Evidence for God from Science

What do people think of this story and how it fits in with our world view...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5363328.stm

Silvertusk wrote:What do people think of this story and how it fits in with our world view...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5363328.stm

I'm not bothered or threatened by it.

There's no reason to believe, in an Old Earth Progressive Creation scenario that God did not create animals that were hominids and similar to us in form before Eden and the creation of Adam and Eve. We still have gorilla, chimps and monkeys, but they lack the essential spiritual element God infused within us when he breathed life into us in creating us in His image.

Rich has an article on the main page that addresses a lot of issues, far better than I can, if you haven't seen it yet.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html

Bart

Thanks - i will check it out.

I am sure i heard somewhere though that Lucy was disputed anyway.

Silvertusk

Novelist Jean Auel has written a fascinating series of books with the umbrella title of Earth's Children - The Clan of the Cave Bear, the Valley of Horses, The Mammoth Hunters, The Plains of Passage, The Shelters of Stone (I may have missed a title or two in there) - which have as their theme two forms of humans, one more primitive than the other who is homo sapiens, coexisting before the great Ice Age.
If this idea about the early beginnings of human civilization interests you, then you might enjoy this series that she has written with considerable consultation with archeological academia.

I do not see the possibility of this having been so as any kind of threat to Biblical truth since, as Canuckster has mentioned, we (not they, who are extinct - had they lived at all) are the ones into whom God breathed life and infused with the spiritual element that is essential to our humanity.

It is a fascinating idea, all the same. I thoroughly enjoyed Auel's novels.

To Silver tusk:

>>What do people think of this story and how it fits in with our world view...<<

Trying to fit a scientific finding into any particular worldview is something that every conscientious scientist tries NOT to do. They all have biases, and they're not going to perform perfectly, but the correct approach, to the best of their ability, is to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

David Blacklock wrote:To Silver tusk:

>>What do people think of this story and how it fits in with our world view...<<

Trying to fit a scientific finding into any particular worldview is something that every conscientious scientist tries NOT to do. They all have biases, and they're not going to perform perfectly, but the correct approach, to the best of their ability, is to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Really, so if evidence is pointing to intelligence (ie: intelligent design) and teachers/professors in the colleges or universities slightly menition anything about it, inside or even outside the classrooms, they are fired for they're supposed bias, while a scientist who preaches evolution in classrooms without presenting misconceptions has full authority. Is that considered a differant worldview for you, because it does to me. And people are being judged based on theyre worldview, these days.

Those who follow the evidence will abandon the current brand of intelligent design. That does not have to mean they abandon God. There are many negative innuendoes in your post, I hardly know where to start.

David Blacklock wrote:Those who follow the evidence will abandon the current brand of intelligent design. That does not have to mean they abandon God. There are many negative innuendoes in your post, I hardly know where to start.

Which current brand of intelligent design? Intelligent Design is a relatively undeveloped theory, that doesn't mean we should abandon it. If you abandon just the basic underlining of Intelligent Design by default, your leading away from God completely. While Intelligent Design doesn't adhere to a God, its principles of irreducible complexity itself present the need for a God.

David Blacklock wrote:Those who follow the evidence will abandon the current brand of intelligent design. That does not have to mean they abandon God. There are many negative innuendoes in your post, I hardly know where to start.

Yes, I understand. But what is the problem with teaching ID? Not creationism but ID? Why is evolution being taught as a fact then?

What is the problem with teaching ID?

When all the rhetoric dies down, ID hangs its hat on irreducible complexity. The minute an ID advocate identifies a structure or process that is supposed to be irreducibly complex, scientists immediately show that it is not.

For example, the flagellum does NOT have to have all those proteins to function (I've forgotten how many Behe said it had to have, and that if it was missing just one, the whole scenario fell apart). Scientists immediately showed that was not true. The same thing happened with Behe's other examples.

ID has nothing to test, yet experimentation is central to science. That's why there are no peer reviewed articles on ID in professional peer reviewed journals.

Why is evolution taught as a fact?

Because regardless of what you read from ID type literature, the evidence is extremely compelling.

David Blacklock wrote:What is the problem with teaching ID?

When all the rhetoric dies down, ID hangs its hat on irreducible complexity. The minute an ID advocate identifies a structure or process that is supposed to be irreducibly complex, scientists immediately show that it is not.

For example, the flagellum does NOT have to have all those proteins to function (I've forgotten how many Behe said it had to have, and that if it was missing just one, the whole scenario fell apart). Scientists immediately showed that was not true. The same thing happened with Behe's other examples.

So the flagellum functioned exactly the same as it did prior to proteins being removed?

ID has nothing to test, yet experimentation is central to science. That's why there are no peer reviewed articles on ID in professional peer reviewed journals.

Why is evolution taught as a fact?

Because regardless of what you read from ID type literature, the evidence is extremely compelling.

So evolution seemed to have figured it all out by now. Since the evidence is so overwhelming and compelling, that must mean scientists have figured it all out, including the human eye perhaps, or the brain? Gee, was it that simple.

Yet, I'm struggling with just stupid computers which have the mere-function of sending and recieving data.

If its that simple for scientists, they must also be able to define me as a person as well, my character, my emotions,and everything else human about me, or anyone else.

In that case, your right, ID scientists are just a bunch of idiots who just can't seem to realize how simple a cell really is.

Was there a question in there somewhere?

David Blacklock wrote:Was there a question in there somewhere?

I dunno, was there supposed to be a question in there?

David Blacklock wrote:What is the problem with teaching ID?

When all the rhetoric dies down, ID hangs its hat on irreducible complexity. The minute an ID advocate identifies a structure or process that is supposed to be irreducibly complex, scientists immediately show that it is not.

Very good David. You are now demonstrating that ID has a value then for evolution to come to it's clause. Even when scientists demonstrate suboptimal structures to support their evidence, they need to compare that evidence with the optimal structures.. I don't see the harm in that. Do you?

The fact of the matter is to teach evolutionary theory, both as formulated by Darwinian evolution and as it exists today, automatically entangles one in philosophical and theological issues. Also good educational practice would not ignore such issues, but rather open them to scrutiny enlivening science and helping students...

If you are not allowed to talk about it in class, students will find other ways to research it...

David Blacklock wrote:For example, the flagellum does NOT have to have all those proteins to function (I've forgotten how many Behe said it had to have, and that if it was missing just one, the whole scenario fell apart). Scientists immediately showed that was not true. The same thing happened with Behe's other examples.

That is highly debatable talk there... ATP synthase structures haven't been duplicated yet in a lab under natural conditions.. Good luck with that one.

David Blacklock wrote:ID has nothing to test, yet experimentation is central to science. That's why there are no peer reviewed articles on ID in professional peer reviewed journals.

You've already demonstrated for us that ID already has a value. Why not give ID a chance? It is still young... A good scientists needs to test their theories against other theories. How do you think the theory of evolution came about?

David Blacklock wrote:Why is evolution taught as a fact?

Because regardless of what you read from ID type literature, the evidence is extremely compelling.

Nope.. Why is it then that only 1 in 4 Americans accept Darwinian evolution? No scientist I've ever talked to said the evolution could be proven 100%. If not, it is a theory just like all the rest of the theories out there...

In the U.S. most people learn about evolution, but don't believe it because they were not allowed to debate it!

>>ATP synthase structures haven't been duplicated yet in a lab under natural conditions.. Good luck with that one<<I>>to teach evolutionary theory...automatically entangles one in philosophical and theological issues<<

You can find theological issues in a can of Campbell's soup if that's what you want to do with class time. That's why ID should be taught in a theology or philosophy class.

I'll work through the other comments as I get time.