Evidence for God from Science

Just thought this article was interesting and may share some light on the issue of Intelligent Design to others here:

Feb. 26-March 4, 2006
by STEVE WEATHERBE

SEATTLE — Critics of intelligent design seem to think it's a code word for “creationism.” It's no wonder they think so, say some of its proponents. Many creationists are making the same mistake.
The organization behind the intelligent design movement is distancing itself from the recent court ruling in the Dover, Pa., School Board decision.
The Discovery Institute claims the school board hijacked intelligent design to gain credibility for their frankly religious objectives — and their losing cause.

...

(for more go to http://www.ncregister.com/articulo4.php?artkod=MTk1)

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:Just thought this article was interesting and may share some light on the issue of Intelligent Design to others here:

Feb. 26-March 4, 2006
by STEVE WEATHERBE

SEATTLE — Critics of intelligent design seem to think it's a code word for “creationism.” It's no wonder they think so, say some of its proponents. Many creationists are making the same mistake.
The organization behind the intelligent design movement is distancing itself from the recent court ruling in the Dover, Pa., School Board decision.
The Discovery Institute claims the school board hijacked intelligent design to gain credibility for their frankly religious objectives — and their losing cause.

...

(for more go to http://www.ncregister.com/articulo4.php?artkod=MTk1)

Kurieuo

This doesn't surprise me.

It's no coincidence that one of the major proponents of Intelligent Design is a lawyer. It is a pretty well designed system designed to address the basis of previous rulings against creationism by removing overtly religion specific teaching and instead appealing to a nameless and ultimately deistic creator.

I frankly think it is the wrong way to go. I would rather see Intelligent design promoted as philosophy rather than science. It fails as science as it ultimately is not falsifiable and cannot therefore be affirmatively proven on a strictly scientific basis.

I understand the reasons why it is being pursued and I would not necesarilly be disappointed if it succeeded, but I think in the end it gives too much away.

I think they will atempt to shop it to several different venues and hope they can take it up to the Supreme Court where they think they have the numbers for it to fly.

I guess we'll see.

First of all, why is falsifiability a clear demarcation line between science and non-science? I mean, isn't evolution still considered science even though it's not falsifiable?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:First of all, why is falsifiability a clear demarcation line between science and non-science? I mean, isn't evolution still considered science even though it's not falsifiable?

Some elements of evolution are not falsifible and I think those qualify as philosophy as well and ought not to be taught as science. Those fighting it in the courts have not succeeded in changing it and see a double standard. I think that is why the ID approach is being used. And I see the efficacy of that approach. I just think it gives away too much in my opinion. There certainly does appear to be a double standard however.

Pure science however, does require falsification or else it is moving outside the realm of hard science, by definition, as far as I understand it.

I fail to see how anyone who understands ID could label it as anything other than Science. Canuckster, there was an online video someone posted a while ago which I'd like you to watch. After I'd be interested to know, based upon only what was presented as ID, exactly where it would belong and why if not within Science.

The online videos provided (at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1838) were:

Part 1 - http://www.kaneva.com/checkout/stream.a ... 536&free=1

Part 2 - http://www.kaneva.com/checkout/stream.a ... 538&free=0

I liked this video presentation so much that I purchased the DVD, and I have since passed it around for others to watch and learn what ID really is rather than reading false headlines and listening to the false opinions of people pretending to know they understand it (Christians and non-Christians alike). I am certain you will also find it enjoyable.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:I fail to see how anyone who understands ID could label it as anything other than Science. Canuckster, there was an online video someone posted a while ago which I'd like you to watch. After I'd be interested to know, based upon only what was presented as ID, exactly where it would belong and why if not within Science.

The online videos provided (at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1838) were:

Part 1 - http://www.kaneva.com/checkout/stream.a ... 536&free=1

Part 2 - http://www.kaneva.com/checkout/stream.a ... 538&free=0

I liked this video presentation so much that I purchased the DVD, and I have since passed it around for others to watch and learn what ID really is rather than reading false headlines and listening to the false opinions of people pretending to know they understand it (Christians and non-Christians alike). I am certain you will also find it enjoyable.

Kurieuo

I've seen this Kurieuo. Believe it or not, I've actually read quite a bit of the ID material including books by Johnson and by Behe.

I'm not stating that ID does not encompass and include some very good science. I think it does.

At the core of it however, I think it is an argument "designed" to try and accomplish something through the courts in the US, more than it is an approach built on its own merits.

I happen to agree with the premise of ID. I believe there is ample inference from the realm of science to support the contention of an intelligent designer and creator. I see it without apology as the God of the Bible. I see great good coming from ID in general in the realm of philosophy, and science as a support.

I don't believe however that science is equipped, nor can it by virtue of its very nature ever satisfactorilly establish the existence of God to any skeptic's satisfaction.

I do believe that evolution as a science has been expanded to teach or endorse much more than can be supported solely from the scientific method. Further I see and share the frustration of an apparent double standard here in the US where those inferences are seemingly let go unchallenged. I understand the reasoning behind establishing ID as a measure to combat this by seeking in effect, equal footing by means of structuring it to meet the apparent standards which have been used to exclude Theistic philosophy and framework.

No problems there. I get it. I understand it. I just have a purist and romatic nature about me that reacts to adopting the methods of the opposition to achieve a desirable goal. I think we concede more than realize and give away more than we realize and that is my concern.

I've actually been involved in my Church over the past several weeks helping to present a course in Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design. We've had a class of about 100 and have used lecture, video and panel discussions and debate on issues such as this. I've been an advocate for Old Earth Creationism and have interacted with some intelligent design propenents. I haven't been as able to voice my opinions in this regard because of time constraints, but I have interacted privately with some others and the more I observe and put this in context with the history of the movement and apparent design for the legal system, the more concerns I have.

As I've said, I would not necessarily be disappointed to see it succeed. I just fear it carries some seeds with it that we may not be as excited about when they start to sprout.

My opinion. Nothing more.