Evidence for God from Science

Haha, Bingo!! Thanks Gman...I've registered and saved the site... <<thumbs up>>

DannyM wrote:Haha, Bingo!! Thanks Gman...I've registered and saved the site... <<thumbs up>>

You are DA man!!!

Now you are armed and dangerous..

Well we went a bit off topic there, but I think we accomplished much..

Again a beautiful shot... love it.

Gman wrote:

DannyM wrote:Haha, Bingo!! Thanks Gman...I've registered and saved the site... <<thumbs up>>

You are DA man!!!

Now you are armed and dangerous..

Well we went a bit off topic there, but I think we accomplished much..

Haha...Yeah, only by about a page! That's my something 'new' learned for the day, and I'm well pleased I can do that now...Thanks again Gman...

Now, back to Darwinism...

Gman wrote:Again a beautiful shot... love it.

All done with a mobile phone... ...Hmm, again, so why won't I move back to London...

that really is beautiful

Thanks Byblos for the warm welcome. For the record I have a 1979 undergraduate degree in business from a state university, six undergraduate college science courses, highest math was analysis/ Calculus one and I was only a B/C student. Not exactly stellar educational achievements. Yes I came to this site with with my mind made up, but open. It is apparent you did not read earlier posts. I struggle with scientific information, but I find it fascinating and I came to this site looking for an intelligent exchange. Even though I disagree with some of the answers I've recieved so far, I can say categorically that your's is the first non intelligent post I've read. Is that a habit or can you bring something to the table?

Thanks Gman for the references. Your reference for 900 year olds was interesting, but it explained how a human could potentially live longer, not that they ever did. I went to the ERV site and it will take me some time to work through even a portion of the refernences.

DannyM, how can you have so many thoughtful and intelligent post and be a brick when it comes to my question? Yes I am incredulous to the statement that humans lived 900 year lives, Because there is no evidence that I know of to support that. Provide some secular evidence or we'll have to agree to disagree.

FL, apostate fits. Since I am currently not worried about my status for entering heaven, I'll leave further distinctions behind.

Proinsias, if you're a teacher, I want to take your class. thoughtful and well written posts. I also hope that Darwinism is just a stepping stone to a more complete understanding of evolution in the future.

eagle25c wrote:Thanks Byblos for the warm welcome. For the record I have a 1979 undergraduate degree in business from a state university, six undergraduate college science courses, highest math was analysis/ Calculus one and I was only a B/C student. Not exactly stellar educational achievements. Yes I came to this site with with my mind made up, but open. It is apparent you did not read earlier posts. I struggle with scientific information, but I find it fascinating and I came to this site looking for an intelligent exchange. Even though I disagree with some of the answers I've recieved so far, I can say categorically that your's is the first non intelligent post I've read. Is that a habit or can you bring something to the table?

eagle, I say this without a hint of arrogance or conceit, I truly could not care any less what you thought of my post. It does not affect nor phase me in the least. But the fact remains and that is mainly what you're trying to divert attention from is that you tossed around a few words about ERVs on which you most likely didn't expect to be challenged and when you were (challenged) you are now crying foul by attempting to antagonize a moderator whose sole purpose in posting what I did is to call your attention to what you did. You find that unintelligent. Perhaps that has more of a reflection on you than me but hey, that's just my opinion.

Now, if you choose to have a rather intelligent discussion then be prepared to be challenged to provide backup for your claims and coherent reasons for your beliefs. What you cannot do is toss a term or two, expect us to do our research to provide you with a coherent answer then have you dismiss it out of hand because you're not a scientist. That will be heavily moderated.

Your call.

eagle25c wrote:Thanks Gman for the references. Your reference for 900 year olds was interesting, but it explained how a human could potentially live longer, not that they ever did.

Again... It's not just the Bible making claims about long life spans. We have to consider all sources before we make judgments. Correct? Ancient Mesopotamian records also tell of extraordinary long life spans. Stories from the ancient Akkadian and Sumerian cultures reveal that their most ancient kings lived thousands of years each. The Weld-Blundell prism, which dates back to to the 3rd millennium B.C. and the Nippur tablets also list 10 pre-flood kings who lived a thousand years each.

Again... Be careful before you judge.. Consider history too...

