Evidence for God from Science

Best guess? CHapter 16, on the evolution of microbial life. That is where many introductory college texts would place it. That is where Campbell/Reece places it.

And they are relatively careful to point out that while no experiments can currently show how life did evolve, the experiments show that some basic steps of creating macromolecules and membranes and very primitive metabolic reactions can be replicated in the lab.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Gman wrote:Second..

Barabus wrote:You are the only one here who seems to draw this conclusion. Perhaps people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens turn you off, but don't conflate whatever arguments they might use to support their case with the Theory of Evolution.

FWIW, Charles Darwin believed in God. Darwin also does not address the origin of life.....otherwise his famous book would have likely been called "Origin of Life."

You are incorrect…. With a capital “I”. Darwin did recognized how serious the abiogenesis problem was for his theory, and once even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life “by a Creator” (Origin of species, 1900, p. 316)

The fact remains, regardless of the origin of life, the theory of evolution still explains the diversity of life.

Explains it does. Only it is a story for the Atheist to follow. As Dawkins himself has said: "Before Darwin came along, it was pretty difficult to be an atheist, at least to be an atheist free of nagging doubts. Darwin triumphantly made it EASY to be an intellectually fulfilled and satisfied atheist." So there is much to be lost in a largely secular society without evolution. Although we would likely both agree there is no complete fulfillment (at least without a workable naturalistic accounting for the origin of life) certainly there hope is hope for the atheist.

Genesis is also another explanation (one which has many differing interpretations). It also covers life's origins and the origins of our physical universe. It is a story for many other leading faiths such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Something more is needed than simply "explaining" however. More important is which explanation is right.

The fact remains, regardless of the origin of life, the theory of evolution still explains the diversity of life.

The other fact remains, regardless of the origin of life, MET (as in the extended Darwinian fairytale) is only one explanation for the diversity of life, one explanation for how it could have evolved.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Sorry I dont see a mention of abiogenesis in the table of contents above.
Am I missing something?

The book doesn't use the word abiogenesis, but it does explain how life on earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.

zoegirl wrote:Best guess? CHapter 16, on the evolution of microbial life. That is where many introductory college texts would place it. That is where Campbell/Reece places it.

And they are relatively careful to point out that while no experiments can currently show how life did evolve, the experiments show that some basic steps of creating macromolecules and membranes and very primitive metabolic reactions can be replicated in the lab.

Yes chapter 16 very clearly reveals the origin and evolution of microbial life through prokaryotes and protists. Before that, in 15.2, it even says the earth's crust, where hot water and minerals gush into deep oceans, may have provided the initial chemical resources for life.

I will admit that the book doesn't say that this is factual data, but a hypothesis, a belief on origins through natural explanations only...

Gman wrote:Yes chapter 16 very clearly reveals the origin and evolution of microbial life through prokaryotes and protists. Before that, in 15.2, it even says the earth's crust, where hot water and minerals gush into deep oceans, may have provided the initial chemical resources for life.

I will admit that the book doesn't say that this is factual data, but a hypothesis, a belief on origins through natural explanations only...

No, a hypothesis is not a belief in the sense of a religious belief. A hypothesis will be updated, revised, discarded, or replaced as better information becomes available.

waynepii wrote:No, a hypothesis is not a belief in the sense of a religious belief. A hypothesis will be updated, revised, discarded, or replaced as better information becomes available.

Ah, no... The term "hypothesis" is not a religious belief. True. But there is nothing that says I can't make it part of my religious belief either...

Gman wrote:

waynepii wrote:No, a hypothesis is not a belief in the sense of a religious belief. A hypothesis will be updated, revised, discarded, or replaced as better information becomes available.

Ah, no... The term "hypothesis" is not a religious belief. True. But there is nothing that says I can't make it part of my religious belief either...

Of course you can. I guess I'm missing your point .

waynepii wrote:Of course you can. I guess I'm missing your point .

That we can take anything and make it part of our religious beliefs.. Hypothesis, science, etc.. We all do it to some degree.

Gman wrote:

waynepii wrote:Of course you can. I guess I'm missing your point .

That we can take anything and make it part of our religious beliefs.. Hypothesis, science, etc.. We all do it to some degree.

OK, thanks.

Would you accept that non-religious "beliefs" are more likely to be revised than religious beliefs? For instance, I see evolution as a natural process that causes life forms to adapt to their environment through gradual genetic changes. I find the evidence compelling that the same process was responsible for speciation and even larger changes - even to producing the Animalia and Plantae genetic kingdoms. BUT I am certain that I could and would change my mind were I presented with better evidence.

Do I expect to have to revise my "beliefs" about evolution? Honestly, no. Could I given sufficient evidence? Absolutely!

waynepii wrote:OK, thanks.

