Evidence for God from Science

ANN ARBOR, Mich., Jan. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The small town of Dover, Pennsylvania today became the first school district in the nation to officially inform students of the theory of Intelligent Design, as an alternative to Darwin's theory of Evolution. In what has been called a "measured step", ninth grade biology students in the Dover Area School District were read a four- paragraph statement Tuesday morning explaining that Darwin's theory is not a fact and continues to be tested. The statement continued, "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

—http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41768—

I was thinking about this, and really I do not see that Intelligent Design necessarily differs, or is incompatible, with Darwin's view. For example, although publicly down-played, many Scientists willingly concede that the origin of life is a problem, and that it is miraculous that life arose. Of course, their use of "miracle" isn't often in the sense of a supernatural miracle, but nonetheless, such statements allude to the obvious possibility life was started in a miraculous way—that is by an intelligent designer of some sort (whether God, or other). Then it is possible once the seed of life was implanted, that Darwinian evolution took hold.

Now I don't advocate that largescale evolution is possible to the extent we come from bacteria, or monkeys... but it seems compatible that the complexity we see in life could have divine origins, while the process was still natural. Thus, "ID" and "Evolution" aren't necessarily at odds with each other. And so many scientists who get paid to research evolutionary pathways, etc, can continue getting paid, while the origin of life problem becomes largely solved (although this should never mean we stop looking at where the evidence leads).

Kurieuo.

Me and vvart had an interesting discussion on evolution here
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... c&start=45

...largescale evolution is possible to the extent we come from bacteria, or monkeys...

It is quite possible if we take God into account

Not that I believe we evolved from monkeys or anything.

Darwinian evolution is possible maybe regarding bacteria and plants, but yeah not on the scale that evolutionists propose.

However im cautious in saying it happened in animals as that leads into the possibility of the monkey -> human thing.

It is a good step to at least to teach ID instead of just the atheist rich propaganda associated with naturalism.

Is it just me or don't schools and evolution in general spend a long time trying to pound their belief that humans evolved from monkey's, as if they are trying to disprove the bible in some way? (could be just me )

teach ID instead of just the atheist rich propaganda associated with naturalism.

It really isn't propaganda...it's quite necessary to view science from a naturalist perspective because without it, there would be some pretty bizarre answers to the questions posited by nature. Please bear with me with out attributing me to writing "atheistic propaganda" for a moment as I take you on a tour of science.
In nature, scientists make observations. They try to forget about all preconceived notions and instead take note of the obvious facts without adding any judgment to them. This is their methodology--they simply observe and keep track of their observations, and philosophy must not be allowed to skew their observations. As an example, a psychiatrist must not tell a patient "you are obviously possessed by a demon" because that is a preconceived notion. Instead, he or she must sit and continue listening until whatever is being rambled from the patient becomes a puzzle where everything suddenly makes sense to the psychiatrist...instead of attributing the patient to demonic possession, he may realize there is a common theme in the stories of the patient, which can then be attributed to something in the patient's past or fear of the future. If he had originally assumed demonic possession, then the problem would never be known and a solution could not be found. Things like that are why naturalism must be used in the scientific method as opposed to Christian philosophy. (I hope the definition of philosophy from an earlier post allows you to see that it is a philosophy...naturalism is a philosophy as well, but it just tends to be the one used with the scientific method.)
When a naturalist sees a bunch of fossils in layers of rocks, he or she takes note of them. Instead of saying "look at all the creatures God created," he may only make the observation and take note of them. Back at the lab, after looking at the recorded observations, he may make deductions...if he sees a gradual progression from simpler creatures, which have often times completely died off from the creatures we know today, to more complex creatures with larger brains (as an example), it is possible to make the inference that, perhaps, we have also come from a simpler ancestry.
Assuming after years of dedicated observations, the idea that we came from a simpler ancestry continues to grow. More is added to the theory as more fossils are found that show the progression from common ancestors. The fossils continue pouring in, and after dating them, it is revealed that the skeletons of ape-like creatures gradually become more human-like through the time progression. What could this mean? To a naturalist, it becomes more and more evident that evolution really did take place. To someone who isn't a naturalist, it could mean anything or nothing at all...it could even be Satan who implanted the fossils to make it seem as though something took place. That isn't scientific methodology at all, though, and any scientist who disagrees should probably find a different job.

