every aspect of science. What we know about subatomic particles today is that there are some things going on there that appear to be popping in and out of existence from nothing. It may 'appear' that way now but if I know the study of the natural sciences well enough, sometime in the future there is going to be a causal explanation. There is no way a true quantum physicist is going to stop right there in his studies and declare something acausal if you know what I mean.

Even reverse engineering I have trouble agreeing with. Reverse engineering to who? Narrowing scope to who? The universe being 'fine tuned' for life on earth is also another argument I question. What if God created a species of living things that had the capacity of thought, the physical bodies, breathing techniques and senses etc to live and reproduce on Mars? They too can study their natural sciences and conclude this universe was fine tuned so that life could exist on Mars and nowhere else. Again I think we limit God's creation to only something we can somewhat comprehend. When the Bible says His thoughts are higher than my thoughts and His ways are higher than my ways it makes me look at His creation in a different light. It makes me wonder if I should be limiting it to only what we can comprehend as humans.

Anyway I'll leave it at that for the moment. I hope it makes sense. Like yourself Bart I get screams of protests concerning these issues as well and I can understand why to a certain point. In any case I'd love to here what you have to say about my thoughts as I enjoy your writing very much. I could be barking up the wrong tree in my thoughts for all I know so I am open to being completely wrong.

Jad

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Jad wrote:Canuckster1127,

WOW! So very well said! I couldn't agree more.

This kind of 'God of the Gaps' argumentation I see lots of in the ID movement as well and I find it frustrating.

Jad,

I agree with you that this is a risk in the Intelligent Design movement. My concerns with the ID movement are more practical ones. I think ID is primarily categorized by two things as it is being expressed in the US.

1. I believe ID is a movement that some see and are using as an attempt to work within the bounds of certain legal rulings to introduce an alternative to evolutionary science. As such, there are elements to it that seem to me to be "reverse engineered" to make it fit the narrowing scope of what the courts deem allowable to avoid the introduction of religion into the schools. I usually get screams of protest when I say that, but I have to be honest with myself that I see that present and it calls into question how scientific it really is.

2. Intelligent Design isn't new. It's been a part of philosophy for all recorded history. What is new now is that some are seeking to introduce elements of probability on a more scientific basis and I think that is a very intriguing and worthy goal though I'm not sure I understand enough of it in that realm to really make comment.

I define ID as a recent movement which attempts to overthrow the philosophical naturalism which was brought about directly from Meyer, Dembski, Behe, and Wells. As such, ID is new. If it was not then there would not be such a strong reaction against it. The teleologically behind it is certainly not new, however the arguments are more sophisticated and directly aimed at shaking science free from a metaphysical naturalist perspective.

Canuck wrote:The idea of irreducible complexity is really interesting to me. I have no problem, of course, as a Christian and a creationist believing that God can speak something into being out of nothing. I accept that on faith. In terms of my personal faith and thinking with regard to origins I don't believe anything happened by accident.

Just a point of note that Biblical faith is generally never a blind faith. To clarify your meaning of faith, I am sure your faith in a Christian accounting of creation is based on trust God's existence due to personal experiences, your heart, reasoning, and the total range of evidences you see including the idea of irreducibly complex biological systems. This would mean your faith in believing a Christian accounting of creation is not only better grounded, but also that your belief in God is at least partially (not entirely) based on such arguments.

I would agree that ID arguments can not create full reason to believe in God's existence. In fact, I believe that even the best philosophical arguments one could put forward for God's existence would not convince all who hear them. There are no win-all magical arguments, and this is because why we believe is based on more than logical reasoning and sensory experiences. There are a whole range of other truth conducive tools we as human make use of including our intuition, heart, experiences, emotions, and very much so reason, which form a completed whole to belief in something. And as a Christian, we can not rule out that God plays an important role with who He reveals Himself to (aligning our faculties perhaps to see the truth of Him) and who He does not.

So I guess in all this my point was that you may accept certain things about God on "faith", but that such faith in based upon a whole range of other factors which could also include ID arguments which would offer coherent kind of support.