No problem waynepii... It's a good question.

Just to alert you that I was adding to my previous post while you were replying to it - Sorry.

waynepii wrote:Would you accept that non-religious "beliefs" are more likely to be revised than religious beliefs? For instance, I see evolution as a natural process that causes life forms to adapt to their environment through gradual genetic changes. I find the evidence compelling that the same process was responsible for speciation and even larger changes - even to producing the Animalia and Plantae genetic kingdoms. BUT I am certain that I could and would change my mind were I presented with better evidence.

Hi waynepii... It's still a good question.

I think a lot of it revolves around what we think is the ultimate source of truth. If we say science disproves God, or the divine, and that the world, animals, plants, and people got here by naturalistic means via chance, then yes, I can base my beliefs on this and call it my truth. So basically I can make my own belief systems, my own origin of life, and my own meaning of life devoid of any god. I'm free to believe whatever I want to believe.

waynepii wrote:Do I expect to have to revise my "beliefs" about evolution? Honestly, no. Could I given sufficient evidence? Absolutely!

I can't answer that for you unfortunately... Either way we boil it all down to our own beliefs. From what I've seen, I don't think science can really explain life either, although I would attribute it to God.

Gman wrote:

waynepii wrote:Would you accept that non-religious "beliefs" are more likely to be revised than religious beliefs? For instance, I see evolution as a natural process that causes life forms to adapt to their environment through gradual genetic changes. I find the evidence compelling that the same process was responsible for speciation and even larger changes - even to producing the Animalia and Plantae genetic kingdoms. BUT I am certain that I could and would change my mind were I presented with better evidence.

Hi waynepii... It's still a good question.

I think a lot of it revolves around what we think is the ultimate source of truth. If we say science disproves God, or the divine, and that the world, animals, plants, and people got here by naturalistic means via chance, then yes, I can base my beliefs on this and call it my truth. So basically I can make my own belief systems, my own origin of life, and my own meaning of life devoid of any god. I'm free to believe whatever I want to believe.

Agreed

waynepii wrote:Do I expect to have to revise my "beliefs" about evolution? Honestly, no. Could I given sufficient evidence? Absolutely!

I can't answer that for you unfortunately... Either way we boil it all down to our own beliefs. From what I've seen, I don't think science can really explain life either, although I would attribute it to God.

I meant that religious beliefs are deeply personal, somewhat devoid of the need for proof (and/or the proof is internal and personal), and to some degree self-fulfilling (a person who believes God is an active participant in their lives will naturally see the hand of God in their life). As a result, I expect one who believes in an "involved" God to hold their beliefs much more tenaciously than one who doesn't believe, or who believes in a more "laissez-faire" God.

FWIW My view of God is as the creator of the universe and of life, but not an active participant in the day-to-day goings on of individuals.

Bottom line, I fully understand your position and agree with your statement.

waynepii wrote:I meant that religious beliefs are deeply personal, somewhat devoid of the need for proof (and/or the proof is internal and personal), and to some degree self-fulfilling (a person who believes God is an active participant in their lives will naturally see the hand of God in their life). As a result, I expect one who believes in an "involved" God to hold their beliefs much more tenaciously than one who doesn't believe, or who believes in a more "laissez-faire" God.

I think I get what you are saying.... This is a harder question.. I shall try my best.

I think the problems most Christians have with a "laissez-faire" or non involved God is that it is impersonal. If I take the the Bible as God's word and an authority, then I would believe that He was involved in creation and my life as it states. So it would be a personal relationship.

Religious beliefs are deeply personal, and I'm not sure if we humans can truly escape it.. If I deny the authority God, that He created all things, I haven't denied the concept of authority, I simply transfer it to something else like nature or mother nature, etc...

I think a lot of us do with nature, when we don't have God, is apply our personal attributes to it. Almost like a personification of nature. We hear in our culture today about nature doing this or nature doing that, acting in some way like mother nature caused a storm today, or an earthquake, etc.. Nature by itself doesn't do anything.. Nature is impersonal, but humans try to apply their personal attributes to it. It doesn't mean that that person is not really religious, it just means they have a different set of religious presumptions..

Of course, one could say that there is a God too and say that he is impersonal and has no connection with this world. It wouldn't be Biblical, but I still don't think one could separate oneself from being religious in some way... We simply transfer it to something else.. Some people may deal with it by shopping or playing golf. Whatever you want...

waynepii wrote:FWIW My view of God is as the creator of the universe and of life, but not an active participant in the day-to-day goings on of individuals.

Bottom line, I fully understand your position and agree with your statement.

Yes.. I see. If not through nature, could you experience God through another person? We are all created in the image of God in that respect and are all spiritual. Even you waynepii.