Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:17 pm**

August wrote:Experimentation was identified as one of the demarcations of science. Macroevolution cannot be proven experimentally, so is it still science? ... There are many other scientific areas which don't rely on experimentation (astronomy, archeology, quantum physics), so I would question the inclusion of experimentation as one of the demarcations of science anyway. How can you prove that definition of science to be true by experimentation?

Yes, experimentation is the hallmark of science.

What do you mean, macroevolution cannot be proved? In principle, or it hasn't yet to your satisfaction? As pointed out by Zenith, astronomy, archaeology, and quantum physics do involve experiments. Again, I don't understand your last question.

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:23 pm**

sandy_mcd wrote:Yes, experimentation is the hallmark of science.

What do you mean, macroevolution cannot be proved? In principle, or it hasn't yet to your satisfaction?

In principle.

As pointed out by Zenith, astronomy, archaeology, and quantum physics do involve experiments.

Did you read my answer to Zenith? Don't misrepresent what I said.

Again, I don't understand your last question.

What don't you understand? If experimentation is a part of the scientific method, and the scientific method is the way by which we reach scientific conclusions, please show the experiment that supports that.

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:44 pm**

August wrote:As for the origin of life, biological evolution accepts the existence of an organism with certain characteristics as axiomatic. ... The question then is, how reliable can your theory be if one of the axioms are unknown? And I can hear the protests, have heard them many times: "We don't need to know it, all we are doing is describe the subsequent happenings." The problem with that line of reasoning is that at the very least life had to have certain characteristics that directly originated from pre-life for the evolutionary mechanisms to work as postulated. The demarcation between life and non-life then becomes a little foggy, and the boundary between the origin vs the existence of life vague, and boils down to the question how that can be experimentally proven? I.e. how do we experimentally prove what is part of biological evolution and what is not?

A) As you say, how life started really doesn't affect the study of how it changes. Chemistry existed as a science for many years before the structure of atoms was uncovered. That the actual atomic structure was totally unexpected (cf Rutherford, eg), in no way invalidated the chemical knowledge and reactions of the preceding years.
B) Of course the line between life and non-life is foggy. It is presumed that there was a series of small changes from inorganic chemicals to life. Where the actual line is drawn is not too important as there is not much difference on either side. It is easy to tell that a rock is not living and an elephant is. But what about a virus? a prion? At what precise moment does something living become non-living? So much of the natural world is a continuum. As Bgood has pointed out before, it is human nature to try to categorize things even when the underlying nature is (or nearly is) continuous. We have blue and green as colors yet the spectrum is continuous; the boundary is arbitrary. Look at the salamanders referenced before - where do you draw the line between like and un-alike? The borders between the sciences are not distinct either. When does physics become chemistry become biology? What difference does it really make? As Feynman decided at an early age, it is knowledge about something which matters, not what you call it.
[You're going to have to be a little more specific with the problem you raise with characteristics affecting postulated mechanisms before I can comment on that.]

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:05 pm**

sandy_mcd wrote:
August wrote: A) As you say, how life started really doesn't affect the study of how it changes. Chemistry existed as a science for many years before the structure of atoms was uncovered. That the actual atomic structure was totally unexpected (cf Rutherford, eg), in no way invalidated the chemical knowledge and reactions of the preceding years.
B) Of course the line between life and non-life is foggy. It is presumed that there was a series of small changes from inorganic chemicals to life. Where the actual line is drawn is not too important as there is not much difference on either side. It is easy to tell that a rock is not living and an elephant is. But what about a virus? a prion? At what precise moment does something living become non-living?
Your points A and B seem to be contradiciting each other. If the line between life and non-life is foggy, then on what basis do you exclude the origin of life from the ToE, and the description of how life changes? As far as your analogy is concerned, it does not work in your favor. Let's ask this, if there emerges a feasible, proven theory for the origin of life, will it be included in the ToE? (Is the atomic structire part of chemistry today?) The question is slightly redundant, since it is already included in the course material of evolution in colleges, and in most of the major texts. Yet officially it is not part of the theory, even though you say: " It is presumed that there was a series of small changes from inorganic chemicals to life.", clearly an evolutionary hypothesis. The mechanisms by which life changes can only work given a certain set of circumstances and elements. The elements (DNA, RNA, proteins) then had to come from pre-life. You already said that you considered that axiomatic, in point A above. I go back to my original point, which was that for something to be axiomatic, it has to be self-evident or proven, neither of which is the case for the origin of DNA, RNA etc.

