Evidence for God from Science

One of the arguments raised against Intelligent Design is that it leaves certain questions unanswered, like who was the designer, and what method did the designer use to create.

Well just what does Evolutionary Theory have to say on the subject.

1. How did the "first life" arise?
Well we simply don't know do we. Even Dawkins admits that we could be the product of Directed Panspermia, it really remains a mystery with much speculation, and just as many failed propositions.

2. What method was used?
Well naturally if we don't know who, or what, the process / designer was, we cannot be certain of the method.

If Dawkins himself admits that we could well have been the product of a "seeding" by aliens 3 billion years ago, then even assuming the evolutionary method itself is random or unguided can also be called into question -- because DNA and the cell itself could then very well have been specifically designed (by aliens, or whatever else Dawkins permits) with evolution and adaptation in mind. Many of our assumptions about life could be wrong.

Now proponents of Evolutionary Theory like to argue that (macro)evolution is a seperate topic from the Origin of Life question; well so too is that of design detection a seperate issue from that of the designer.

One can observe and recognise design without needing to know the designer.
Just as one can detect the product of evolution without understanding how life's first common ancestor was "born" or came to be.

Thoughts?

Correct... No one can really use science to either prove or disprove G-d. It's ALL a matter of faith whether you are an atheist or a believer in G-d.

Therefore....

Choose your faith wisely...

Stu wrote:Even Dawkins admits that we could be the product of Directed Panspermia

Directed Panspermia? I liked Dawkins better when he was a real atheist; ''Directed Panspermia'' sounds like a stepping stone to deism. ''Directed Stupidity'' seems to have come upon modern atheism. Ps 14:1 makes more sense than ever.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Directed Panspermia? I liked Dawkins better when he was a real atheist; ''Directed Panspermia'' sounds like a stepping stone to deism. ''Directed Stupidity'' seems to have come upon modern atheism. Ps 14:1 makes more sense than ever.

FL

Yeah but he insists that the aliens themselves would have to be the product of evolution I know, the self-serving logic is astounding.

It's the sheer complexity / makeup of life you see. It was (Francis) Crick who popularised the idea of directed panspermia. No doubt from his work on DNA he realised just how unlikely an event it must have been that life (as we know it) could have evolved on earth; given the extremely hostile environmental conditions that are lethal / harmful to most of the building blocks of life outside of it's protective coating / shell.

Stu wrote:Yeah but he insists that the aliens themselves would have to be the product of evolution... I know, the self-serving logic is astounding.

Oh! OK...the aliens who seeded the universe evolved just like us! That makes a lot more sense.

FL

The Theory of Evolution details the method by which the current variety of organisms on Earth evolved from a single common ancestor. The origin of that organism isn't in the picture.

ID details nothing. "All-powerful creator created everything, the end" tells us nothing. So why is it unreasonable to ask that if you want to explain the origins of all the different species on Earth, you have to come up with the method, just as evolution does? Evolution gives a method, so why should ID get away with not having a method? This is a non-argument that is really distracting from the problems with ID.

Well naturally if we don't know who, or what, the process / designer was, we cannot be certain of the method.

Wow. If that isn't the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard, I don't know what is. So what you are saying is that ID wins because it simply doesn't have to explain anything? You mean that because evolution hasn't provided an answer to every example possible, that your solution is just to say, "we win because our idea doesn't require any thought or evidence!" This is why ID gets no real credit in science.

Stu wrote:One of the arguments raised against Intelligent Design is that it leaves certain questions unanswered, like who was the designer, and what method did the designer use to create.

That's a pretty minor objection to ID.
A more important objection would be that there is no evidence of ID and no scientific advantage gained by introducing a designer.

The concept of ID is similar to "the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age". While it may be true, such a statement is of no practical utility. Even if the universe is in fact only 5 minutes old, we can pretend that it is older and build an effective science based on such an assumption. A loaf of bread may have been created in the oven a mere 5 minutes 10 seconds ago, but it behaves as though it has been there for 25 minutes and is ready to come out. So ID may be true but it does nothing for science. Whether some external being created the universe or there is some other explanation has no effect on scientific research and principles.

Now it is true that some types of ID would be detectable. A dog giving birth to a cat is certainly inconsistent with science and would imply some sort of outside intervention. But there is no evidence of such an event.

Stu wrote:Well just what does Evolutionary Theory have to say on the subject.
...
Well we simply don't know do we. ... Many of our assumptions about life could be wrong.

That is why there are so many scientists today doing research - there are lots of things we don't know. But nothing we do know is inconsistent with known science. There is nothing about a cell which implies a violation of natural law. [And yes, I'll concede that a whirlwind did not assemble a bunch of random chemicals into a living organism. That is silly.]

Stu wrote: well so too is that of design detection a seperate issue from that of the designer.

One can observe and recognise design without needing to know the designer.

