Evidence for God from Science

I watched a video a while back, not sure if it was from here or somewhere else, where someone gave a speech on DNA. He talked about how it was a code, and how all codes are designed; Human language is designed, music, computer language, etc. I found that to be a very convincing argument, and how unlikely it would be that something like HTML would be randomly created. Has anyone else heard about the "DNA is a code and all codes are designed" argument or have any input how it is countered by atheists and others?

Perry Marshall argues this very thing.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ ... cs-of-dna/
-
-
-

Doesn't this fall at the same hurdle as the watchmaker argument? Just as watches don't reproduce/mutate/live neither do computer codes. In fact every time reproduction occurs there are many "mistakes" made that you could call copying errors, mostly they are non-harmful sometimes there are harmful ones but they can result in a spontaneous abortion and beneficial changes might make a person more suitable for their environment.

Code or Blueprint Is not the right word, what you want is Recipe DNA is a recipe to make a animal/plant/lifeform. If you go back far enough you are cousins with a banana.

Anyway Direct manipulation of DNA would be brutish, its much more subtle(with exceptions: massive glaciation, prolonged vulcanization and big meteorites are not very subtle!) to change the Environment to lead development in certain ways, Humans do it all the time and presumably so could a divine being or just the ordinary alone laws of physics of course human beings aren't the end product there is no goal to it except to keep it going.

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Stephen Meyer


http://www.booktv.org/Watch/10707/Signa ... esign.aspx


Intelligent Design Documentary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CBtAUg6 ... re=channel

How about responding yourself instead of just putting your fingers in your ears and posting agitating videos?

I can do that too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4

See this is easy, how about more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw

"I don't believe in a deceptive designer"

Just curious Kristoffer, do you know that Ken Miller professes to be a Catholic?

Yes I know that. Does it matter if the science is sound what religion the scientist follows? Do we remember Newton for his Many Religious workings or his fewer in number scientific discoveries?

How long it will take before Evolution is accepted in just the same way as gravity? Probably when we have 5 fingers.

Well I'm a theistic evolutionist so I have no problem with the science being presented by Ken Miller. Rather than say that Design is evidence that evolution is false, I'm more of the position that even with natural selection and macroevolution at play, evidence for God can still be seen in the direction our evolution went. Even with genertic mutations, natural selection, and billions of years, we could have ended up far worse than we did if the process was purely blind. Obviously I'm not going to be able to prove that in a laboratory, but it just seems pretty compelling to me.

My main point with Ken Miller was sort of just to say that one can accept evolution and God at the same time, and that they aren't mutually exclusive. I guess thats not really relevant to this thread though, now that I think about it...

Seraph wrote:Well I'm a theistic evolutionist so I have no problem with the science being presented by Ken Miller. Rather than say that Design is evidence that evolution is false, I'm more of the position that even with natural selection and macroevolution at play, evidence for God can still be seen in the direction our evolution went. Even with genertic mutations, natural selection, and billions of years, we could have ended up far worse than we did if the process was purely blind. Obviously I'm not going to be able to prove that in a laboratory, but it just seems pretty compelling to me.

My main point with Ken Miller was sort of just to say that one can accept evolution and God at the same time, and that they aren't mutually exclusive. I guess thats not really relevant to this thread though, now that I think about it...

Seraph, I noticed you said you're a theistic evolutionist. I've been interested in human origins, and would like to know if you believe all humans came from 1 male and 1 female. Or, do you believe humans weren't supernaturally, specially created, and may have evolved from other animals that already existed. I'm curious in what you believe, because you're Christian, not just a theist.

Thanks

(Crud. I had a long post typed out and it got deleted when I tried to post it. My original post was somewhat different but I'll try to recreate its contents as best as I can.)



Heya RickD,

It might be better to say that I'm on the fence between OEC and theistic evolutionist even though I lean heavily toward the later. But yes, I'm definatly Christian. I belive that Jesus was a literal person both fully man and fully God who was crucified and rose from the dead to atone for mankind's sin. You really can't be a Christian and not believe that literally.

