Evidence for God from Science

Televangelist warns of evolution doomsday
Pat Robertson says a vote against intelligent design is a vote against God

Click here to read news article, click here to watch related video, and click here to read that they still persist on claiming Intelligent Design is Creationism in disguise which for the 1 trillionth time it isn't. This country is going to hell in a handbasket, that is a guarantee.

Maybe if we mass import some Muslims which basically make it the only option to believe in Allah (God) or DIE, we could win back God. That might teach the ever increasing population of atheists to back down from their position. So this is what it will come to, huh? Don't you just love to hate the education system or what have you for pressing their "scientific human origins" belief on the uneducated to turn them to atheists? DIE INFIDELS!!!

Thinker wrote:This country is going to hell in a handbasket, that is a guarantee.

I agree.

Maybe if we mass import some Muslims which basically make it the only option to believe in Allah (God) or DIE, we could win back God. That might teach the ever increasing population of atheists to back down from their position. So this is what it will come to, huh? Don't you just love to hate the education system or what have you for pressing their "scientific human origins" belief on the uneducated to turn them to atheists? DIE INFIDELS!!!

We'd have a lot of pretenders. You can't make a person believe and be saved. They'll just take "the mark" of whoever is winning at the time and retreat back to the closet. We're looking for volunteers.

I'm sure this is something that's been reviewed here a thousand times, but I'm new and I'm not exactly sure what the difference is between ID an creationism.

Can someone please explain it?

Thanks.

Creationism starts with the belief that the Bible is correct, and says that God created the universe and all life present.

Intelligent Design is based on science and says that life is way too complicated to have evolved, but requires a designer (and, the fun part is that it doesn't necessarily have to be God...you could say aliens did it, and that they were rather simple biologically speaking...) I'm not quite sure if fine-tuning in the universe goes along with ID or not...but I think it might.


A simple man, a simple answer.

I think I'm beginning to see the differences, but I still have some questions. This discussion is overlapping a lot with the one on this thread: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1422

I don't want to detract from those wishing to talk about Mr. Robertson and since the discussions are redundant, would you mind meeting over on the other thread?

Thanks.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: Intelligent Design is based on science and says that life is way too complicated to have evolved, but requires a designer (and, the fun part is that it doesn't necessarily have to be God...you could say aliens did it, and that they were rather simple biologically speaking...) I'm not quite sure if fine-tuning in the universe goes along with ID or not...but I think it might.

I really, really tried to bite my tongue on this one, as I suppose it's been discussed already. However, I'm new to the boards and I feel I must take issue with the simple statement "Intelligent design is based on science".

Moreso than the debate over whether science is ignoring God or trying to hold a monopoly on origin hypotheses, the center of much of the problem is the defintion of ID as scientific. I have been on a few other similar forums, where I often see many people with no obvious scientific background providing their definitions of what science is. I believe this is at the heart of the argument, for there is science as it is understood by the general public and science for those conducting research. As a member of the scientific community, it is frustrating to repeatedly encounter new definitions of what science is given by people obviously designing a definition to fit their arguments. The main point that separates ID from legitimate science is the reliance on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which defines a set of steps for investigating phenomena. The scientific method stipulates that observations are collected BEFORE a conclusion can be generated, yet ID is based on a predetermined conclusion with later attempts to substantiate it. This is a huge problem for science, and the reason why legitimate scientists do not want ID placed in the same category as science. ID also provides no testable alternatives to determine the identity of a designer...not a fatal flaw to the argument, but not helping it at all given the tremendous body of evidence supporting evolution.

As far as ID in schools is concerned, I have no problem with that provided it's taught in a philosophy or religion course. I know that will cause some of you to state that not all ID proponents are Christians, but I must say that out of the hundreds of ID proponents I've ever talked, I never found one that wasn't. Sorry if this has been addressed already, but it's just one man's thoughts.

Even if all ID proponents were all Christians, that does not make a claim any less valid. (and, I actually ran into an agnostic pro-ID person on a forum, so ha!)

As far as ID in schools is concerned, I have no problem with that provided it's taught in a philosophy or religion course.

So you'd only allow the problems with evolution to be taught outside of a science course?

The scientific method stipulates that observations are collected BEFORE a conclusion can be generated, yet ID is based on a predetermined conclusion with later attempts to substantiate it. This is a huge problem for science, and the reason why legitimate scientists do not want ID placed in the same category as science.

How so? It was the facts that led Behe to believe that certain systems required design. He was a happy evolutionist Catholic at first....

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:How so? It was the facts that led Behe to believe that certain systems required design. He was a happy evolutionist Catholic at first....

Why the addition of "Catholic"?

Forge wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:How so? It was the facts that led Behe to believe that certain systems required design. He was a happy evolutionist Catholic at first....

Why the addition of "Catholic"?

