Evidence for God from Science

So what does everyone think of this Editorial?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opini ... le_popular

bizzt wrote:So what does everyone think of this Editorial?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opini ... le_popular

Post the article here, I nor either one else wants to register.

Thinker wrote:

bizzt wrote:So what does everyone think of this Editorial?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opini ... le_popular

Post the article here, I nor either one else wants to register.

Its not much of an article and I don't understand the bias against intelligent design.

waynes world wrote:

Thinker wrote:

bizzt wrote:So what does everyone think of this Editorial?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opini ... le_popular

Post the article here, I nor either one else wants to register.

Its not much of an article and I don't understand the bias against intelligent design.

I just found People were using this article to come against ID... Just wondering what people thought of it

I would be interested if someone has printed a rebuttel of it. I can't believe how bigoted some of those guys are. I thought that we had free speech in this country.

waynes world wrote:I can't believe how bigoted some of those guys are. I thought that we had free speech in this country.

Who says we don't have free speech, just because some guy wrote an article? I don't get it.

I think it's a great article myself ; )

Basically he's saying that ID proponents haven't subjected their ideas to the same rigorous controls that scientists are forced to do if they want their theories to be accepted. Also, he makes the good point that people generally DO believe what "most scientists" say (and rightly so, since when "most scientists" agree on something, often the result is things like DVD players, satellites, etc.) but in the case of natural selection there's a problem *only* because it interferes with a literal interpreation of the Bible - not because the evidence is weaker than for many other theories. Seriously - imagine how insanely complicated it would be if this was a forum debating the possibility/impossibility of time dilation (slowing down) for speeds approaching light speed! It would create a lot of debate since it IS complex, but the fact is, we're not experts on it and so we DO trust the scientists - especially when the results can be shown to work.

Thus the natural next question: do YOU think the scientists are somehow all lying about evolution by NS, but not about other things? Do you REALLY believe that scientists are basically people who are scared of the idea of a God, and so do their best to find alternative explanations? That's absurd. I would LOVE there to be a God, miracles, an afterlife. Who wouldn't? Seriously, it would be fantastic and beautiful. But most scientists don't think much about God when they're working (of course SOME do - don't start on that one please); they simply do their best to understand how something works, in detail. They use a universally agreed-upon set of strict rules to act as a filter of bad ideas (I know, because one of my papers that I worked hard on was just rejected from a couple of reviewers!), and this rigorous process is applied to all areas of scientific knowledge in the same way. This includes how we got here, and the question of how life on Earth in general got here, and how we're related. That's all part of "scientific knowledge" because we're physical beings, as is this planet and all things on it. Anything we can't see, touch, taste, or measure in any way is simply beyond scientific exploration.

Whew. Now Mr. Moderator - I request again kindly that I not be kicked off the list just for being openly 'atheistic' (although I don't call myself an atheist, since by definition this would mean I deny the existence of a Creator, and I really have no clue). Thank you! ; )

cal wrote:

waynes world wrote:I can't believe how bigoted some of those guys are. I thought that we had free speech in this country.

Who says we don't have free speech, just because some guy wrote an article? I don't get it.

I think it's a great article myself ; )

Basically he's saying that ID proponents haven't subjected their ideas to the same rigorous controls that scientists are forced to do if they want their theories to be accepted. Also, he makes the good point that people generally DO believe what "most scientists" say (and rightly so, since when "most scientists" agree on something, often the result is things like DVD players, satellites, etc.) but in the case of natural selection there's a problem *only* because it interferes with a literal interpreation of the Bible - not because the evidence is weaker than for many other theories. Seriously - imagine how insanely complicated it would be if this was a forum debating the possibility/impossibility of time dilation (slowing down) for speeds approaching light speed! It would create a lot of debate since it IS complex, but the fact is, we're not experts on it and so we DO trust the scientists - especially when the results can be shown to work.

Thus the natural next question: do YOU think the scientists are somehow all lying about evolution by NS, but not about other things? Do you REALLY believe that scientists are basically people who are scared of the idea of a God, and so do their best to find alternative explanations? That's absurd. I would LOVE there to be a God, miracles, an afterlife. Who wouldn't? Seriously, it would be fantastic and beautiful. But most scientists don't think much about God when they're working (of course SOME do - don't start on that one please); they simply do their best to understand how something works, in detail. They use a universally agreed-upon set of strict rules to act as a filter of bad ideas (I know, because one of my papers that I worked hard on was just rejected from a couple of reviewers!), and this rigorous process is applied to all areas of scientific knowledge in the same way. This includes how we got here, and the question of how life on Earth in general got here, and how we're related. That's all part of "scientific knowledge" because we're physical beings, as is this planet and all things on it. Anything we can't see, touch, taste, or measure in any way is simply beyond scientific exploration.

Whew. Now Mr. Moderator - I request again kindly that I not be kicked off the list just for being openly 'atheistic' (although I don't call myself an atheist, since by definition this would mean I deny the existence of a Creator, and I really have no clue). Thank you! ; )

I don't have the problem with the Article Directly. What I have a problem with is associating ID with Christianity. That is not true at all! There are other people who are a Member of ID that are not of our Faith as well. I will agree Evolution does happen however I do not agree that Darwinian Evolution has happened. I believe there is Natural Selection but I don't believe that we have evolved from a Common Species through that avenue!

