Evidence for God from Science

There are a couple of reasons that ID is not a scientific explanation. The primary reason is does not qualify as science is because it violates a central assumption in the philosophy and practice of science - that of methodological naturalism.

In what way does ID violate methodological naturalism? Is it because it does not tag along the premise of chance and luck, and instead assumes goal-directed purposeful.

Simply put, science always assume natural explanation exist for natural phenomena.

Of course it must since humans have no choice but to stay within the boundaries of natural phenomena (where else do humans reside if not in natural physical space?). Nobody in "core" of the ID movement as Kureiuo puts it well is out to prove the designers existence in any form/fashion, making it well within the boundaries of nature. That maybe up to creationism or other forms of religion to handle/solve but it is clearly not what ID is set out to do. Considering half of ID's foundation is based upon being a skeptic of Darwinism, consider that a skeptic (even of scientific theories) is what science is really about (wink wink Bgood...since thats how science "evolves" doesn't it? ), and consider that the evidence points towards real-time design, signifying some type of design process where a goal and purpose of the design was in need of being pre-meditated, perhaps constructed by the combination of multitude of many designed parameters such as the laws of physics, call it pre-determined, pre-programmed pre-what not, the laws of physics are well within nature. The strongest point ID'rs make from the evidence is that it suggests a pre-ordered configuration. Consider Walter Remines theory or John A. Davisions, they all point to pre-determined evolution, without taking into account something far beyond Natural selection and random variation, and considering the cost of mutations that must have occurred in the ways they did, evolution could not have occurred. Consider John A. Davisons manifesto where he points out that natural selection prevents change, if he is right what is Darwinism left with?

ID's IC and CSI concepts are valid scientifically since they branch off of that pre-ordered organization of living matter.

Consider the Polar Bears now as potential candidates for extinction, where was evolution? Aren't species supposed to adapt to the environment, selective pressures, natural selection, random mutation...where are all these powers gone too? Hmmm...a few measly degrees decrease in temperature change is causing extinction rates to sky-rocket through the roof, where art thou Darwin to the rescue? Please tell me it ain't so!

Is it possible Evolution is just at a dead hault and has been that way for quite a while now? There could be a reason for that and I point you to JAD's reference for expansion.

Consider how humans would deal with that situation of increase or decrease of temperature change, they would use they're "intelligence" to build a fan or A/C or heater or they would just move to a different part of the world . Desperate times call for desperate measures yet Evolution itself has yet to even measure up to any Darwinian standards.

Finally, as someone pointed out earlier, ID fails because it is contradicted by scientific evidence. For example, naturalistic explanations for allegedly IC structures such as the bacterial flagellum and vertebrate blood clotting exist.

Many explanations can exist. Keyword: "can" . The fact that there is one pathway does not exclude another logical pathway. In case you haven't heard, when we have "many" logical pathways we start to assume a variety of supposed valid explanations, yet they remain "assumptions" in the end especially if hard-predictive analysis is tossed out the window. We could do a test by comparing a sequence of pathways to another, test each and see which one better cooperates itself to the underlying chance and lucky happy episodes. Yet we assume chance and luck to begin with so when a supposed logical pathway/s exist, in the end we call it Darwinian evolution because it "must have been that way".

Don't you mean metaphysical naturalism? Methodological naturalism does not assume God or a creator do not exist so the Creationist variety of ID does not violate it. On the other hand, metaphysical naturalism rules out such from the get go and so would thus be incompatible.

No, I don't mean metaphysical naturalism which implies that supernatural beings do not exist. Methodological naturalism says nothing about the existence of the supernatural except that if they do exist, that the do not intervene in the operations of the natural universe. In other words, natural phenomena (such as the existence of bacterial flagella) have natural explanations (such as they arose by natural selection). The difference, while subtle, is important. For example, embracing metaphysical naturalism pretty much precludes one's ability to believe in god(s), while adopting methodological naturalism simply governs the way you practice science regardless of your religious beliefs.

Science does not assume anything. Man does.