DannyM wrote:I would disagree. Darwinian evolution has been used by many as though it were a stick with which to beat religion over the head. I'm not labeling all Darwinists here; in fact, Alister Mcgrath largely accepts Darwinism, and he's a Christian theologian.

It could also be noted that religion is often used as a stick to beat science over the head. Or alternatively, they tend to keep each other in check and continually challenge and inspire change in each other.

DannyM wrote:Its projection onto origins is merely speculation. Douglas Futuyma, in his Evolutionary Biology, said, "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of life superflous."

This statement just isn't science. Look at the statement, Pro, and tell me if you think it has any scientific or Darwinian basis...

It's his opinion, it's one I don't happen to agree with, but it's not something that would put me off using the book if I was informed that other sections were helpful in the understanding of evolutionary Biology. I don't really expect a scientist to be completely scientific, they're also human, and I feel they should inject their personality into their work even if it is an atheistic one I don't happen to agree with.. When I come across such statements in biology books I tend to just pass by them - if I got annoyed every time I came across something which conflicted with the way I see the world in a biology book I'd still be arguing with Mr Milgrew in first year science class and have very little knowledge of biology.
If Stephen Hawking's wants to inject some atheist philosophy into his physics or if Alister Mcgrath wants to inject some biology into his theism, let them go for it. Taste it all, spit out what you don't like and savour that which nourishes you, as a wise man once said.

DannyM wrote:

Proinsias wrote:I don't see the paper destroying Darwinism.

I see it destroying Darwinism as an adequate mechanism to explain the astounding complexity of life. It's not the theists who ever sought to project Darwinism onto origins; this is solely the work of the Darwinists, or neo-Darwinists, if you like.

Well I wouldn't expect theists to project science onto origins - theists point to God, some non-theists point to science. A happy balance of the two would be nice but there will always be those at either extreme.
I see it as positing another mechanism which works alongside traditional Darwinian evolution to more fully explain the complexity of life, but to each his own. It shouldn't come as a huge surprise that one of the first viable attempts to explain evolution is not going to be a complete explanation and I fear that those who do hold to that will be rather difficult to engage with if you start from the notion that Darwinisn has been destroyed.

DannyM wrote:From Davison's paper:

"Every shred of tangible evidence points to sexual reproduction as a highly conservative device, serving only to bring evolution to a virtual standstill. Just as William Bateson indicated even before 1900, I too find it amazing how long the Darwinian view has prevailed in the face of an enormous and continually growing body of information with which it cannot possibly be reconciled.

In short, Darwinism must be abandoned as a meaningful instrument of organic change.

This, in a nutshell, is my contention. RM+NS is simply not sufficient or adequate to explain the complexity of life. I'm not in complete denial of the mechanism as such, but am denying it as any sort of satisfactory explanation of how life "evolved".

I would agree that sexual reproduction is relatively conservative but to say that it serves only to bring evolution to a complete standstill seems ludicrous. If it is the mechanism which allows 'viable monsters', produced via this newly proposed mechanism, to adjust to their environment then it is going to be pretty essential to continued life and evolution - if an organism line cannot fine tune itself to its environment then it ain't gonna be around long enough for another large change via this newly, well 70's I think, proposed mechanism.
I don't really see where this parts from RM+NS explaining the complexity if life. It's basically suggesting a new form of random mutation via chromosomal rearrangement the success of which will be determined through natural selection.
It may also be the case that this type of evolution only becomes prominent during periods of extreme environment change and when things are ticking along quite sedately in the environment Darwinian evolution keeps organisms ticking along at an equally sedate pace.

To me it's basically saying that random gene and base pair mutations don't lead to significant change, certainly not producing much beyond the species level. They're suggesting huge mutations on the chromosomal level which I imagine if accepted into main stream biology will simply become another from of random mutation. Giving the theist more argument for design and the atheist higher odds of humans randomly appearing.

DannyM wrote:

Proinsias wrote:I think this works both ways. It's going to be tough to know with certainty that the universe does not contain the reason for its own existence, or that we would even recognise it if it was put in front of us.

We'll never be able to measure the laws of this universe, only their effects. Why is it that, with science and logic,, we can rationally demonstrate the effects of these laws? Why is it that we can show that the universe was created in a primordial explosion of energy and light? Not only do we know that our universe had a beginning in space and time, but we also know that the origin of the universe was a beginning for space and time. This was quite literally a miracle.