I also have to ask this, what distinguishes a live elephant from a dead elephant? Is there a difference between the rock and the dead elephant?

So much of the natural world is a continuum. As Bgood has pointed out before, it is human nature to try to categorize things even when the underlying nature is (or nearly is) continuous. We have blue and green as colors yet the spectrum is continuous; the boundary is arbitrary. Look at the salamanders referenced before - where do you draw the line between like and un-alike? The borders between the sciences are not distinct either. When does physics become chemistry become biology? What difference does it really make? As Feynman decided at an early age, it is knowledge about something which matters, not what you call it.

So does this go for what is scientific and what is not too?

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:14 pm**

August wrote:How can you prove that definition of science to be true by experimentation? ... If experimentation is a part of the scientific method, and the scientific method is the way by which we reach scientific conclusions, please show the experiment that supports that.

Again, this is way over my head. Are you saying that I have to perform an experiment to show what the definition of science is? If so, that's impossible. The definition of science is not something which can be determined scientifically. The definition of science (as the definition of all words) is something arbitrarily agreed upon by people to facilitate the communication of ideas. People, or at least a certain subset of all people, have agreed to use the characters "science" to refer to the study of the natural world through hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion. Similarly, "emerald" refers to a certain type of mineral; that is the label we use, it can't be determined from a scientific study of the mineral. In fact the Germans call the same material "smaragd"; neither symbolic term is an intrinsic property of the stone itself.

Important note on experiments in science. Astronomers do experiments to test hypotheses about star formation and operation. They think they understand the process fairly well. But they have not manufactured a star or observed it through the entire life cycle. It is not necessary to replicate whatever is being studied in order to do an experiment or observe predicted but hithertoo unknown observations.

From an earlier post:

sandy_mcd wrote:2) Rant 2. I have thought of suggesting that this site have a glossary for regulars. Whether you agree with the definitions or not, at least everyone would know what is meant by a term. English has a huge vocabulary with many words which mean almost the same thing. Unfortunately the difference in meaning to me of the words A and B is often less than the difference between my meaning of A and someone else's definition of A. So this huge vocabulary is wasted. The meanings of words change with time (cf science). Dictionaries report the common usage of words, not some imposed meaning. Thus when people misuse words (such as conflating "impossible" with "highly unlikely") it makes communication that much more difficult. A classic example is given by two words which can no longer be used to convey information as many people will be confused:
http://www.m-w.com/ wrote:biweekly

1 : occurring twice a week
2 : occurring every two weeks

bimonthly

1 : occurring every two months
2 : occurring twice a month
We don't need any more Humpty Dumpty's. [quote="Lewis Carroll (in "Through the Looking Glass")"]"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

[/quote]

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:40 pm**

sandy_mcd wrote:Again, this is way over my head. Are you saying that I have to perform an experiment to show what the definition of science is? If so, that's impossible. The definition of science is not something which can be determined scientifically. The definition of science (as the definition of all words) is something arbitrarily agreed upon by people to facilitate the communication of ideas. People, or at least a certain subset of all people, have agreed to use the characters "science" to refer to the study of the natural world through hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion.

So is it your position that there is no theoretical value in the definition of the scientific method? Let me rephrase that somewhat...and I have to refer back to the discussion with Zenith and repeat what I said there. If this definition of science, in the form of physical reductionism and methodological materialism is true, can you point to any experiments which show this to be the case? The inclusion of experimentation as a demarcation for valid science neccessitates the implications of physical reductionism and methodological naturalism. You answered that there is no way to experimentally prove that. On what basis then do you propose that the scientific method is then indeed scientific? If the definition is as arbitrary as you seem to describe, then how do we have any confidence in the results of the scientific method? Your position leads to absolute skepticism, where we can trust nothing since it is all the arbitrary defintion of people, by what standard do we determine the arbitrary decision of some to be more valid than that of others?

It is not necessary to replicate whatever is being studied in order to do an experiment or observe predicted but hithertoo unknown observations.