Well, a technical point I am willing to concede. Do you have issues with a modified form of the argument "a fundamental assumption of scientific inquiry is that natural events are the result of natural causes"?

Yes, Creationist ID proponents do advocate this and would love to bring God into the science classroom again.

Even if it violates the establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Hm.

The core ID proponents (those central to the movement) however do not take this leap to suggest who the designer is with their science.

Respectfully, I disagree. The chief architects of ID have, at some point, stated who they think the intelligent designer is. And they universally agree that it is the Judeo-Christian God. Michael Behe "freely acknowledged that he believes the designer is God" on trial. Dembski states that "...no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life" (ref). And "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." (ref). Phillip Johnson said ""We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." (ref). So while they claim that ID makes no claims about the identify of the creator, they do have their opinions.

The fact that there is one pathway does not exclude another logical pathway. In case you haven't heard, when we have "many" logical pathways we start to assume a variety of supposed valid explanations, yet they remain "assumptions" in the end especially if hard-predictive analysis is tossed out the window. We could do a test by comparing a sequence of pathways to another, test each and see which one better cooperates itself to the underlying chance and lucky happy episodes.

Well, fair enough. There were several competing ideas on the origins of the eukaryotic cell, and while the exact sequence of events is not known in perfect cinematic detail, competing explanations have been pretty much reduced down to one - the theory of serial endosymbiosis. Similarly, some details of the origins of the bacterial flagellum and vertebrate blood clotting are still being deduced. Currently, two hypotheses exist to explain the evolution of the flagellum - exogenous and autogenous origins. Both enjoy some level of theoretical and empirical support, and it is possible that one, or both, or neither is an adequate explanation. As you say, science moves forward and eventually the superior explanation emerges. Now, an important distinction is that any approach to answering this, or any naturalistic phenomenon that violates methodological naturalism is not a scientific one. ID research may, or may not yield fruitful explanations for the origins of certain biological features. To date they have not. But they can't state that an invisible, undetectable entity popped something into existence and call it science. In this sense, they are not offering competing scientific explanations.

Yet we assume chance and luck to begin with so when a supposed logical pathway/s exist, in the end we call it Darwinian evolution because it "must have been that way".

Well, this is a bit of an oversimplification - and in some sense, an unfair characterization of the process of science. A scientific theory is essentially a series of statements that explains the operation of natural phenomena. It reaches this status because it has been repeatedly tested and confirmed (or more precisely, not rejected), and it enjoys a high degree of theoretical and empirical support - typically from a wide range of scientific disciplines. Now, the beauty of scientific theories is that once they are assumed to be true, they act as frameworks through which new ideas, data and experiments can be interpreted. A chemist does not set out to confirm quantum mechanic theory every time they do a new experiment. Rather, they assume it is true beyond reasonable doubt, and use it to explain the results of an experiment. Evolution is no different. Biologists assume it to be a viable scientific truth, and use it as a lens through which they examine the evolution of features such as flagella. Evolutionary biologists do not practice science any differently than physicists, chemists, or geologists in this sense.

On a somewhat related note - let me ask you (or anyone) this: assume that we have a structure that is unquestionably IC - it meets all of the criteria perfectly. Let us assume further that a naturalistic explanation exists that explains the origins of that feature - also perfectly. Assume it has evidence supporting the naturalistic explanation from X number of fields, where X is whatever number you (or anyone) needs to accept it as a satisfactory explanation (fossil, biochemical, cellular, molecular, etc). Would you concede that there is sufficient reason to assume that some other - or allother IC structures may not be the product of intelligent intervention?

Just curious.

Simple question,

since when can you assume that simply because you can find a pathway for something developing that,ie what you would call naturallly, that you can rule out a cause for that pathway?

In other words. Suppose you claim you can find "naturalistic" pathway. How in the world can you exclude the possibility of a God/force, whatever, driving that supposed natural pathway.

Science certainly can't prove the existence of God using empirical testing, that I have no problem with, but science can also not prove Him false. By its very boundaries, science has limited its conclusions. And saying we have found the pathway does nothing, in my mind, than that....found the steps or possible steps that He may have used. It does nothing to the possibility of a supernatural cause.

