Evidence for God from Science

I don't know if there's been people trying to disprove this or not, but I thought this article did a GREAT job of giving support against evolution and for an Intelligent Designer. Here it is, lemme know what you think!
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm

Cheers! God bless!

There always going to be someone trying to disprove reality. It makes them uncomfortable.

From the linked article:

"Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, 1981, p. 88, emphasis added).

I can tell by his statement that had he been an evilutionary theorist, he would have spent the rest of his life trying to refute his own findings.

Even doubting Thomas believed after being shown the evidence. What does that say about evilutionists?

I like this quote:

Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Very good read though. Thanks for the link.

Francis Crick did believe in evolution

Oh, I thought he was a fence sitter?

in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle

He sure doesn't seem to know what he thinks here. I'm sure his head was about to explode.

IRQ Conflict wrote:Oh, I thought he was a fence sitter?

in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle

He sure doesn't seem to know what he thinks here. I'm sure his head was about to explode.

ha, in some sense, biologists have a really, really good grasp of the amazing qualities of life. Sadly, though, this "miracle" does not translate to a religious experience for many of them. They mean, the majority of them, that it was a pretty amazing set of events considering the probabilities. Much like someone who wins the lottery.

I've had plenty of professors who waxed poetic about the wonderful complexities of life and the "miracle" of it happening.

Francis Crick, even if he decides to believe in God would still probably support evolution as the mechanism through which God used. He doesn't debate the evolutionary theory, merely questions the existence of God.

Francis Collins, the leader of the Human Genome Project, recently became a Christian after many years of working with the complexity of DNA. His book, The Language of God, is essentially his perspective of life. He is a theistic evolutionist at this point, so you would not like him there, but his book is fascinating.

IRQ Conflict wrote:Oh, I thought he was a fence sitter?

in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle

He sure doesn't seem to know what he thinks here. I'm sure his head was about to explode.

No, what he was trying to say is that we lack the knowledge to completely understand of the origins of life. This still applies today.

So in a sence it can still be compared to a miracle, because there are no simple mechanisctic pathways identified which lead all the way from organic compounds to the formation of life.

I wouldn't consider biogenesis "evolution", more like a "creation"... yes there is biology involved but also chemistry. Once you have your first cell, then you can consider evolution because it is able to reproduce. However, the whole series of reactions prior to this "life" is unknown and is up to speculation.

I have not studied this very much but you could put this whole thing to rest by saying God planted the first cells on the early Earth. Once the organelles/DNA/organic molecules/enzymes/etc. are in place, evolution can act from then on. Stuff like DNA and RNA is pretty much the same for all organisms from bacteria to man. Why would all creatures share the same base pairs for their DNA/RNA and also share the same amino acids if they weren't all descended from a common ancestor? It makes evolution "easier" if organisms were "built on", and not "built from scratch" multiple times. The endosymbiotic theory of eukaryotic orgins is very interesting and plausible.

Anyone see common ancestor proof in humor and jokes? If you want proof of evolution, there it is!

Himantolophus wrote:I wouldn't consider biogenesis "evolution", more like a "creation"... yes there is biology involved but also chemistry. Once you have your first cell, then you can consider evolution because it is able to reproduce. However, the whole series of reactions prior to this "life" is unknown and is up to speculation.

I have not studied this very much but you could put this whole thing to rest by saying God planted the first cells on the early Earth. Once the organelles/DNA/organic molecules/enzymes/etc. are in place, evolution can act from then on. Stuff like DNA and RNA is pretty much the same for all organisms from bacteria to man. Why would all creatures share the same base pairs for their DNA/RNA and also share the same amino acids if they weren't all descended from a common ancestor? It makes evolution "easier" if organisms were "built on", and not "built from scratch" multiple times. The endosymbiotic theory of eukaryotic orgins is very interesting and plausible.

Oy, I don't want to attempt to type that user name (what is its significance, btw?)

The only thing I would disagree with here is that God wasn't involved after that first planting. I would have no problem with this scenario with God being the conductor, the sculptor, the engineer.....

I think the similarity in genes does point to a the same engineer and designer.

The God in Genesis is not a God of accidents. He planned it....