Ok, but how do you experiment then, if you do not replicate? How do you confirm a hypothesis if you do not duplicate or attempt to duplicate? What experiments do atronomers perform? They measure light speed, radiation etc and they observe past occurences, and tie the two together in a hypothesis. If you refer to experimentation as the measurement of lightspeed, radiation etc, then yes, they do experiment. we can get into another whole discussion here about what a scientific experiment really is.

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:48 pm**

August wrote: If the line between life and non-life is foggy, then on what basis do you exclude the origin of life from the ToE, and the description of how life changes?

It doesn't matter. Words are just labels. The reason abiogenesis is not typically included with evolution is that they involve different techniques. Evolution is the study of how life changes. Abiogenesis is the study of how life began. The former involves populations of living things; the latter mostly chemicals.

August wrote:As far as your analogy is concerned, it does not work in your favor. Let's ask this, if there emerges a feasible, proven theory for the origin of life, will it be included in the ToE? (Is the atomic structire part of chemistry today?)

Of course a reasonable model for abiogenesis would be included (discussed briefly, but at more length than the speculations of today) in a course on evolution. It provides a basic underpinning just as atomic structure does for chemistry. Depending on how much detail is gone into there might be a separate course.
Yes atomic structure is discussed in general chemistry. It is not really part of the basic meaning of chemistry (how atoms combine and properties of molecules), but it provides an underlying basis. A course on general chemistry covers inorganic, organic, physical chemistry etc. There are more specialized courses in subdivisions such as organic chemistry, further into physical organic chemistry, organic mechanisms, etc. Almost every math course I took in college had the same first week in which basic math concepts were covered even though these ideas were not the essence of whatever the course was about.

August wrote:Is there a difference between the rock and the dead elephant?

I guess I won't be sending you to the store for a pound of ground elephant.

August wrote:So does this go for what is scientific and what is not too?

Certainly; there are grey areas there as well.

And now for something different: Would you like to try to define "life", "science", "evolution", "chemistry", "biology" and let me try to show that you can't compartmentalize everything?

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:07 pm**

sandy_mcd wrote:[It doesn't matter. Words are just labels.

Then why believe anything?

The reason abiogenesis is not typically included with evolution is that they involve different techniques. Evolution is the study of how life changes. Abiogenesis is the study of how life began. The former involves populations of living things; the latter mostly chemicals....
Of course a reasonable model for abiogenesis would be included (discussed briefly, but at more length than the speculations of today) in a course on evolution. It provides a basic underpinning just as atomic structure does for chemistry. Depending on how much detail is gone into there might be a separate course.

I want to come back to the technique issue, but I find this quite amusing. Abiogenisis is excluded as a result of different techniques, but as soon as there is a result you like, it will be included in the teaching of the ToE, and the technique differences are forgotten.

As for techniques, can you maybe expand a bit? What are differences etc?

I guess I won't be sending you to the store for a pound of ground elephant.

Clever. But you did not answer my question.

Certainly; there are grey areas there as well.

Care to elaborate? Why are there grey areas, what are they?

And now for something different: Would you like to try to define "life", "science", "evolution", "chemistry", "biology" and let me try to show that you can't compartmentalize everything?

Hey, that's my point.

You cannot demarcate. Yet the supporters of evolution maintain that you can demarcate ID as non-science.

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:11 pm**

August wrote: So is it your position that there is no theoretical value in the definition of the scientific method? Let me rephrase that somewhat...and I have to refer back to the discussion with Zenith and repeat what I said there. If this definition of science, in the form of physical reductionism and methodological materialism is true, can you point to any experiments which show this to be the case?

The validation of hypothesis through experimentation is just one of many tools at our disposal for discovering the world around us. This tool is called science.

August wrote:The inclusion of experimentation as a demarcation for valid science neccessitates the implications of physical reductionism and methodological naturalism. You answered that there is no way to experimentally prove that. On what basis then do you propose that the scientific method is then indeed scientific? If the definition is as arbitrary as you seem to describe, then how do we have any confidence in the results of the scientific method? Your position leads to absolute skepticism, where we can trust nothing since it is all the arbitrary defintion of people, by what standard do we determine the arbitrary decision of some to be more valid than that of others?

It is not necessary to replicate whatever is being studied in order to do an experiment or observe predicted but hithertoo unknown observations.
Ok, but how do you experiment then, if you do not replicate? How do you confirm a hypothesis if you do not duplicate or attempt to duplicate? What experiments do atronomers perform? They measure light speed, radiation etc and they observe past occurences, and tie the two together in a hypothesis. If you refer to experimentation as the measurement of lightspeed, radiation etc, then yes, they do experiment. we can get into another whole discussion here about what a scientific experiment really is.