ArcWallace, I will respond *(when I have more time) to your statements and even take a stab at your question.

On a related matter, I also forgot to add the idea of gradual step-by-step evolution being incoherent and flawed when the subject of the Cambrian explosion is raised. Just recently new scientific study points to a big bang of plant life which scientists call The Avalon, lets add this to the equation as well. Many of the developed features of living systems to me at least would be best explained by some step by step process, be it as it may a process coordinated by the supposed Darwinian forces. However, plant and animal life appearing almost in unbelievable frameworks of time is a bit odd don't you think? If the bacterial flagellum as it is in its current form somehow evolved I would much rather believe it evolved in a gradual step by step fashion over large periods of trial and error and not at a rapid rate as current scientific evidence leans towards.

I have raised a few questions myself, but here goes again:

What is left for Darwinian evolution when:

JAD's hypothesis of NS preventing changes from occurring is true
Random mutations are mostly deleterious or neutral
All plant life and animal life appeared in very short periods of time, far from step-by-step gradual occurrences

...especially when we talk about stuff like the bacterial flagellum, the icon of ID?

Consider the Polar Bears now as potential candidates for extinction, where was evolution? Aren't species supposed to adapt to the environment, selective pressures, natural selection, random mutation...where are all these powers gone too? Hmmm...a few measly degrees increase in temperature change is causing extinction rates to sky-rocket through the roof, where art thou Darwin to the rescue? Please tell me it ain't so!

Um, I'm not sure I follow your point here. Why is extinction not a part of evolutionary theory? What makes you think natural selection may not cause some sort of adaptation to develop in polar bears favoring - oh, I dunno - better swimmers or ones that favor warmer southern climates and are a little browner? But even if this didn't happen, how does the extinction of a species violate ToE? Why is evolution not jeopardized by the fact that 96-98% of all the species that have ever lived do not exist today? The fact that anthropogenic activity is endangering the survival of many species on this plant is disconcerting, but I fail to see how it is problematic to ToE.

Is it possible Evolution is just at a dead hault and has been that way for quite a while now? There could be a reason for that and I point you to JAD's reference for expansion.

The answer to your question is "no". And I am unfamilair with JAD's reference for expansion. The fact that allele frequencies change, bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, populations become isolated, phenotypic changes develop, and even the formation of new species all suggest evolution is not at a dead halt (sic).

Consider how humans would deal with that situation of increase or decrease of temperature change, they would use they're "intelligence" to build a fan or A/C or heater or they would just move to a different part of the world.

I'm not sure I follow your point. Millions of humans die of disease, starvation and natural disasters. Hardly violating evolution by natural selection.

Um, I'm not sure I follow your point here. Why is extinction not a part of evolutionary theory? What makes you think natural selection may not cause some sort of adaptation to develop in polar bears favoring - oh, I dunno - better swimmers or ones that favor warmer southern climates and are a little browner? But even if this didn't happen, how does the extinction of a species violate ToE? Why is evolution not jeopardized by the fact that 96-98% of all the species that have ever lived do not exist today? The fact that anthropogenic activity is endangering the survival of many species on this plant is disconcerting, but I fail to see how it is problematic to ToE.

To outline the framework here, since evolution "occurred" therefore we have reason to believe it is still occurring. We have noticed a slight increase in temperature due to human induced (or naturally induced) global warming, given this premise we must have reason to believe "evolution is still occurring"and notably at its peak levels. Its not a matter of extinction not being "part" of evolution, its about evolution itself and why its simply not working to do anything about it. Environment pressures demand change but the supply isn't there and evolution remains at a dead hault, as JAD and his references believe it has been for quite some time now. According to JAD, evolution has reached its final stage, atmost there have been little quirks, far from formation of new species.

The answer to your question is "no". And I am unfamilair with JAD's reference for expansion. The fact that allele frequencies change, bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, populations become isolated, phenotypic changes develop, and even the formation of new species all suggest evolution is not at a dead halt (sic).