Because he is? I don't know. Catholics seem to believe in evolution in greater numbers than other Christians.

Another thing, though...Darwin was a deist, therefore, he was looking for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life...

The main point that separates ID from legitimate science is the reliance on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which defines a set of steps for investigating phenomena. The scientific method stipulates that observations are collected BEFORE a conclusion can be generated

Which leads one to ask, then why is Darwin's theory considered science?

Because it doesn't involve God.


And I've never thought of Christian demographics regarding the ID/evolution/creationism issue.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: So you'd only allow the problems with evolution to be taught outside of a science course?

Absolutely not, if they can be addressed in a scientific manner. For example, the lack of fossils of what many refer to as "transitional species" might be considered a problem by some, but that can be addressed using our knowledge of what it takes to become a fossil. Only a miniscule proportion of anything that's ever lived will become a fossil, and we can't expect to find a fossil of every species that's ever lived.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: How so? It was the facts that led Behe to believe that certain systems required design.

I have a few problems with Behe's approach to research. First, saying something is "too complex" for us to understand is a judgement call and open to interpretation. Prior to the understanding of gravitational forces, I suppose someone looking at the orbiting of planets and moons, etc. would say that this process is "too complex" and that it simply must have been designed that way. I guess what it boils down to for me is that once you say something is "too complex" to be understood without the consideration of a designer, you've effectively closed the door on examining the phenomenon using the scientific method. Imagine how many things we as humans would have never discovered if everyone agreed that certain things were too complex to be understood without consideration of a designer. Magnetic forces, electroreception, polarized light, etc. could all be considered some of the things not easy to see and examine, thus they might have been potentially attributed to a designer; however, careful scientific investigation has given us tons of information on these cryptic aspects of our environment. Behe's research approach also exhibits the problem I highlighted earlier...mainly that he came up with a conclusion first and is looking for observations to support it (not the approach required by the scientific method).

Absolutely not, if they can be addressed in a scientific manner. For example, the lack of fossils of what many refer to as "transitional species" might be considered a problem by some, but that can be addressed using our knowledge of what it takes to become a fossil. Only a miniscule proportion of anything that's ever lived will become a fossil, and we can't expect to find a fossil of every species that's ever lived.

I was really referring to the Cambrian Explosion....but now that you bring us to the lack of missing links...if one species were evolving over a period of millions of years, you'd expect to find a hybrid at least once. So, you have no physical evidence of evolution occuring in the past...instead, you have sudden appearance and statis.

I have a few problems with Behe's approach to research. First, saying something is "too complex" for us to understand is a judgement call and open to interpretation. Prior to the understanding of gravitational forces, I suppose someone looking at the orbiting of planets and moons, etc. would say that this process is "too complex" and that it simply must have been designed that way. I guess what it boils down to for me is that once you say something is "too complex" to be understood without the consideration of a designer, you've effectively closed the door on examining the phenomenon using the scientific method. Imagine how many things we as humans would have never discovered if everyone agreed that certain things were too complex to be understood without consideration of a designer. Magnetic forces, electroreception, polarized light, etc. could all be considered some of the things not easy to see and examine, thus they might have been potentially attributed to a designer; however, careful scientific investigation has given us tons of information on these cryptic aspects of our environment. Behe's research approach also exhibits the problem I highlighted earlier...mainly that he came up with a conclusion first and is looking for observations to support it (not the approach required by the scientific method).

I love how this argument is abused so much…But you miss the positive point…Behe is making an argument that naturalistic processes cannot explain irreducibly complex systems, which then (should) lead to intense study of such systems in an attempt to prove him wrong. So, far from stopping science, it should stimulate science. And what's really annoying about your argument is that many scientists who did study the very things you mention were Christians who believed God had created the world. Also, I don't see how saying certain forces were designed would stop science either. I know someone made my computer…but I am majoring in computer engineering so I can understand how these bloody things work…just admitting something is designed does not stop one's interest in understanding how. Science is about how, not why, correct? And, if I forgot to ask it once, what is wrong with starting with an assumption and building a theory from there? I mean, the idea of macroevolution is over 3,000 years old, the Greeks were the first to think of it, and Darwin, being a deist, must have believed that all life came about naturalistically. But you do not apply your rules to your own beliefs. No, you can't, because your argument cuts both ways. And I think you're playing with definitions. Behe came up with a hypothesis, then went for the evidence. He did not conclude at first that certain systems were designed, quite the contrary.

Can I hear ANY new arguments against ID...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

And, if I forgot to ask it once, what is wrong with starting with an assumption and building a theory from there?

Answer: There is nothing wrong with it. But that is what we commonly call religious theory. A theory cannot be a theory in the scientific community until there is some kind of evidence to back it up.

Theory (n): A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

How can one make a prediction based upon the "theory" of intelligent design?