Evidence for God from Science

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html

With regard to the above article and others like it which promote the impossibility of life by chance. Does anyone know if any of them have been submitted to the scrutiny of the scientific community in the form of a paper in a reputable journal? i.e. a paper which states clearly in its conclusions that, given current evidence, the occurrence of life would not have been possible (or probable) if the universe is governed by natural laws alone.

If so, could someone refer me to it? As I think this could be a very respectable piece of evidence for design in the universe.

James

I have heard evolutionists estimate the age of the dinosaurs based on the evolutionary model, and "prove" the evolutionary model based on the age of the dinosaurs. This would also be an interesting thing to discuss.

Mastermind wrote:I have heard evolutionists estimate the age of the dinosaurs based on the evolutionary model, and "prove" the evolutionary model based on the age of the dinosaurs.

If this circular reasoning is true then it would cast significant doubt on the "evolutionist's" conclusions. Fortunately, I think scientists tend to use other methods to calculate the ages of certain species of dinosaur - counting fossil growth rings for example.

I have heard of that explanation as well, however when some people use that as proof of a world wide oceans(shells in mountains), atheists tend to blame it on tectonic movement. It seems a bit unfair not to judge both by the same standards.

http://www.designinference.com/document ... ID_FAQ.pdf

James, see the information on the above link for examples of ID in peer-reviewed journals and communities. You also have to remember that ID is seen as the enemy by the "untouchable" evolutionist community, and they have stated clearly that they should not treat any ID publications with any credibility. The Society for the Advancement of Real Science, for example, has stated that any scientists who associate themselves with ID should be:
1. Re-educated, failing that,
2. Excommunicated.
3. Institutions that "tolerate" scientists that study or support ID must have their credentials revoked.
4. Scientists seeking employment must be vetted so that they are not employed if they have any connections to ID, even if they just know someone involved in ID.
5. Deference - Essentially saying that evolution is now the only thing in science that makes sense (not only in biology, but also in other areas like cosmology!), so the scientific community must communicate this at every opportunity.

All of this makes it rather hard for ID scientists to get a fair shake. It is slowly but surely progressing though.

Mastermind wrote:I have heard of that explanation as well, however when some people use that as proof of a world wide oceans(shells in mountains), atheists tend to blame it on tectonic movement. It seems a bit unfair not to judge both by the same standards.

Mastermind, when you say 'world-wide oceans' are you referring to the biblical floods? And by 'atheists' do you mean 'scientists'?

August wrote:James, see the information on the above link for examples of ID in peer-reviewed journals and communities.

Thanks for that August - I will take a look at those references.

August wrote:You also have to remember that ID is seen as the enemy by the "untouchable" evolutionist community, and they have stated clearly that they should not treat any ID publications with any credibility.

Which groups of people would be included in the "evolutionist community"?

James

Sorry, I meant world wide ocean, so yea, the flood. By atheist I meant atheist scientists. There are scientists who believe in a world flood, so I didn't want to put them in the same bucket. On the other hand, you won't find a lot of atheists believing in a flood.

James, the wider scientific community that underwrites evolution consists of various academia and societies. I don't have an exhaustive list, but it includes bodies like the American Association for the Advnacement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the Society for Neuroscience, and the National Association of Scholars. Various publications, like "Nature", "Popular Science" and "Cell" and their editorial boards also support evolution.

Why are you asking these questions, ie what conclusion would you like to come to?

the case for a creator (chapter 6) by Lee Strobel has a list of 56 references on this topic.

here are some:


Collins, Robin. "The Argument from Design and the Many-Worlds Hypothesis." In Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guids, ed. William lane Craig. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2002.

"The Eveidence for Fine-Tuning." In God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, ed. Neil Manson. New York: Routledge, 2003.

"a Scientific Argument for the Existence of God: The Fine-Tuning Design Argument." In Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael J. Murray. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999.

"The Teleological Argument." In The Rationality of Theism, ed. Paul Copan and Paul Moser. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Dubay, Thomas. The Evidential Power of Beauty. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999.

Leslie, John. Universes. New York: Routledge, 1989.

Brad Lemley, "Why Is There Life?" Discover (November 2002)

James wrote:With regard to the above article and others like it which promote the impossibility of life by chance. Does anyone know if any of them have been submitted to the scrutiny of the scientific community in the form of a paper in a reputable journal?

If you take the time to check the references, then you will see some of the probabilities are actually taken from papers in Scientific journals.