Is it just me or don't schools and evolution in general spend a long time trying to pound their belief that humans evolved from monkey's, as if they are trying to disprove the bible in some way? (could be just me

No, it definitely isn't just you...there are many like you who believe the same thing. However, if someone's intentions were to disprove the Bible, why wouldn't they simply say "the Bible is wrong...now, on to our next subject: cancer research." Why would they need all of that "atheistic propaganda" to prove their point?

Darwinian evolution is possible maybe regarding bacteria and plants, but yeah not on the scale that evolutionists propose

Why not?

Scientists willingly concede that the origin of life is a problem, and that it is miraculous that life arose.

That is true. There is a problem understanding the origin of life. However, that doesn't end the search for answers from the naturalist/scientific/ "atheist propaganda" perspective. They simply need to ask nature some more questions and delve further into the past, like a psychiatrist listening to a patient, without interjecting Satan or ghosts or aliens or goblins or UFOs to force the puzzle together...they look instead to curious chemists, biologists, geologists, and archaeologists for their answers.

Um to disprove something you need to find evidence against it. So to disprove the bible science would have to attack various testable portions such as with human existence.

I don't believe in science anymore as doing more research I've come to the conclusion its all biased junk especially on the part of evolutionists.
For example schools advocate that monkey and human DNA is 98 percent similar when ive read new findings that suggest its more like 95 percent similar. Now why are scientists making the 98 percent look life fact?

Frankly the way i see it is there just battling against the bible, maybe you don't see it that way because you don't believe in bible as christians do.

The bible is my scientific textbook on life .

"I will only reply to one thing because the rest will crumble without it."

" They try to forget about all preconceived notions and instead take note of the obvious facts without adding any judgment to them.

Assuming there is no God IS a preconceived notion. You just don't get it. Scientists say lifeforms mutate at RANDOM. That RANDOM is the naturalist part. Naturalism basically states there was no intelligent interference. By attributing the word random to a theory, you already assume that it was random. If it were as you say, the statement would be "Lifeforms mutate". Not "Lifeforms mutate at random" or "Lifeforms mutate at God's will". Whether it was God or nature is irrelevant, as neither is provable through current scientific methods.

Yeah thanks for reminding me, i retract my statement, rather I don't believe in Scientists anymore .

Skoobie wrote:it's quite necessary to view science from a naturalist perspective because without it, there would be some pretty bizarre answers to the questions posited by nature. Please bear with me with out attributing me to writing "atheistic propaganda" for a moment as I take you on a tour of science.

Again... utter garbage. Science gained a strong foundation from Christians within Christianity. It is also entirely stupid (forgive my language for lack of a better word) to think that because one believes in God, they will always go for a "God did it" response. Any one with half a brain can see the structure and order around them, and so even Christian Theists can carry out science in a systematic and ordered way.

Science essentially no longer becomes Science, when Naturalist "philosophy" gets entwined with Science, which leads to the Scientism paradigm so obviously advocated by Skoobs. Science essentially no longer becomes Science when one starts positing an intelligent designer. However, Science is seeing the complexity within biological systems, Science is gathering all the natural facts and information that we observe. The moment one attempts to "interpret" those facts, is the moment one enters into the realm of logic and philosophy. This is perhaps one reason why philosophers, such as Antony Flew, are in a much better position to judge where "Science" leads even though he may not be a professional scientist. All that matters is that he only understands the information gathered through science, and then he's in a better position than a scientist (given his profession is as a philosopher) to deduce and interpret such information in the larger scheme of things.

Hope you liked that dose .

Kurieuo.

PS. For those who might complain, I'm not saying philosophy isn't apart of the Science process, just making the distiction between observation, and rationalisation (i.e., interpretation) which is more at home with philosophy.