We don't know that our universe had a beginning in space and time, although many do assume this. Michio Kaku for instance is of the opinion that our universe was basically birthed via a sort of blackhole type umbilical cord from another universe, sort of like a yeast cell budding. Others beleive the universe to be infinite and that what we call the big bang was not a point of origin at all, it's just the last time the universe was pretty small throughout an infinite cycle of contraction and expansion - again an idea that ties in with indigenous Indian views on time. It's very hard to completely rule out this sort of thing at this point in time.

You say miracle someone else says lucky break, each to his own.

DannyM wrote:In our heads are atoms and molecules and neurons shooting away. What logical necessity is there for the workings of these neurons and molecules inside our heads to match the universe outside? Why should there be a correspondence between the two? It's a strange correspondence here that ultimately relies on faith. The only difference is the atheist relies on the evidence while denying the metaphysical ground on which it stands. Mind, not matter, came at the beginning...In my view.

I don't think there is a logical necessity for the behaviour of neurons. Certainly if enough are in one place and aren't very busy one starts to wonder about such things.
There are those that say 'as above, so below' or that the microcosm is the reflection of the macrocosm and vice versa, or even that we create our own reality.
One can appreciate the beauty of it and lose themselves in the great play of life without ultimately relying on something. If you have an ultimate explanation like chance or God then you're putting your cards on the table and people will disagree with it, and not always in a nice or intelligent way. I expect that if there is an ultimate explanation then it's probably beyond my comprehension, at least on a conscious, intellectual level. Anyways I enjoy trying and listening to the attempts of others, sometimes the greatest gems are found amongst piles of dirt. The stone that the builder refuse and all that.

DannyM wrote:What the --! I fear you misunderstand me. I can never fully or even nearly begin to comprehend God. But I can comprehend that there is a transcendental causer of the universe.

It seems a little circular to me. You can comprehend the need for the incomprehensible. On some level I could say that I can comprehend the need for the cause of the transcendental causer but if I'm actually understanding anything about life, the universe and everything by thinking about this is another matter.
Where you can comprehend the need for a transcendental causer others comprehend that there is no need for one - who's to say if either is actually comprehending an objective reality.

DannyM wrote:Good to see you though Pro!

Thanks, I think I'll take more breaks in future. After posting regularly to rather complicated subjects it's nice to take a break for a while to allow my brain some processing time. Everything in moderation as they say - or in excess on occasion as I say.

eagle25c wrote:Proinsias, if you're a teacher, I want to take your class. thoughtful and well written posts. I also hope that Darwinism is just a stepping stone to a more complete understanding of evolution in the future.

I'm not a teacher, very much a student. Thank you for the kind words, you've cheered up an already rather wonderful day of sunshine, gardening and new harvest 2010 Chinese green tea.

eagle25c wrote:FL, apostate fits. Since I am currently not worried about my status for entering heaven, I'll leave further distinctions behind.

OK. Well...there are no distinctions besides righteous and unrighteous. The righteous have a relationship with God and the unrighteous usually have some form of religion* or a bizarre worldview.

FL

*Any religion will do, including the various forms of Christianity.

Proinsias wrote: It's his opinion, it's one I don't happen to agree with, but it's not something that would put me off using the book if I was informed that other sections were helpful in the understanding of evolutionary Biology. I don't really expect a scientist to be completely scientific, they're also human, and I feel they should inject their personality into their work even if it is an atheistic one I don't happen to agree with.. When I come across such statements in biology books I tend to just pass by them - if I got annoyed every time I came across something which conflicted with the way I see the world in a biology book I'd still be arguing with Mr Milgrew in first year science class and have very little knowledge of biology.
If Stephen Hawking's wants to inject some atheist philosophy into his physics or if Alister Mcgrath wants to inject some biology into his theism, let them go for it. Taste it all, spit out what you don't like and savour that which nourishes you, as a wise man once said.

Pro you bring up some good points.. But I think If the teachers of science would realize their job to teach students, to know and understand evolutionary theory, but not require their students to believe it, then much of this conflict would go away.. Sound education rests on conveying knowledge and understanding, not just certain beliefs… I think a lot of Darwinian evolution is not the full part of our reality. A lot of it is a belief system.. Evolution might make assumptions, that is true, but it is not always necessarily factual. Science does not exclude God. Neither does it include God, it's a very fine line.. If that could get across, you probably wouldn't even need to mention God for the most part.