Canuck wrote:I think divide ID into 2 categories. As a science movement I'm glad this alternative approach is being looked at as I think it is valuable for there to be challenges to entrenched ways of thinking that help to lead to new discoveries. I think science is served well by that and over time there may be some good things that come from it. As a social movement, I'm a little wary because I think as Christians we need to be upfront and not simply mold our beliefs to fit what a legal system says we can teach. I'm concerned about ID as a movement there, not because it says too much, but because I think it may achieve too little and compromise too much in its efforts.

To understand the new movement of ID one needs to understand what the founders initially set out to achieve (i.e., The Wedge). It is taking ID too far if one attempts to use to prove God's existence (which I think is the main issue in your post which you are correctly identifying). Rather it is better to use it to bring into question the philosophical prejudices which not only grip science today with presuming a Neodarwinian form of Evolution (presuming an "Atheism of the gaps" if you will), but which appear to have gripped science in early 20th American society with the teaching of Creationism. Any Christian reader who is thinking, "but we should do our best to get God wherever we can." That is good and I agree. However, an impartial teaching of science not only serves science better and gives us a better understanding of truth (which should quite naturally lead to God), but also protects our own future interests against other positions which try to assume control secular or otherwise.

canuck wrote:A lot of people whom I have a great deal of respect for think otherwise though and I'm continually trying to work through it as it develops more.

All that said, I do not necessarily disagree with you as a whole and I have thought about your perspectives on ID since we last chatted about them some time ago. Since then I have seen ARN which I considered to be a true ID advocate say some rather revealing things with Creationist motivations. I have come to see that the founders I previously named of ID do in fact compromise their own movement by allowing all Christians, including YECs, to use it for their own purposes.

On the other hand these "founders" (Meyer, Dembski and the like) are very sharp and clearly see where the lines are drawn philosophically and scientifically with their brand of ID. This is clear to me in many of the books of theirs I have read. Their only fault is allowing anyone who wants to, to stand under the "ID umbrella". In doing this I do not see how they can retort back to their critics that they are being wrongly characterized as having a Creationist agenda when they are in fact so complacent with having such Creationists in their camp. However, The Discovery Institute have placed some boundaries in only pushing for the full science on evolution with problems and the evidence to be presented to students who are then required to make a decision.

The true issue as I see it is being able to learn about scientific knowledge in an as philosophically neutral environment as is possible, and not necessarily proving God's existence.

Kurieuo wrote:On the other hand these "founders" (Meyer, Dembski and the like) are very sharp and clearly see where the lines are drawn philosophically and scientifically with their brand of ID. This is clear to me in many of the books of theirs I have read. Their only fault is allowing anyone who wants to, to stand under the "ID umbrella". In doing this I do not see how they can retort back to their critics that they are being wrongly characterized as having a Creationist agenda when they are in fact so complacent with having such Creationists in their camp.

I think they were characterized as having a Creationist agenda when that court case back in Denver 2005 revealed the almost word of word copy of 'Pandas and People', a creationism book they used in school to teach ID in which they changed the word 'creation' in all the text to 'Intelligent Design'. Since then that is all the secular world sees when they hear about ID it seems. I can understand why.

Jad wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:On the other hand these "founders" (Meyer, Dembski and the like) are very sharp and clearly see where the lines are drawn philosophically and scientifically with their brand of ID. This is clear to me in many of the books of theirs I have read. Their only fault is allowing anyone who wants to, to stand under the "ID umbrella". In doing this I do not see how they can retort back to their critics that they are being wrongly characterized as having a Creationist agenda when they are in fact so complacent with having such Creationists in their camp.

I think they were characterized as having a Creationist agenda when that court case back in Denver 2005 revealed the almost word of word copy of 'Pandas and People', a creationism book they used in school to teach ID in which they changed the word 'creation' in all the text to 'Intelligent Design'. Since then that is all the secular world sees when they hear about ID it seems. I can understand why.

And if you followed that case from beginning to end then you will know that YECs who hijacked ID for their own purposes went against the recommendations of The Discovery Institute (ID).

Did you know the judge on that case also essentially cut and paste the response of ACLU in his own rulings?