Evidence for God from Science

Nothing earth-shattering here . . . just a commonly made point into simple words: Consider the following well known quote from Darwin:

• If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

So Darwin believed that if we could find an organism that could not have evolved, then his theory would not be true.

But is that still true? No. As soon as you point out that something could not have evolved (i.e., the flagellum), the argument is "Give us more time. Science will discover it!"

Thus, an observation: on what basis can Darwinism be falsified? Answer: none. Darwinism is a theory that seeks to explain how nature can do something. If you argue that it can't, the response to to give them more time, and then they will eventually figure it out. There, then, can be no refutation. It is unfalsifiable, and therefore, not science.

What is it then? Answer: philosophy. Observe.

1. Life either always existed or it did not. It did not; thus;
2. Life was either created or not. Science refuses the first, and thus says it was not. Thus;
3. The present form of life either came into existence fully, at one time, or it did not. Clearly, it did not. Thus;
4. The present form of life did not come into existence fully at one time; that is, it must have developed. This is evolution.

Thus, evolution is the end--the necessary and unavoidable consequence--of a philosophical position established in (2). As a philosophical consequence, it is not science. It is philosophy and no more.

Jac3510 wrote: Thus, evolution is the end--the necessary and unavoidable consequence--of a philosophical position established in (2). As a philosophical consequence, it is not science. It is philosophy and no more.

Correct.. Or even called a religious philosophy.

There have been numerous ideas posed on how the flagellum could have evolved.

But the usual response is that one can't show the way that it did evolve.
Those are two separate questions are they not?

How could it have evolved.
How did it actually evolve.

When scientists say that more time may be needed, and indeed we may never know.
They are answering the second question.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:There have been numerous ideas posed on how the flagellum could have evolved.

But the usual response is that one can't show the way that it did evolve.
Those are two separate questions are they not?

How could it have evolved.
How did it actually evolve.

When scientists say that more time may be needed, and indeed we may never know.
They are answering the second question.

Would that be any different to ask how was it created? Scientists ask that question too..

Be careful how you respond. I'm coming out to the D.C. area in a few weeks to visit my sister...

Concerning the flagellum, all of the proposed answers have been challenged, and you'd be honest to admit it. Further, even if you could get all the parts together (which explanations haven't done yet--only some of them), you still have to explain the step-by-step instruction manual to build them, which in itself is massively complex.

Now, the argument will simply be, "Give us more time--we'll figure out a possibility." All that does is go to my point, and so that we don't just argue examples, we could give dozens of these: the two separate arisings of the DNA duplication process, the ATP converter, the protein/RNA "chicken and egg" problem, the over 100 documented instances of molecular convergence, abiogenesis generaly, etc. I could still give many, many more issues. All of these create fundamental problems for Darwinism by the standard of his own statement for falsification.

The evolutionists response? "Give us more time. We'll figure something out." The theory is thus unfalsifiable and thus NOT SCIENCE. It's just dishonest to say that it is.

You don't need a step by step instruction manual.

You just need a plausible scenario.

Filling in the details is something which might be achieved through research. However the failure to come up with a full understanding of how a particular organelle could have evolved does not mean that the entire theory is to be thrown out.
The theory is based on mechanisms which can drive evolution.
These mechanisms in turn are based on observations.

Each particular organelle, creature, develomental stage, etc... can become subjects of research.
But the inability to fully describe how the subject has come to be does not mean that the theory is garbage. Only that more research needs to be done.

In order to overturn the theory one needs to show that the mechanisms involved in evolution are unsound, untenable or non-existent.

In the case of the bacterial flagellum, we have in nature many different "models" of the organelle. Many of which do not share the same "parts". These facts alone point to the variability of this particular organelle. One something would not expect if this particular organelle were not subject to evolutionary forces.

Of course, BG--and you know there are challenges to even the plausible explanation for the flagellum. And for all those that we have no plausible explanation, much less a model with details? No worries. Evolution will get it in the end.

Thus, it's unfalsifiable. You can ALWAYS say "We'll get it someday," which means it will ALWAYS be unfalsifiable. Thus, it isn't science. Philosophy? Yes. A good story, oh sure. Science? No.

Funny you ask for a story, and then you say that the story is not science.

Of course its not science.
It's a story.

If you can't even come up with a story (hypothesis) you cant even begin a research project.
The real science is in the research and exploration.

In science you don't falsify stories. Like I said earlier you have to falsify the mechanisms.
The foundations of the theory itself are in the mechanisms and the observations which support them.

The backpeddling doesn't help, BG.

1. "Evolution" is broadly touted as "science," when it isn't. It's a collection of philosophical stories. Darwinism isn't science. Go tell that to your college biology prof (or anyone on the street, for that matter), and see what kind of response you get;

2. The mechanisms are no more science than anything else. The only mechanisms known of are mutations, and if they don't work (which they don't), then you don't say "FALSIFIED"--you say, "Give us more time, we'll figure it out." So even that is unfalisfiable.

Any way you cut it, it's not a science. It's a faith. A philosophy. And as Gman pointed out, we may as well call it what it is: a non-falsifiable religion. At least Christianity is falsifiable . . . makes us more scientific than any atheistic evolutionist.

BG,

The scientific method is raw science also called (methodological naturalism), however when you say Darwinian evolution (DE) did it or intelligent design (ID) did it, these statements are pretty much neutral to science. It's really not going to hurt or change how science is done if we talk about ID or DE in the classrooms. Maybe a different philosophical idea, but not how science is actually done. If you said that an intelligent designer did it, wouldn't you be curious to know how he did it like how naturalism may have done it? Basically you just go back to doing science again although the different philosophical premises or alternatives have changed. It really doesn't matter...

Many people argue that methodological naturalism is necessary because scientists who followed it have made valuable discoveries. That is true, but it is also true that scientists who did not follow it like Isaac Newton, who assumed that God was the designer, for example have also made valuable discoveries for science.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Funny you ask for a story, and then you say that the story is not science.

Of course its not science.
It's a story.

If you can't even come up with a story (hypothesis) you cant even begin a research project.
The real science is in the research and exploration.

In science you don't falsify stories. Like I said earlier you have to falsify the mechanisms.
The foundations of the theory itself are in the mechanisms and the observations which support them.

In the words of Behe...

“Can ID be falsifiable? ID is actually quite open to falsification. If we use evolution to falsify ID, all a scientist needs to do is take a bacterium without a flagellum or knock the genes out within the bacterium flagellum, then go to a lab and try to grow the bug for a long time to see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If it produces a flagellum, then ID would be proven false on the general grounds that the scientist didn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes would suffice. But let's turn that around, how do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterium flagellum? Can evolution be falsifiable also? If a scientist performed that same test using gradual evolutionary standards perhaps it would be even harder to falsify since natural selection requires a much longer time or a greater population base of parts to produce a flagellum. Perhaps it never could, scientists don't really know. ID therefore can easily be tested or falsified although it has not been falsified as of yet.”