Hi K, talk about a loaded statement. So are you then a believer in theistic evolution? Just want to clarify before answering.

Skoobie, here is the problem with evolution today.

In nature, scientists make observations. They try to forget about all preconceived notions and instead take note of the obvious facts without adding any judgment to them. This is their methodology--they simply observe and keep track of their observations, and philosophy must not be allowed to skew their observations.

Scientists today are not doing that, they are finding evidence and trying to make it fit the theory, instead of doing like you said.

More is added to the theory as more fossils are found that show the progression from common ancestors. The fossils continue pouring in, and after dating them, it is revealed that the skeletons of ape-like creatures gradually become more human-like through the time progression. What could this mean? To a naturalist, it becomes more and more evident that evolution really did take place.

See? There is no proof of common ancestry, it is taking evidence and trying to make it fit the ToE.

August wrote:Hi K, talk about a loaded statement. So are you then a believer in theistic evolution? Just want to clarify before answering.

What loaded statement? And where in "Now I don't advocate that largescale evolution is possible to the extent we come from bacteria, or monkeys..." did I give the idea I was a proponent of theistic evolution.

All I'm pointing out is that intelligent design is compatible with evolution on the macro level of things. It is not necessarily an alternative explanation as many on both sides seem to think.

Kurieuo.

I was thinking about this, and really I do not see that Intelligent Design necessarily differs, or is incompatible, with Darwin's view.

I though that was a bit controversial.

but it seems compatible that the complexity we see in life could have divine origins, while the process was still natural. Thus, "ID" and "Evolution" aren't necessarily at odds with each other.

What you described is, if I'm understanding you correctly, the definition of theistic evolution. It basically means that the first cause was creation by God, but that subsequent causes were the result of unconscious natural selection.

I don't think that they are compatible. Darwinian theory claims that the natural world is the result of unconscious processes. ID claims that the natural world is the result of conscious intelligent agency. We can distinguish between primary and secondary causes, but it would be too much of a paradox to claim that the natural world is the result of both conscious and unconscious agency. Macro-evolution relies on chance as the mechanism, while ID relies on intelligence.

Another question is how do you get around the fundamental problems of the ToE? At which points during the natural history, and the evolutionary process, did we see the injection of ID, since no proven natural mechanism exists to bridge speciation?

Now I don't advocate that largescale evolution is possible to the extent we come from bacteria, or monkeys..

Can you maybe explain a bit further why you think there may be compatibility? You have me all confused as to your position now.

August wrote:What you described is, if I'm understanding you correctly, the definition of theistic evolution. It basically means that the first cause was creation by God, but that subsequent causes were the result of unconscious natural selection.

It is similar, but not the same, as within ID one does not claim to know who the designer. I never mentioned God, as God is irrelevant to ID. All one claims in ID is essentially that one has to have an extreme amount of faith to believe a system, say with 200 different parts, could come together naturally all at one time in an appropriate arrangement (as is required with proteins for the simplist life). Though this is not really all that is claimed, I'm sure (or hope) my point comes across.

August wrote:I don't think that they are compatible. Darwinian theory claims that the natural world is the result of unconscious processes. ID claims that the natural world is the result of conscious intelligent agency.

No, Darwin's theory never covers the origin of life issue, but only serves to explain the diversity of life from pre-existing life. Intelligent design, however, looks for complexity that is beyond fathoming a natural explanation, suggesting that perhaps we should look to an intelligent cause. Now the first life could have very well been designed with all its complexity, and then natural processes took place through Darwinian evolution to produce diversity. Thus, it is possible for ID and "evolution" to be compatible together—they are not necessarily mutally exclusive theories. You are right that this resembles Theistic evolution, but within ID one does not claim who gave such complexity, only that it resembles intelligence!