Just my two cents

evolutionists don't like ID because they're afraid it might expose evolution as being false. What they don't realze is that ID nowhere denies evolution except it doesn't believe we all have the same ancestors as the animals. Its like Norman Geisler said that evolution is the religion of a secularist that is being masqueraded as science.

waynes world wrote:evolutionists don't like ID because they're afraid it might expose evolution as being false. What they don't realze is that ID nowhere denies evolution except it doesn't believe we all have the same ancestors as the animals. Its like Norman Geisler said that evolution is the religion of a secularist that is being masqueraded as science.

Intelligent Design has its merits and is a legitimate topic for discussion and study, however it is not a legitamate science.

Science is
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science

waynes world wrote:evolutionists don't like ID because they're afraid it might expose evolution as being false. What they don't realze is that ID nowhere denies evolution except it doesn't believe we all have the same ancestors as the animals.

I think you are mistaken in your understanding of ID (as are many ID-critics). ID isn't arguing against macro-evolution, common descent or the "fact" of evolution (as evolutionists like to call it). To put it simply, they aren't arguing against the evolution of an apelike creature to a man. ID is about how that evolutioniary process took place. Here is a link and quote from the Discovery Institute website that I hope makes that clear

"2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges."

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php


While I do have some common ground with ID proponents, I don't share their belief in common ancestory.

roysr wrote: However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges."

Spot on.




I hope others can see that the key word is discernable. The "guide" behind the process is not within in the context of science. Just as the reason gravity behaves the way it does is beyond the scope of science. Science at best, can only hope to describe the mechanics.

Using Multiverse explanations to explain the specific cosmological constants, is in a way a leap of faith.

You choose... Multiverse, God, Flying Spaghetti Monster. =)

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I hope others can see that the key word is discernable. The "guide" behind the process is not within in the context of science.

ID is about detecting design, not indentifying a designer. Also, the designer doesn't have to be "supernatural" like you imply. You built a strawman.

And as far as the TOE "having no discernable direction or goal", are you saying we should just give up on lookin for a direction or goal and just call it "random"? If so, that is nothing more then an "Athiesm of the gaps" argument.

Using Multiverse explanations to explain the specific cosmological constants, is in a way a leap of faith.

You choose... Multiverse, God, Flying Spaghetti Monster. =)

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was uneccassary in your response and you know it. If you want to persuade people, ridicule is not a good way to go about doing it. But in a way, I am glad you made this post because you have displayed your true intentions to me and to the rest of the members on this forum.

roysr wrote:The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was uneccassary in your response and you know it. If you want to persuade people, ridicule is not a good way to go about doing it. But in a way, I am glad you made this post because you have displayed your true intentions to me and to the rest of the members on this forum.

It was a joke. Sorry to offend.
I was comparing Multiverse with God and threw in the spaghetti for a laugh.
I was in a way tring to disparage the "scientists" who are really religious zeolots with no God given authority.

My point was that the truth is beyond the scope of science, please read in context.

roysr wrote:ID is about detecting design, not indentifying a designer. Also, the designer doesn't have to be "supernatural" like you imply. You built a strawman.

I did not imply supernatural. And therefore no strawman, in fact I was agreeing with you.
I just had to add that detecting design assumes a designer and therefore is beyond the realm of science.

roysr wrote:

waynes world wrote:evolutionists don't like ID because they're afraid it might expose evolution as being false. What they don't realze is that ID nowhere denies evolution except it doesn't believe we all have the same ancestors as the animals.

I think you are mistaken in your understanding of ID (as are many ID-critics). ID isn't arguing against macro-evolution, common descent or the "fact" of evolution (as evolutionists like to call it). To put it simply, they aren't arguing against the evolution of an apelike creature to a man. ID is about how that evolutioniary process took place. Here is a link and quote from the Discovery Institute website that I hope makes that clear

"2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges."

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php


While I do have some common ground with ID proponents, I don't share their belief in common ancestory.

I have posted that site on Sean Hannity's website but nobody will read it and evolutionists insist that ID and creationism are one and the same thing. I don't see how ID argues at all ffor common ancestry for all of life, which I certainly don't agree with. If you notice above the site says it depends on what kind of evolution. Micro is certainly different from Macro, alothough the evolutionists think they're the same thing and are as committed to that as they are to ID being disguised creationism.

It's because evolutionists are so blind of their own mistakes in their field of "work", that they will attack the ID scientists because it makes them feel like it has been justified. They, out of ignorance, don't care to see what the TRUE meaning of ID is. They just want their broken theory to continue since it was started by Charles "the devil" Darwin back in the 1850's. They have made their mind up to be atheists and so along with that goes their theory of evolution and they will cling to that and do everything they can to stand out, thus the reason they are attacking ID scientists. Also, I have learned that evolution, not darwinian evolution, is compatible with the Bible, like I said in another thread, the Bible taught it first and this was thousands of years ago! Scripture provides explanations for the different species we have unearthed. Are darwinian evolutions that stupid??? I guess so.