Far from macro evolution, JAD's hypothesis is based mostly on macro. There have been no observed formations of species, nice try though to smuggle that last statement in.

since when can you assume that simply because you can find a pathway for something developing that,ie what you would call naturallly, that you can rule out a cause for that pathway?

I'm not sure I follow. What do you mean by "cause"? A flagellum developed because it conferred some sort of selective advantage in those that possessed it (in whatever form it took in flagella-bearing ancestors) over those that did not possess one.

In other words. Suppose you claim you can find "naturalistic" pathway. How in the world can you exclude the possibility of a God/force, whatever, driving that supposed natural pathway.

Well, you can't exclude this. But it would make scientific inquiry pretty difficult. This implies that god(s) intervene regularly in our observable universe directing the outcome of some, or all phenomena we witness. This means that all of the phenomena we seek to explain are the result of the whimsy of the supernatural entities directing it, and there is no reason to assume they should operate in any sort of consistent manner. That is, because god(s) directed atoms (for example) to behave one way at one point in time, there is no reason to assume they should direct them to behave the same way tomorrow. This is precisely why scientific inquiry is directed by methodological naturalism. Because once you start assuming divine intervention in one system, theory or experiment, you might as well give up rigorous, methodological scientific inquiry into any phenomena. Now, just to be clear, such an approach does not deny the existence of god(s) - it is not an intrinsically atheistic approach to answering questions.It simply maintains that if god(s) do/es exist, they do not intervene in the machinations of the natural universe.

Science certainly can't prove the existence of God using empirical testing, that I have no problem with, but science can also not prove Him false.

Well, I am partially in agreement. Science is mute on the question of whether god(s) existence. Quite simply, their existence is by definition outside of our ability to detect through scientific inquiry. So it doesn't prove him false or prove his existence - it simply doesn't have an opinion one way or the other.

And saying we have found the pathway does nothing, in my mind, than that....found the steps or possible steps that He may have used.

Fair enough. That's a perfectly sound reconciliation of religion and science. Quite another approach would be to assume god(s) created the laws that govern our universe (evolution included) and did not subsequently intervene. This is not what ID suggests, but it is a another way of reconciling science and religion.

It does nothing to the possibility of a supernatural cause.

Apart from still being unclear on what you mean by "cause", I quite agree. Science should not challenge one's religious beliefs - it should affirm that such order, elegance and sophistication at so many levels is evidence of supernatural intelligence. But I stop short of saying "and such supernatural entities intervened regularly in organic evolution". But that's just me.

ARWallace wrote: Now, just to be clear, such an approach does not deny the existence of god(s) - it is not an intrinsically atheistic approach to answering questions.It simply maintains that if god(s) do/es exist, they do not intervene in the machinations of the natural universe.

Again, you assume that natural can be proven to be natural, ie, without the maintenance or existence of a God. And I am not implying that God did not setup laws and forces and phenomenon with predictable events. I am only stating that such predictable events cannot be used as a argument against the existence of a God.

Just because you could come up with a pathway for the development of the bacterial flagellum does not exclude the participation of God. (TO this degree I think we (CHristian community) have set up a false test. We claim that a pathway did not exist for the bacterial flagellum to develop and that sets up a false claim to deny the existence of God.) Since when does finding a pathway provide a proof against God?


I think you propose an extreme to assert your point. Since when does the involvement of a God imply whimsy or unpredictable? It does not have to be this extreme. If God was invovled in such a way that directed the development of the bacterial flagellum, could He not have done so in such a way that, to us, is predictable?

ARWallace wrote:Fair enough. That's a perfectly sound reconciliation of religion and science. Quite another approach would be to assume god(s) created the laws that govern our universe (evolution included) and did not subsequently intervene. This is not what ID suggests, but it is a another way of reconciling science and religion.

My disagrement here would stem from scripture, where God, seen, in Genesis, WAS involved in the creation. So I would avoid the more deist position for myself.