I also think that darwinian evolution is compatible Genesis (when God creates animals he says "let the earth bring them forth and sort them according to their kind"). As for if I think all of humanity descended from 1 male and 1 female I would probably say not really, though I don't think it's essential to believe that in order to be a Christian. I do think there is adequate evidence for dawinian evolution. If we didn't evolve, I can't imagine why God would allow for such a deceiving fossil record, and I don't think He is a deciever. Whether or not Adam and Eve are literal figures, the message of the account is the true reason it's contained in Genesis, that being that there is the problem of sin stemming from early humanity. Whether sin entered through Eve eating an apple, or is a natural byproduct of free will (I learn toward this one), sin is something that God doesn't tolerate and offers to save us from through Jesus.

I think that we were created supernaturally by God in that we were planned before the big bang and created. But I don't think this means that the process has to have been instantaneous or that he has to have made us in our current form. If we came about "naturally" through the natural laws and processes of the universe, it's only because the universe and its natural laws were created supernaturally by God. My beliefs are similar to CS Lewis in that I think our bodies came about through darwinian evolution, which follows the natural laws created by God, and then eventually God gave early humanity the "breath of life" as described in Genesis, which gave us self-awareness, creativity, and free will (the things that make up God's image, which we were created in).

Anyway, thats where I stand now. Maybe as I learn more I'll move back over to the non-evolution camp.

Seraph, thanks for the reply. I'm not too familiar with theistic evolution, I just know the basics.

If we didn't evolve, I can't imagine why God would allow for such a deceiving fossil record, and I don't think He is a deciever.

As far as what the fossil record shows, Hugh Ross explains what was found, as bipedal creatures that existed before Adam. I'm not sure you'd agree with his theories, but he does a good job explaining the humanlike fossils. Ross was the biggest influence in my decision to turn towards oec from yec.(except for Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, and Jason Lisle) But, that's a different story.

Kristoffer wrote:Doesn't this fall at the same hurdle as the watchmaker argument? Just as watches don't reproduce/mutate/live neither do computer codes. In fact every time reproduction occurs there are many "mistakes" made that you could call copying errors, mostly they are non-harmful sometimes there are harmful ones but they can result in a spontaneous abortion and beneficial changes might make a person more suitable for their environment.

Unargued assumption. Where did the Paley argument fall? What was the hurdle? Please don't cite Richard Dawkins' blind watchmaker...Please.

Stephen Barr, in his Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, says this:

"...When we see situations that appear haphazard, or things that appear amorphous, automatically or spontaneously 'arranging themselves' into orderly patterns, what we find in every case is that what appeared to be haphazard actually had a great deal of order built into it...What Dawkins does not seem to appreciate is that his blind watchmaker is something even more remarkable that Paley's watches. Paley finds a "watch" and asks how such a thing could have come to be there by chance. Dawkins finds an immense automated factory that blindly constructs watches, and feels that he has completely answered Paley's point. But that is absurd. How can a factory that makes watches be less in need of explanation than the watches themselves?"

Cited by D'Souza in his What's So Great About Christianity pages 156-157

Dawkins did nothing more than confirm a designer, and yet there are people out there who believe he refuted Paley... Extraordinary.

Anyway Direct manipulation of DNA would be brutish, its much more subtle(with exceptions: massive glaciation, prolonged vulcanization and big meteorites are not very subtle!) to change the Environment to lead development in certain ways, Humans do it all the time and presumably so could a divine being or just the ordinary alone laws of physics of course human beings aren't the end product there is no goal to it except to keep it going.

Hmm? How does this line up with reality. Are people being lauded as the great propellers of evolution due to environmental impact? No. In fact there was a recent report that man's impact on the environment has led to the extinction of more species than those cataclysmic events. Heck, we should be seeing the most obvious transitional species in the history of the earth. instead, they are just dying.

Isn't that what we do see? Species dying is a crucial part of evolution (natural selection and whatnot). The species that are alive evolve at a rate far slower than what humans can percieve (changes occuring over the course of millions of years, civilized humanity has only been around for about 10,000).

A change occuring after 400,000 years would be considered "fast" by that timeline's standards, which is why we don't see people being propelled by these changes.

DannyM wrote: Please don't cite Richard Dawkins' blind watchmaker...Please.

Sounds like a rekommendation thanks.