Evidence for God from Science

As I might have mentioned earlier, my Church has been doing an adult education quarter on Intelligent Design, Creationism and Evolution. I've been participating as a panel member defending Old Earth Creationism.

One of the moderators put together some information that I thought was pretty helpful in terms of the Intelligent Design Movement. This is his work, not mine. His name is Hugh Whelchel.

I'm going to put it up here, as a help for those who want to know more about it.

I've posted some of my reservations about the movement on a practical level. On the pure level of being a defence under the category of General Revelation, I think it is excellent, and this material finds its sources in the mainstream proponents of the movement.

____________________________________________________

What is Intelligent Design: Intelligent Design maintains that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than by unguided natural processes.

Helpful things to keep in mind are:

1. Design is inferred from evidence. It is not directly proven.

2. ID doesn't explain everything in terms of design.

3. ID does not tell us the identity of the designer.

Intelligent design primarily opposes the concept of Methodological Naturalism.

Methodological Naturalism requires that scientists limit themselves to naturalistic or materialistic explanations when they seek to explain natural phenomena, objects or processes. In this understanding of how science ought to work, explanations that invoke intelligent causes or the actions of intelligent agents do not qualify as scientific.

Intelligent Design looks for the presence of what it calls Specified Complexity. Specified COmplexity is displayed by any object or event that has an extremely low probability of occurring by chance and matches a detectable pattern. According to contemporary design theory, the presence of highly specified complexity is an indicator of an intelligent cause.

Pro-Intelligent Design WebSites

Access Research Network - http://www.arn.org
Center for Renewal of Science and Culture - http://www.discovery.org/csc
Origins Home Page - http://www.origins.com
Phillip E Johnson - http://www.arn.org/authors/johnson.html
Reasons to Believe - http://www.reasons.org
True Origin Archive - http://www.trueorigins.org
William Dembski - http://www.designinference.com
The Discovery Institute - http://www.discovery.org/csc

Essential Readings

Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/083081 ... oding=UTF8

Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/068483 ... s&v=glance

Design Inference by William Dembski - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052162 ... e&n=283155

Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design by William Dembski - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/083082 ... e&n=283155

Icons of Evolution by Jonathon Wells - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/089526 ... e&n=283155

The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories by Charles B. Thaxton - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080222 ... e&n=283155

The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/089526 ... e&n=283155

Darwinism, Design and Public Education edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen Meyer - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087013 ... e&n=283155

Essential Articles

The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories - http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=2177
By Stephen C. Meyer - Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference - http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... w&id=54%20
By Michael J. Behe
Cosmic Pursuit

Science and Design - http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... view&id=62
By William Dembski
First Things

DNA and Other Designs - http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... iew&id=200
By Stephen C Meyer
First Things

Survival of the Fakest - http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/P ... Fakest.pdf
By Jonathon Wells
American Spectator

Are we Alone? - http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=2143
by Jay Richards & Guillermo Gonzalez

Give Me that Old Time Evolution: A Response to the New Republic - http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJo ... p3?id=2933
by Jonathon Wells

That sounds good, and I can agree with much of what was said.

I'll also reply to the other thread we're in on ID (likely in a few days). I think you touch upon something the causes a lot of confusion, even as I learnt for philosophy professors. That is, is ID really an extension of philosophy in the area of design or teleological arguments for God's existence, and so does ID encompass design arguments and so forth after that of Aquinas or Paley? My answer to this would be a direct no. Yes, concepts are drawn from philosophy, and ID have certainly made much use of them, even Paley for illustrative purposes. But I see ID is qualatively different, no less than if not for the fact it leaves open the question of God's existence rather than focusing on proving God's existence.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:That sounds good, and I can agree with much of what was said.

I'll also reply to the other thread we're in on ID (likely in a few days). I think you touch upon something the causes a lot of confusion, even as I learnt for philosophy professors. That is, is ID really an extension of philosophy in the area of design or teleological arguments for God's existence, and so does ID encompass design arguments and so forth after that of Aquinas or Paley? My answer to this would be a direct no. Yes, concepts are drawn from philosophy, and ID have certainly made much use of them, even Paley for illustrative purposes. But I see ID is qualatively different, no less than if not for the fact it leaves open the question of God's existence rather than focusing on proving God's existence.

Kurieuo

Fair enough.

For the record, I certainly see a connection between ID and the Natural Revelation espoused by Aquinas and the Watchmaking extension of Paley.

You can certainly argue that ID today limits its assertion to an Intelligent designer or design agent and differentiate against general or revelation arguments of the past in that,

1. No deity is specifically argued for.
2. The evidence used for argument is based upon scientific knowledge at a level previously unknown.

While both those points would be true, I think it would be somewhat disingenuous to claim that that separates Intelligent Design from that history. Further it would be unnecessary.

I haven't yet addressed the issue you took issue with me before regarding the drawing away of the Discovery Institute from the Dover Case in Pennsylvania.

If you read the Wells article at the end of the list above, you'll see that while it certainly is not the primary point of the article, even the Discovery Institute did focus upon Dover as an opportunity. In fact, early on in the process, there was tentative support and offers of assistance. It is true, when DI saw further the quality of the case itself and they became aware that the School Board in Question were creationists who were using Intelligent Design as a tool and resource more than specifically arguing on their own for the pure declaration that DI makes in this field, then DI did pull back.

That is my point.

You, yourself put up an article to this effect from a Catholic news service on this board where that was the primary point that Creationists were hijacking the ID message.

I'm not saying it is wrong nor that they are acting in bad faith in any of this movement.

I do think there is a certain element of a wink and a nod within ID as a movement toward Christian Creationism that you cannot completely ignore and that that does have to be addressed on a PR level.

Bart