ARWAllace wrote:Apart from still being unclear on what you mean by "cause", I quite agree. Science should not challenge one's religious beliefs - it should affirm that such order, elegance and sophistication at so many levels is evidence of supernatural intelligence. But I stop short of saying "and such supernatural entities intervened regularly in organic evolution". But that's just me.

Sorry, not meaning to get into deep philosophical terms NOT my forte. By cause, I simply mean that involvement of God. To my mind the idea of a personal, involved God and predictable events like "advantage" are not mutually exclusive. God designing parts that have an advantage don't cause a problem with regard to the "cause" concept.

I disagree with the last part of, simply because there is no method to prove this false.

According to JAD, evolution has reached its final stage, atmost there have been little quirks, far from formation of new species.

Well, I am new here, and I unfamiliar with JAD and their arguments. I am not sure why evolution should be operating "at peak levels" today, and I remain puzzled why you think natural selection has to solve the "problem" of extinction. The Permian extinctions resulted in 90% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species going extinct. By your logic, natural selection should have intervened to keep all these species from going extinct. In fact, natural selection was the cause of these extinctions - selective pressures were applied and those populations that could not adapt quickly enough went extinct. In the case of the Permian extinctions, the selective pressures were extreme and protracted, and mass extinctions resulted.

Far from macro evolution, JAD's hypothesis is based mostly on macro. There have been no observed formations of species, nice try though to smuggle that last statement in.

Well, I wasn't trying to smuggle anything in. Let me focus on one rather dramatic example of speciation. Threespine stickleback have a circumpolar distribution. The ancestor (from the fossil record) to freshwater varieties is a marine form still found today, and it is a comparatively large and robust fish possessing sharp pelvic and dorsal spines and thick armor plates along its flank (antipredator devices). Following the last ice age 10k years ago, the continents "rebounded" after the weight of the ice was gone, and many marine populations became locked and isolated in freshwater lakes. Over the years, these populations developed into new species - many losing their spines and armor plating because they developed in lakes relatively free of predators, and nutrient reserves used to build these devices was siphoned into egg production. The result is not just one new species, but likely hundreds or even thousands of new species of stickleback - each morphologically distinct and reproductively isolated from the others (ref). Moreover, recent studies on the development and molecular biology of these fish has sought to understand the ways in which gene expression regulated the gains and losses of spines and armor plating. Turns out that the gene that regulates armor development and the gene regulating the development of pelvic spines are developmental regulation genes, and they explain the genetic bases of these macroevolutionary changes (ref). The genes responsible for armor development have been altered in some freshwater populations resulting in less armor development. The genes exist in marine populations, just in low numbers (ref) and once the predation pressure is relaxed, the frequency of the genes changes. The regulatory genes for pelvic girdle formation have also been modified resulting in lower production of the protein that forms the spines. The same gene exists in other vertebrates, and modification of that gene greatly affects limb formation (ref).

So we not only have a recent case of macroevolution, we have evidence that it has happened repeatedly over a comparatively short period of time, and we have an explanation for how it happened.

For zoegirl:

Well, we seem to be wandering a little here. Let me back up a little. I am simply saying that in order for one to practice science properly, they must start with the assumption that god(s) is/are not going to (nor have they ever) intervened in the investigation. To start introducing theistic explanations or intervention into scientific inquiry becomes inherently problematic at a whole lot of levels. For example, I was not implying that your god was whimsical or unpredictable, and if I offended you, I apologize. I would, however, argue that because the existence of god is outside our ability to detect, and certainly their actions are beyond our ability to understand that there is no prima facae reason to expect that they would act in ways that are predictable - or even consistent. That is the very nature of god! He/she/it/they are not bound by the natural laws that govern our universe - they likely invented them!

So my point is simply that methodological naturalism is a necessary bedrock assumption of scientific inquiry.

BTW - I noticed from your profile (just curious...) that you teach high school science. As someone who taught high school biology myself for several years, I am curious how you present these concepts to your students. That may be a deeply personal question, and one that is off topic. So you don't have to answer. But I am wondering if you are able to leave it at the door, so to speak, and exclude personal beliefs from your teaching. I found it to be hard myself.