Just a thought..

Proinsias wrote:It could also be noted that religion is often used as a stick to beat science over the head. Or alternatively, they tend to keep each other in check and continually challenge and inspire change in each other.

Could it Pro? Aside from a few isolated cases in the distant past, I'm a little lost as to how you could make such a comparison...

Proinsias wrote:It's his opinion, it's one I don't happen to agree with, but it's not something that would put me off using the book if I was informed that other sections were helpful in the understanding of evolutionary Biology.

Oh it puts me off right at that very point. You see, how on earth can such a blatantly biased individual be trusted when his mind is clearly skewed with regards to an area which shouldn't be too difficult to separate from the scientific evidence at his disposal?

Proinsias wrote:If Stephen Hawking's wants to inject some atheist philosophy into his physics or if Alister Mcgrath wants to inject some biology into his theism, let them go for it. Taste it all, spit out what you don't like and savour that which nourishes you, as a wise man once said.

McGrath has said that he finds Darwinism stimulating and he doesn't see an incomaptability with the Genesis account of creation. That's his prerogative, but he is not projecting biology onto theism; he merely sees no problem or contradiction between the early Genesis account and Darwinian evolution. I agree that Darwinian evolution does not even come close to crashing the Genesis party. He may have changed his stance, but this was his view in Dawkins' God around 2005/06.

Proinsias wrote: I see it as positing another mechanism which works alongside traditional Darwinian evolution to more fully explain the complexity of life, but to each his own. It shouldn't come as a huge surprise that one of the first viable attempts to explain evolution is not going to be a complete explanation and I fear that those who do hold to that will be rather difficult to engage with if you start from the notion that Darwinisn has been destroyed.

If this is what you feel then more power to your elbow, Pro, but we still are not answering the questions...You appear to be agreeing with me that Darwinism is simply unsatisfactory in explaining the complexity of life. So ask yourself, why do such a large portion of the scientific establishment persist in having faith in this insufficient mechanism? It surely cannot be based solely on scientific grounds...And when we look at some of the more outspoken proponents of Darwinian evoluteion, i.e. Dawkins, Myers, Dennett, etc, we see that, actually, there is something more at work here: this isn't about empiricism, science or ethics; it is about the philosophy of these people, about their anti-religious world view...Darwinism being the Holy Grail with which to incorporate their atheistic philosophy. And yet in this country Dawkins is revered by a large minority of utterly cluelesss dimwits. Dawkins' books, at least of the last two decades, are nothing more that ignorant, caricature-based rants about religion: something he knows next to nothing about... And Darwinism is his sanctuary, and he hides in there, even when Darwinism (as a sufficient explanatory mechanism for complex life) is crashing all around him...One day he will have to own up to his folly.

Proinsias wrote:I would agree that sexual reproduction is relatively conservative but to say that it serves only to bring evolution to a complete standstill seems ludicrous. If it is the mechanism which allows 'viable monsters', produced via this newly proposed mechanism, to adjust to their environment then it is going to be pretty essential to continued life and evolution - if an organism line cannot fine tune itself to its environment then it ain't gonna be around long enough for another large change via this newly, well 70's I think, proposed mechanism.

Here's Davison from his blog, which admittedly he himself tarnishes with frequent ranting (which I put down to the years of disgraceful treatment he has received from his colleagues; one is bound to become bitter!):

"The Dawkins/Myers dynamic duo has become the laugthingstock of evolutionary science. Neither has ever published a word relating to the only matter which has ever been in question - the cytogenetic mechanism by which creative evolution proceeded (past tense). Natural selection, Mendelian genetics and allelic mutation have never played any role in the ascending sequence which characterizes the fossil record. All that those elements have ever done is temporarily preserve the status quo and ensure the ultimate extinction without which evolution could never have taken place."

Proinsias wrote:I don't really see where this parts from RM+NS explaining the complexity if life. It's basically suggesting a new form of random mutation via chromosomal rearrangement the success of which will be determined through natural selection. It may also be the case that this type of evolution only becomes prominent during periods of extreme environment change and when things are ticking along quite sedately in the environment Darwinian evolution keeps organisms ticking along at an equally sedate pace.

But all the NS in the world, even taking into account the anti-empirical claim of, "given enough time..." could not produce these complex systems (because that's what we are in a 'technical sense': mind blowingly complex systems). It is simply speculation which has only survived due to the world view of some very insecure, umm, scientists...