Now I implore you not to take my words as though I'm saying this is how it is. I am simply trying to reveal that the two are not mutually exclusive. Why am I doing this? Well I saw the assumption in the article I quoted that the two were mutually exclusive as alternate explanations, which just provoked my thinking. Quite frankly, I see no reason to posit Darwinian evolution at all, but at the same time one has to demonstrate how ID is incompatible with evolution, if it is indeed an alternative explanation. With your explanation you assume Darwinian evolution explains life from non-life, in which case it would be incompatible. But this is not infact what Darwin proposed, though it no doubt was a question left open.

Kurieuo.

The whole reason that some of the secular scientific community frowns on ID is because if we assume ID, we assume a designer. The designer is something which (they claim), cannot be emperically proven, and thus goes into the metaphysical realm, which lies outside the scope of science. We then necessarily touch on deity, as it becomes an argument about its existence. Having said all that, I have long held that the argument should not be between ID and evolution, but between proof of design vs proof of random events leading to an appearance of design. There can be no doubt that we are dealing with incredibly complex systems, which appear to be designed. We should then debate how this could have happened via random unconscious processes in order to disprove ID.

Hey, I think you misunderstood me.

No, Darwin's theory never covers the origin of life issue, but only serves to explain the diversity of life from pre-existing life. Intelligent design, however, only says hey this thing is awefully complex. Perhaps we should look to an intelligent cause. Now life could have very well been designed with all its complexity, and then natural processes took place through Darwinian evolution to produce diversity.

I understand very well that the ToE does not include the origins of life (see my exchange with Skooby on the same subject). I did not mean to convey that the ToE addressed the origins of life, but that the world as we observe it today, was the result of unconscious processes, i.e. the result of evolution happened by chance. Two of the main postulates for ID are irreducible complexity, and morphological novelty, neither of which can be explained by naturalist processes, hence the current debate.

ID is defined as: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

That does sound rather mutually exclusive.

Maybe you can point out where you think the compatibilities lie?

August wrote:ID is defined as: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

That does sound rather mutually exclusive.

Do you not see how an intelligent being could have created the original seeding of life, inherent with the capacity to evolve into other forms of life via natural processes such as natural selection? Now given this is "logically" possible, then it appears that both clearly can be compatible with each other.

It is not until one makes the assumption that each species were intelligently "created" (not designed), that it clearly becomes incompatible with Darwin's theory of evolution.

Kurieuo.

PS. I know there's something you're reacting to within my words, but I'm not even sure what it is. It's not like I'm saying, "Hey... this is the way it is!" There's much benefit to come if they can be seen as compatible, as it means ID can become more palatable to the scientific community in general, which would allow it to become more firmly implanted. Some headway is better than none, or perhaps more headway is better than less (as ID is certainly making ground).

Here's my problem with your argument, K:

In the strictest sense, you are absolutely right. ID, in its purest form, doesn't negate evolution, theistic or not. There are plenty of interpretations of the various observations that we can play with . . . neither system--if weonly consider the evidence--rules out the other.

What is the problem here is the philosophies that underlie each. Darwinian evolution simply presupposes philosophical materialism. Now, again, in the purest sense, it really does no such thing. The truth is that those that adhere to d.e. advocate philosophical materialism. But, we really aren't dealing with "the purest sense" are we? I had this same argument with Ipazia some time back. You can always get more and more and more technical, but there has to come a place where you simply lay out the discussion without getting bogged down by details.

The particular "level" of discussion in this school, apparently, is basically that darwinian evolution supposes philosophical atheism and that intelligent design supposes theism. The former is rooted in naturalism, the latter, mostly, in Christianity. I.D. has become a buzz word for "Creationism," unfortunately. We who are in it know the difference between the two, but we also can see why the general public would equate them.

What I am saying is that these ninth grade science books (which are a joke, anyway, even in their discussion of evolution!) neither can nor do go into the level of detail you are talking about. Ideally, both would be eliminated, because we are talking philosophy and that isn't what science is about. But, you can't avoid teaching from a certain philosophical position, can you? So, your best bet is to teach the alternatives.

In my mind, the solution is to take it all out of the textbooks and offer a course on "The Philosophies of Science," but that's just me :p