Lets talk about science for a minute. We have science telling us about planetary motion and motion of objects due to forces. We have a description of gravity and how it moves things in its fields. That is all well and good. But when we talk about casuation science falls to pieces. What makes matter attract other matter. We have some theories about that with string theory but they don't reduce into known physical states that we see around the universe. It may well be that the theory is nothing but a mathematical exercise that describes the effects of gravity without addressing the cause. Since science talks about the effects of gravity without knowing the cause is that what science does? I thought the quest for knowledge was for the cause of the effect. ID goes to the cause of an effect. So ignoring all of the relationship to a creator or designer the ID movement is mainstream science and to try and define it as anything else just makes scientist look foolish. They are trying to define ID outside of science. If you pull causation out of science what is left? Newton left the cause of gravity to others. Just who would these others be? Scientist? I guess not if you follow the argument against ID.

Wallace

JAD - John A. Davison wrote the evolutionary manifesto - http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

I just finished reading the evolutionary manifesto. A good scientific paper. I wish him luck on his testing to verify his paper. As to how this affects my view of YEC. I am not sure yet. I am going to do some more research but for the moment I don't have a problem with the data that was presented. His conclusions and predictions are another matter. If he indeed shows a connection to evolution the way he describes then the interpretation is then critical.

At first pass I reread Genesis to see if anything jumped out. If indeed all life was from a point source of information then the creation of the universe may be a type that would indicate that God started with a source of information and then made all life from this. So as He started the universe small and then expanded it, maybe He started life as a source of information and all came from this one source. I have to think about this some more. It would explain a lot of data in molecular biology.

I do expect that JAD will be destroyed by the MSS community. MSS main stream science

For godslanguage:

However, plant and animal life appearing almost in unbelievable frameworks of time is a bit odd don't you think?

Well, define "unbelievable frameworks"? The Cambrian "explosion" troubled Gould, and informed his thinking on punctuated equilibrium. However, I should emphasize that Gould didn't propose PE as some sort of stopgap measure to save evolution - and what he was proposing wasn't even all that radical - he was just a headstrong and polarizing character in science. What he suggested is that evolution tends to acts in spurts - geologically short periods of rapid change followed by long periods of relative stasis. The ideas are not all that outrageous because (a) he was proposing that these short periods of change actually happened over millions of years - short by geologic standards, but plenty long by biological standards to account for "rapid" changes in the fossil record; and (b) the periods of relative stasis did not infer evolution was not happening - only that the most dramatic changes occurred in punctuated spurts. So no, I am not troubled by the Cambrian explosion - and the more we understand about the molecular and genetic bases of evolutionary change, the less I am troubled by it.

If the bacterial flagellum as it is in its current form somehow evolved I would much rather believe it evolved in a gradual step by step fashion over large periods of trial and error and not at a rapid rate as current scientific evidence leans towards.

Again, define "rapid rate". If you believe ID, it is a single instant - doesn't get faster than that. I am unfamiliar with any naturalistic explanations that infer unreasonably short periods of time - but rather, the sort of long periods of change that you would accept.

>>JAD's hypothesis of NS preventing changes from occurring is true

I am unfamiliar with JAD's hypothesis. I fail to see how NS prevents change - particularly when we have empirical, experimental and observational evidence that change does and is occurring (see one of my posts on threespine stickleback).

>>Random mutations are mostly deleterious or neutral

So what? Are you implying that most genetic change underlying evolutionary change is the result of point mutations? What about chromosomal rearrangements and genetic events such as horizontal gene transfer from endogenous retroviruses and retrotransposons, gene duplications (with subsequent modification of the copy resulting in gene families), overprinting mutations, and cDNA insertions? There is compelling evidence that our chromosome 2 is the result of the fusion of 2 chromosomes sometime after our split from the line giving rise to chimps (ref).

>>All plant life and animal life appeared in very short periods of time, far from step-by-step gradual occurrences

Well, we seem to still disagree on what "short periods of time" are. I think, actually, the step-by-step is a sufficient explanation (myself - but that's just me).