But I love that fact that He would have been intimately involved in the development of the molecules and the cells and the pathways....

Even the endosymbiotic theory....I think it entirely plausible that God caused the mitochondria and chloroplasts to be engulfed, could this have been the mechanism through which God created eukaryotic cells? Absolutely.

I draw the line at the idea of it being a grand chemical experiment, though....It is very clear is scripture that God's role in Genesis was an active participant, not a passive observer that seeded the oceans.

What are your thoughts?

Yes, I feel that this scenario allows God into the equation and does not interfere with natural evolution. Let's face it, I think the whole origin of life is a very sore subject for evolutionary theory and allowing God to be the architect of life on Earth would erase those objections to evolution. I still wouldn't call the sponaneous chemical reactions needed for biogenesis "evolution" simply because evolution is "changes in gene frequencies in a population over time". If there isn't DNA or life, only lifeless proto-cells, evolution cannot occur.

Now if God placed the first cells on the planet and gave them the means by which to reproduce and feed, I strongly feel that the evolutionary explanation could proceed alone from there. Yes, it is possible He could help the process along as needed or add to it (endosymbiosis). The Earth was a very unstable place back then and fragile life may have gone extinct many times before it succeeded.

I think this explanation can satisfy both camps as in God did create life on Earth and also that evolution exists as well.

Himan,

I think you touch on a lot of truth there. I mean even the Naturalist Paul Davies concedes in his book The Fifth Miracle:

• When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life's origins… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.

If you have the time and manage to get a copy I would also recommend reading the book Origins of Life. It is from Christian authors, but they do highlight many issues/impossibilities Naturalistic origins of life scenarios face in a logical and coherent manner.

Himantolophus wrote:I think this explanation can satisfy both camps as in God did create life on Earth and also that evolution exists as well.

It "could" satisfy both camps if the issue was that "evolution" was incompatible with God's existence. Yet, many who disagree with evolution, that is a Neo-Darwinian form of evolution, are doing so on scientific grounds and not necessarily religious.

All,

You might want to pick Behe's book "The Edge of Evolution" from a molecular biologist point of view he shows where Darwin works and he shows its limits. It is filled with data so it is not a quick read. I have read a bunch about molecular biology and it quickly gets you to see where current science is.

The old saying the Devil is in the details,but in this case the details weave a picture of the creator at work. There appears to be another level of detail beyond what we see today. This is expected from a Biblical view.

frankbaginski wrote:All,

You might want to pick Behe's book "The Edge of Evolution" from a molecular biologist point of view he shows where Darwin works and he shows its limits. It is filled with data so it is not a quick read. I have read a bunch about molecular biology and it quickly gets you to see where current science is.

The old saying the Devil is in the details,but in this case the details weave a picture of the creator at work. There appears to be another level of detail beyond what we see today. This is expected from a Biblical view.

Ahgh, keep meaning to get it!! Maybe for Christmas mY list of books to read continually grows!

Still doesn't exclude God's invovlement in the process. Even if they come out tomorrow with some experiment that shows a huge discovery on evolution, it doesn't eliminate God.

I think in this regard we as Christians have to tread VERY carefully. I think we have set up a false dichotomy. In setting up this idea of "natural" processes and supernatural processes, we have unwittingly given atheists ammunition where no ammunition exits. For example....by claiming "X event" or "Y process" could not have occurred and things can only happen with some "supernatural" poof from God, we have set up GOd to fail. As soon as "X event" or "Y process" is shown to happen, suddenly our own requirements come back and bite us. And we are to blame. to some degree. "Ah, see!" they claim "these processes happen the way we said they do...God doesn't exist!" But where in the world did this stipulation come about that simply because we find supposed "natural" processes that we have suddenly eliminated God from the equation?

Could we ever separate natural and supernatural events? Can we ever have a "control" universe without God? As silly as this sounds, we often say one thing (God is in control, God is sovereign) and yet operate as if He isn't ("God cou;dn't have used this process, God couldn't have directed animals changing")

Kurieuo wrote:Yet, many who disagree with evolution, that is a Neo-Darwinian form of evolution, are doing so on scientific grounds and not necessarily religious.

Such as...?
Are any non-christian or at least have any of them not written a book advocating a christian world-view?