Evidence for God from Science

I recently read an opinion article in the NYTimes written by the chairman of the Chemistry department at UNC. He argues that "intelligent design" and "creationism" (he makes little distinction) have no utility in science. Well, maybe they don't, but I'm having a hard time seeing the real scientific value in macroevolutionary theory SO...

Here you'll find the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/opini ... .html?_r=1
yes, I know you have to register but it's worth it

Some of the statements he made seem really weak to me:

Creationists who oppose the teaching of evolution as the predominant theory of biology contend that alternatives should be part of the curriculum because evolution is "just a theory," but they never attack mere theories of gravity and relativity in the same way.

Interesting, seems to me that theories like gravity and relativity fit ALL of the available data and pass EVERY test that can be made to falsify them. I'm really having trouble with the idea that evolution is in any way complete.

Since evolution has been the dominant theory of biology for more than a century, it's a safe statement that all of the wonderful innovations in medicine and agriculture that we derive from biological research stem from the theory of evolution. Recent, exciting examples are humanized antibodies like Remicade for inflammation and Herceptin for breast cancer, both initially made in mice. Without our knowledge of the evolution of mice and humans and their immune systems, we wouldn't have such life-saving and life-improving technologies.

This makes no sense to me. Do not biologists make their progress based on observations and experiments, not some speculation about the origins of life?

Just some thoughts of mine. I only deal in the hard sciences (im an electrical engineer) and this evolution bit is so foggy to me. However, I have found that the best way to make a printed circuit board is to take some fiberglass, silicon, copper, tin, lead, and epoxy, throw it all into a huge hopper, heat it up to about 300C, and wait for the circuit I need to randomly assemble itself from the components. It saves me a lot of trouble in designing stuff.

BGood, you may fire when ready...

krynn9000 wrote:I recently read an opinion article in the NYTimes written by the chairman of the Chemistry department at UNC. He argues that "intelligent design" and "creationism" (he makes little distinction) have no utility in science. Well, maybe they don't, but I'm having a hard time seeing the real scientific value in macroevolutionary theory SO...

The scientific value is the approach one takes when examining a problem or phenomenon. It is this approach which allowed for the the filling out of the theories of quantum mechanics and evolution alike. The problem solving and analytical skills required to understand and comprehend the theory of evolution is also required to understand complex chemistry and physics. Thus being able to determine the parentage and where a particular species may have developed, may seem non-utilitarian to you; however to those who are analytically inclined it is indeed this type of skill which is valued and cherished.

krynn9000 wrote:This makes no sense to me. Do not biologists make their progress based on observations and experiments, not some speculation about the origins of life?

Just some thoughts of mine. I only deal in the hard sciences (im an electrical engineer) and this evolution bit is so foggy to me. However, I have found that the best way to make a printed circuit board is to take some fiberglass, silicon, copper, tin, lead, and epoxy, throw it all into a huge hopper, heat it up to about 300C, and wait for the circuit I need to randomly assemble itself from the components. It saves me a lot of trouble in designing stuff.

BGood, you may fire when ready...

Perhaps you may want to revisit the theory, it is not a speculation of the origins of life.

You're an engineer so I am sure you would appreciate that design is actually an iterative process of succcessive prototyping until a final product is reached. And I am also sure you can appreciate that once a design is mature that small developments and improvements continue to collect over time. And perhaps a new innovation will cause a revolutionary change in design restarting the cycle. A good example would be the development of the telegraph to the modern Razor.

Evolution is the exact same principal spelled out in biological terms. However the prototypes are each and every individual. Modifications to each design is done through heredity and mutations.

It would seem that the person who wrote the article may not have a full understanding of the debate. But this is indeed a dificult subject which many fail to grasp.

krynn9000 wrote:I recently read an opinion article in the NYTimes written by the chairman of the Chemistry department at UNC.

1) He is a chemist, so perhaps his understanding of evolutionary biology is not that great. His faculty page at UNC does seem to indicate a broad range of interests.
2) He also does not appear to be an atheist attacking Christianity:
His own statement: "I was raised Catholic, but my theology is now New England Episcopalian".
He was a co-producer of the Star of Bethlehem planetarium show. "Star of Bethlehem is an astronomical look at one of the central icons of Christian tradition. This show features scientists and religious scholars alike, examining the possible astronomical explanations for the stellar event described in the Gospel of Matthew. Comets, planets and novae are only a few of the possible theories discussed in Star of Bethlehem."

krynn9000 wrote:Do not biologists make their progress based on observations and experiments, not some speculation about the origins of life?

You should reread some of Bgood's earlier posts if you are this unclear about biology.

krynn9000 wrote:I only deal in the hard sciences (im an electrical engineer) and this evolution bit is so foggy to me.

Biology is a softer science, but it still has to obey the laws of physics and chemistry. [Like mathematics, engineering is not a science.]

krynn9000 wrote:However, I have found that the best way to make a printed circuit board is to take some fiberglass, silicon, copper, tin, lead, and epoxy, throw it all into a huge hopper, heat it up to about 300C, and wait for the circuit I need to randomly assemble itself from the components.

I think some of my home electronics have examples of your work. But just as surgeons think the best cure is the knife and someone with a hammer sees a lot of nails, perhaps you are somewhat constrained by your engineering background. Planes designed by humans do not resemble birds. Perhaps there is also a difference in how they came to be.