Experimentation is about confirmation.
One can hypothesize all they want but one needs to show that it is so.

This is what an experiment is supposed to do.

If the theory is that gravity can cause the formation of black holes, then one needs to first understand the principals of gravity through experimentation. Then a large mass can be modeled and the behaviour of a black hole can be hypothesized, such as jets of high energy gamma rays. Then these jets need to be detected. And surrounding objects need to show an influence of a large gravitational body.

If the theory is genetic drift causes the traits of a population to change over time, then one needs to take a catalog of traits found in a population and over time show populations changing. If two populations of organisms show some divergence over time then this mechanism has been shown to work.

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:02 pm**

August wrote:
No, evolution does not cover the origin of life. The theory only covers the diversification of life.
* Examples of macroevolution include: the origin of all life; the origin of humans; the origin of eukaryotic cells; and extinction of the dinosaurs.
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/bio100/lecture ... macro.html
Seems those stupid professors at the University of Illinois have got it wrong then...

Here's the reply I got.

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your catching my typeo on the
gen info page. I fixed that.

I do appreciate your comments concerning evolution and the origin of life.
I think we are talking symantics rather than real substance.

The term "macroevolution" as we use it now includes evolution that is
more
than changes in allele frequency in a population. In other words dealing
with the evolution of new species, or new groups of organisms, or their
extinction, for that matter. I was speaking in very broad terms when I
included the origin of life in this category. We are talking about the
origin of the first "species", whatever that might have been.

You may be correct in classifying the origin of life as "abiogenesis",
but
I contend that as soon as the first self replicating molecules arose
(currently thought to be RNA, not DNA), selection and evolution started
even at the molecular level. The early forms of self reproducing
molecules would have varied as a result of uncorrected replication
mistakes. Those variations that were more successful at reproducing
themselves in certain environments would soon become more abundant than
the less successful variants. Check out Lewis' chapter on the origin and
history of life.

I invite you to take a look at some references from "talkorigins.com
concerning abiogenesis:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

I suppose one's definition of what should be considered to be "silly"
depends on one's perspective, knowledge, and understanding of the topic.

If you are interested in this topic, I invite you to look into the book I
mentioned in the first lecture, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the
Fullness of Life, By Steven Jay Gould:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 40-8892612

I think Gould provides the most logical, and at the same time,
compassionate discussion of the roles of science and religion in
understanding the world around us.

I invite your further thoughts and comments.

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:55 pm**

sandy_mcd wrote:
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your catching my typeo on the
gen info page. I fixed that.

I do appreciate your comments concerning evolution and the origin of life.
I think we are talking symantics rather than real substance.

The term "macroevolution" as we use it now includes evolution that is
more
than changes in allele frequency in a population. In other words dealing
with the evolution of new species, or new groups of organisms, or their
extinction, for that matter. I was speaking in very broad terms when I
included the origin of life in this category. We are talking about the
origin of the first "species", whatever that might have been.

You may be correct in classifying the origin of life as "abiogenesis",
but
I contend that as soon as the first self replicating molecules arose
(currently thought to be RNA, not DNA), selection and evolution started
even at the molecular level. The early forms of self reproducing
molecules would have varied as a result of uncorrected replication
mistakes. Those variations that were more successful at reproducing
themselves in certain environments would soon become more abundant than
the less successful variants. Check out Lewis' chapter on the origin and
history of life.

I invite you to take a look at some references from "talkorigins.com
concerning abiogenesis:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

I suppose one's definition of what should be considered to be "silly"
depends on one's perspective, knowledge, and understanding of the topic.

If you are interested in this topic, I invite you to look into the book I
mentioned in the first lecture, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the
Fullness of Life, By Steven Jay Gould:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 40-8892612

I think Gould provides the most logical, and at the same time,
compassionate discussion of the roles of science and religion in
understanding the world around us.

I invite your further thoughts and comments.