Kurieuo.

P.S. If you have an agenda you'd like to push against Christianity (I just get the feeling this is what you are wanting to do), then perhaps a place like Secular Web would be more to your liking?

August wrote:http://www.designinference.com/document ... ID_FAQ.pdf

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that the references on this page state the conclusion I was referring to in my initial post. The closest to this would be Dembski's work, but this is more to do with quantifying design - so Dembski had already drawn the conclusion of design before writing the book.

August wrote:James, the wider scientific community that underwrites evolution consists of various academia and societies.

Are these societies and academia considered to be incorrect in their support of evolution by scientists of a non-religious motivation?

August wrote:Why are you asking these questions, ie what conclusion would you like to come to?

I would like to find out whether or not God exists - if mainstream science supports his existence, then so will I.

colors wrote:the case for a creator (chapter 6) by Lee Strobel has a list of 56 references on this topic.

Thanks colors - has Lee Strobel's book itself been submitted for scientific review? Perhaps the references he uses have been reviewed, but if his actual work has not been reviewed then I suppose we should treat it with skepticism until it has. Do you agree?

Kurieuo wrote:If you take the time to check the references, then you will see some of the probabilities are actually taken from papers in Scientific journals.

If we take the example on godandscience.org, I trust that Dr. Ross did not invent any of the probabilities he uses. And I am sure that he has referenced only valid scientific sources. My question is: "has Dr. Ross's work (on the probability of life) itself been submitted for peer review?" And by peers I mean mainstream scientists.

Kurieuo wrote:If you have an agenda you'd like to push against Christianity (I just get the feeling this is what you are wanting to do), then perhaps a place like Secular Web would be more to your liking?

As I said earlier I am just curious about the validity of the science used to promote design in the universe.
Please also note that I only post my messages in the non-Christian section of the discussion board, as I am an agnostic just looking at all the possibilities.

James

James wrote:If we take the example on godandscience.org, I trust that Dr. Ross did not invent any of the probabilities he uses. And I am sure that he has referenced only valid scientific sources. My question is: "has Dr. Ross's work (on the probability of life) itself been submitted for peer review?" And by peers I mean mainstream scientists.

It's just nonsense to expect more than references to papars in scientific journals, and books by respected scientists in their own field. If this were an argument against God, I strongly doubt you'd expect more. In the face of the referenced information presented, I think you're taking skepticism to a new level. If you want to argue against what has been presented, your debate is with the origin of these references, not the messenger who decides to combine them together.

James wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:If you have an agenda you'd like to push against Christianity (I just get the feeling this is what you are wanting to do), then perhaps a place like Secular Web would be more to your liking?

As I said earlier I am just curious about the validity of the science used to promote design in the universe.
Please also note that I only post my messages in the non-Christian section of the discussion board, as I am an agnostic just looking at all the possibilities.

This area is still built for Christians who have questions non-Christians ask them, and also for seekers who haven't made up their mind. As in the discussion guidelines, "This board is not for those who have already decisively made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to debate and argue against Christianity... Therefore, those who are Christian or haven't made up their minds are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged." Now I don't know your beliefs or thoughts, but from our exchanges it seems you have come to certain decisions. I simply ask you to honestly reflect upon whether or not you have already made up your mind with regards to Christianity.

Kurieuo.

James - you seem to want to do 2 things here.

Firstly, you want to hold any scientific theory other than evolution to a standard that cannot possibly be reached, because the scientific community that underwrites evolution has positioned evolution such that it cannot be tested or falsified. If you disagree, please tell me how the ToE can be falsified.

Secondly, you want to assume that everyone that admits that there is intelligence in the design of the universe has a motive to promote God no matter what. That is simply not true...well-known atheistic scientists have admitted that there are things which cannot be explained by the ToE, such as the origins of life, the Cambrian explosion, human sentience and irreducible complexity.

Furthermore, I have shown you that there is an agenda from the scientific community to discredit anything not to do with evolution, it has become a matter of faith with them. They believe in evolution, no matter what.

There are only two ways we as humans got here, natural selection or intelligent design. Those are your choices, and we can't tell you what to believe. If you truly are searching for answers, then you will have an open mind, and consider the evidence on its merit yourself, not just believe what the evolutionist scientific community tells you to believe.

August wrote:Firstly, you want to hold any scientific theory other than evolution to a standard that cannot possibly be reached, because the scientific community that underwrites evolution has positioned evolution such that it cannot be tested or falsified.