Proinsias wrote:To me it's basically saying that random gene and base pair mutations don't lead to significant change, certainly not producing much beyond the species level. They're suggesting huge mutations on the chromosomal level which I imagine if accepted into main stream biology will simply become another from of random mutation. Giving the theist more argument for design and the atheist higher odds of humans randomly appearing.

I know, it's just not sufficeient, is it?

Proinsias wrote:I think this works both ways. It's going to be tough to know with certainty that the universe does not contain the reason for its own existence, or that we would even recognise it if it was put in front of us.

But we have laws which actually cannot be explained. Only the effects of these laws can be explained or measured. We start with the underlying assumption of total and complete order. But this has to be taken on faith as scientific 'laws' cannot be proven, only established by inference.

Proinsias wrote:We don't know that our universe had a beginning in space and time, although many do assume this.

The majority of science accepts the universe had a beginning. Everything else is pure speculation. All sorts of unfounded speculation has been offered up in place of the big bang: multiple universes; our universe dropping out of a black hole in another universe; a natural selection of universes, posited by Lee Smolin, in which universes 'survive and adapt'... I mean, please!! It's all postulated to preserve the 'theory' of chance. Even Weinberg admitted, "These are very speculative ides, without any experimental support. Smolin said, "It is possible that all I have done here is cobble together a set of false clues that only seem to have something to do with eachother...There is every chance that these ideas will not succeed." You think?!

The astronomer Owen Gingerich said that anyone who can believe in multiple universes should have no problem believing in heaven and hell; just think of them as alternate universes, operating outside space and time according to laws that are inoperative in our universe. So the atheist who is willing to believe in multiple universes should then be perfectly able to envision a realm in which there is no suffering, no evil...as the realms they fantasise about would not be subject to the same laws that our universe is bound by... So atheists do believe in miracles...

Proinsias wrote:Michio Kaku for instance is of the opinion that our universe was basically birthed via a sort of blackhole type umbilical cord from another universe, sort of like a yeast cell budding. Others beleive the universe to be infinite and that what we call the big bang was not a point of origin at all, it's just the last time the universe was pretty small throughout an infinite cycle of contraction and expansion - again an idea that ties in with indigenous Indian views on time. It's very hard to completely rule out this sort of thing at this point in time.

Then we need to ask: where's the evidence?

Proinsias wrote:You say miracle someone else says lucky break, each to his own.

But you are failing to see that "luck" would be a miracle in itself. Is that the miracle of choice for you, Pro?

Proinsias wrote:I don't think there is a logical necessity for the behaviour of neurons. Certainly if enough are in one place and aren't very busy one starts to wonder about such things. There are those that say 'as above, so below' or that the microcosm is the reflection of the macrocosm and vice versa, or even that we create our own reality. One can appreciate the beauty of it and lose themselves in the great play of life without ultimately relying on something. If you have an ultimate explanation like chance or God then you're putting your cards on the table and people will disagree with it, and not always in a nice or intelligent way. I expect that if there is an ultimate explanation then it's probably beyond my comprehension, at least on a conscious, intellectual level. Anyways I enjoy trying and listening to the attempts of others, sometimes the greatest gems are found amongst piles of dirt. The stone that the builder refuse and all that.

You have a fair point, but to just get on with it and refuse to 'ask the question' seems to me to be begging the question.

Proinsias wrote:It seems a little circular to me. You can comprehend the need for the incomprehensible. On some level I could say that I can comprehend the need for the cause of the transcendental causer but if I'm actually understanding anything about life, the universe and everything by thinking about this is another matter. Where you can comprehend the need for a transcendental causer others comprehend that there is no need for one - who's to say if either is actually comprehending an objective reality.

What I meant to say is that I can never fully or even nearly fully comprehend God. But I can certainly comprehend some things about God. If you believe in the bible, God has revealed himself through self-revelation. God even reconciled himself to man by becoming man... The universe had a cause, an intelligent cause, of that I have no doubt. Alister mcGrath (again ) said that Christian theology can be defined as "making rational sense of a mystery." Science stops at ultimate questions; it ceases to play a part. Now I know that the proponents of scientific naturalism would disagree, but they have no grounds on which to disagree; their philosophy is utterly flawed from the start.