That proves my point, does it not. This:

I contend that as soon as the first self replicating molecules arose
(currently thought to be RNA, not DNA), selection and evolution started
even at the molecular level. The early forms of self reproducing
molecules would have varied as a result of uncorrected replication
mistakes. Those variations that were more successful at reproducing
themselves in certain environments would soon become more abundant than the less successful variants.

clearly refers to pre-life, and leads to an interesting conclusion, that the ToE is a subset of abiogenesis....

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:13 am**

The American Heritage Dictionary calls science:

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.

I think perhaps a more practical question than 'what is the definition of science' would be 'what is the purpose of science'. When you ask that you are likely to hear two common answers. One is 'to find truth.' Another answer you'll commonly hear is 'to find natural explanations for phenomena'. The first, IMHO, is a far better answer because it leaves out only those things that are not true. Many however believe that natural causes must exist for all phenomena, so while they may claim to be looking for truth really they are looking only for those truths that do not include God.

We must ask ourselves what it would mean to science if God did exist? Perhaps even a better question would be what it would mean to science if the rules of science (such as physics) did not exist? One of the things science has discovered is that up until the Big Bang there were no rules of physics. Time did not exist. Nothing existed prior to the Big Bang except a timeless eternity. The Big Bang represented a singularity - the beginning of all things we regard as measurable scientificially.

The point? Something must have existed prior to the Big Bang. Something must have CAUSED the Big Bang. What use would a method be if by it's very definition it could not be used to explain something that scientifically can be shown to exist?

Shouldn't the 'rules' of science be such that ALL phenomenon can be explored rather than only those that are not offensive to atheists?

The ONLY reason macro-evolution is considered viable by so many scientists is because they have put themselves into a box that cannot account for the origin of species any other way. Truth has taken a back door to conjecture.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:26 am**

Wall-dog wrote:The American Heritage Dictionary calls science:

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.
I think perhaps a more practical question than 'what is the definition of science' would be 'what is the purpose of science'. When you ask that you are likely to hear two common answers. One is 'to find truth.' Another answer you'll commonly hear is 'to find natural explanations for phenomena'. The first, IMHO, is a far better answer because it leaves out only those things that are not true. Many however believe that natural causes must exist for all phenomena, so while they may claim to be looking for truth really they are looking only for those truths that do not include God.

No science is limited in it's ability to uncover truth, what it can do is discover processes.

Take for example newtonian physics, it did a good job of explaning the mechanical motion around us, but eventually it was superceded with general relativity. Which point of view is true?

Sadly neither, both are just paradigms which we can use to understand the nature of the universe. Without a framework or assumptions to build upon we cannot understand the data. Think of science like a hughe multi-story building built on a bottomless swamp, supported by unthinkably long beams plowed into the swamp floor.

The truth is science allows us to increase our knowledge of the world and due to it's experimentalism practical applications can be a result.

The search for the ultimate truth is not within the realm of science. The lofty goal to discover and know everything seems to be an illusory one.

It's not about being offensive to athiests, it's about the practicality of testing through experimentation. That is why data can stand on it's own with no foundations. Experiments can be repeated and data can be collected again and again.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:51 pm**

truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
Sincerity; integrity.
Fidelity to an original or standard.

Reality; actuality.
often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

knowl·edge ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nlj)
n.
The state or fact of knowing.
Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.
Specific information about something.
Carnal knowledge.

I would think science should have something to do with that.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:21 pm**

Wall-dog wrote:Time did not exist. Nothing existed prior to the Big Bang except a timeless eternity. ... Something must have existed prior to the Big Bang.

This post makes no logical sense whatsoever. Let's substitute in definitions for "prior", "timeless", and "eternity".

Time did not exist. Nothing existed "preceding in time" to the Big Bang except an "independent of time" "time without beginning or end; infinite time" ... Something must have existed "preceding in time" to the Big Bang.

So time doesn't exist, but somehow you are able to order stuff according to a temporal sequence. Timeless time, or time independent of time, and an infinite amount of it at that, existed? Nothing existed before (although there was no before) but nonetheless there was something?

Evidence for God from Science

The Scientific Method of Evolution - Tangential Issues

The Scientific Method of Evolution - Tangential Issues

Re: The Scientific Method of Evolution - Tangential Issues

Re: The Scientific Method of Evolution - Tangential Issues

Re: The Scientific Method of Evolution - Tangential Issues

Re: The Scientific Method of Evolution - Tangential Issues

reply from uiuc

Re: reply from uiuc