All I want to see are peer-reviewed papers concluding intelligent design. This is the same standard to which evolution has been proven, so this standard obviously can be reached.

August wrote:Secondly, you want to assume that everyone that admits that there is intelligence in the design of the universe has a motive to promote God no matter what. That is simply not true...well-known atheistic scientists have admitted that there are things which cannot be explained by the ToE, such as the origins of life, the Cambrian explosion, human sentience and irreducible complexity.

Perhaps, but at least evolution has been submitted for review in various papers and as a result of this review, has been accepted into mainstream science. But this discussion has nothing to do with evolution- it is to do with intelligent design. Disproving evolution does not prove intelligent design.

August wrote:There are only two ways we as humans got here, natural selection or intelligent design. Those are your choices, and we can't tell you what to believe. If you truly are searching for answers, then you will have an open mind, and consider the evidence on its merit yourself, not just believe what the evolutionist scientific community tells you to believe.

You can not conclusively say this considering that evolution was only brought to light as recently as 1859. Perhaps other mechanisms will be discovered in the future- who knows? To be so certain that there are only two ways humans appeared on the Earth is itself narrow-minded. I am open-minded to both possibilities, but as I have said before disproving one does not prove the other.

I don't really think that my motivation has anything to do with this. All I am asking is if a paper (reaching the same conclusions as Dr. Ross and others like him) has been presented to and accepted by the scientific community, because I am not aware of any that have been.
This is how science works: present your findings to the scientific community to be scrutinized. Your findings will then be accepted or rejected based on their review by qualified members of the scientific community. Here is a useful link which describes the process of peer review for those of you who are unfamiliar with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
As this website, godandscience.org, is about reconciling Christianity with science, then I would expect it to be 'science' in the true sense of the word. Otherwise it is all a rather pointless exercise. And no, Kurieuo, just because an author references valid (peer-reviewed) sources in an article does not imply that the article is itself correct. Which I think is what you are saying here:

Kurieuo wrote:It's just nonsense to expect more than references to papars in scientific journals, and books by respected scientists in their own field. If this were an argument against God, I strongly doubt you'd expect more. In the face of the referenced information presented, I think you're taking skepticism to a new level. If you want to argue against what has been presented, your debate is with the origin of these references, not the messenger who decides to combine them together.

On the contrary - I think I am being less skeptical than I should be. I have said that I trust that Dr. Ross would not fabricate any of the sources which he presents. The only thing that I am skeptical about is that his article (and any other article drawing the same conclusions) has been submitted for scientific peer review. And perhaps this is down to the pro-evolution scientific community, but if the argument for design is strong enough, and God is in Ross's side, then I would have thought that ID would prevail as the commonly accepted theory.
Ross is more than just a messenger - he is proposing a method for calculating the probability of life by chance. What's more he has calculated a value for this probability. Why has this article (in the form of a paper) not been submitted for scientific review???

Kurieuo wrote:Now I don't know your beliefs or thoughts, but from our exchanges it seems you have come to certain decisions. I simply ask you to honestly reflect upon whether or not you have already made up your mind with regards to Christianity.

I will make it clear that I am not attacking Christianity-I have not seen enough evidence either way, for or against Christianity. I am, however, questioning the scientific validity of the methods used to prove the existence of intelligent design (ID) in the universe.

James

— if the probabilities for certain parameters have been calculated already by persons within the scientific community, then I do not see why an article calculating the probabilities needs to be published in a journal. To me such is the equivilant of desiring the probablity of obtaining heads on a coin three times in a row to be published before accepted. The mathematics involved isn't really that hard given the probabilities of individual parameters are accurate.

Also if you pay attention to the Naturalism vs. Design controversy, you might recall the paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, which did posit an intelligent designer, caused an uproar from those biased towards Naturalistic Scientism within the community . You think any journal would want the same onslaught the Proceedings received? I don't think so! However, things appear to be changing, and so it'll only be a matter of time before the chains of Natural Scientism is broken.

James wrote:I am, however, questioning the scientific validity of the methods used to prove the existence of intelligent design (ID) in the universe.

Which you've already done with me, and most people here are aware to the controversy ID causes. Therefore there appears no point to your posts except to push an anti-ID agenda. Additionally, science isn't the only measure of truth, and I don't see what "Science" you're questioning. It looks like simple mathematics to me.

Anyway, this thread will likely close soon, so you might want to wrap things up.

Kurieuo.