One could certainly recognize some aspects of some designers. But this is primarily because we can sometimes distinguish natural processes from human or animal activity.

I am unaware of any universal intrinsic property of design which allows detection of "design". There have been some proposed concepts such as specified and irreducible complexity, but these have not caught on with many scientists.

How would one distinguish a designed universe from an undesigned universe?

Ivellious wrote:The Theory of Evolution details the method by which the current variety of organisms on Earth evolved from a single common ancestor. The origin of that organism isn't in the picture.

ID details nothing. "All-powerful creator created everything, the end" tells us nothing. So why is it unreasonable to ask that if you want to explain the origins of all the different species on Earth, you have to come up with the method, just as evolution does? Evolution gives a method, so why should ID get away with not having a method? This is a non-argument that is really distracting from the problems with ID.

Wow. If that isn't the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard, I don't know what is. So what you are saying is that ID wins because it simply doesn't have to explain anything? You mean that because evolution hasn't provided an answer to every example possible, that your solution is just to say, "we win because our idea doesn't require any thought or evidence!" This is why ID gets no real credit in science.

You're kinda missing the point here.

I wasn't claiming victory at all I was simply holding the two theories up against one another.
Using the arguments leveled against ID and applying them to evolution.

You claim the "origin of life" doesn't apply to neo-Darwinism; well then "the designer" doesn't apply to ID.

We must remember that the two theories are most certainly not the same. Design detection after all is not analogous in any way to evolution. This isn't an ID /Evolution is right and ID / Evolution is wrong discussion, it's simply holding both up to the same expectations.

Stu wrote: Design detection after all is not analogous in any way to evolution.

Precisely. Evolutionary theory is accepted by tens of thousands of life scientists with tens of thousands of publications.

Ivellious wrote:The Theory of Evolution details the method by which the current variety of organisms on Earth evolved from a single common ancestor. The origin of that organism isn't in the picture.

Agreed. However, if you want to use evolution as a philosophical attack on theism demonstrating this original ancestor is certainly relevant. As long as the theory of evolution does not overstep it's bounds I'm fine with it.

Ivellious wrote:ID details nothing. "All-powerful creator created everything, the end" tells us nothing.

You answered the question for yourself. ID as I see it attempts to demonstrate the absurdity of random chance. If God creates everything, the mechanism by which he accomplishes his purposes could very well be evolution designed by God. It is just not natural selection in the idea that we just happened to blindly evolve.

Ivellious wrote: So why is it unreasonable to ask that if you want to explain the origins of all the different species on Earth, you have to come up with the method, just as evolution does? Evolution gives a method, so why should ID get away with not having a method? This is a non-argument that is really distracting from the problems with ID.

It's not unreasonable, if ID is the method itself. ID points to the cause, that cause (God's) methodology for creation is certainly up for debate.

Ivellious wrote: Wow. If that isn't the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard, I don't know what is. So what you are saying is that ID wins because it simply doesn't have to explain anything? You mean that because evolution hasn't provided an answer to every example possible, that your solution is just to say, "we win because our idea doesn't require any thought or evidence!" This is why ID gets no real credit in science.

This might just be my opinion, I don't know how everyone else feels, but they are not equally similar for the amount or type of evidence as they are not mirroring ideas.

God----> ID ----> <any creationist theory>
Random universe ----> random chance ----> evolution


Evolution is a subset of "random chance" in this example (and for some a subset of ID). You cannot attack ID in the same way you would evolution as ID is on the same level of how the universe was constructed as "random chance". You will have to show how random chance is more likely than ID. At best you can try to shoot down any theories that arise after "ID". For a Christian, the exact process of how God created everything I believe is outside of my ability to completely fathom. However, at the end of the day I am more confident knowing what the cause is than a completely random process. That is why at best I believe evolution is a Possible means God used to bring us to where we are today. As I see no evidence in the cause for evolution being anything other than God.

Agreed. However, if you want to use evolution as a philosophical attack on theism demonstrating this original ancestor is certainly relevant. As long as the theory of evolution does not overstep it's bounds I'm fine with it.

What bounds does the Theory of Evolution overstep? Yeah, some individuals (see: Richard Dawkins) use evolution as a platform to attack religion but the theory itself is just science.

You answered the question for yourself. ID as I see it attempts to demonstrate the absurdity of random chance. If God creates everything, the mechanism by which he accomplishes his purposes could very well be evolution designed by God. It is just not natural selection in the idea that we just happened to blindly evolve.

It's not unreasonable, if ID is the method itself. ID points to the cause, that cause (God's) methodology for creation is certainly up for debate.

So...you essentially say here that ID is absolutely not science. I'm sorry, but if you start saying "screw evidence and any semblance of a scientific method, I just want to throw out an idea that spits in your face and say 'I'm right, you're wrong'" then you deserve nothing in the scientific community. It's ok to believe it if you want, but please don't ask me or anyone else to accept it or to have it be taught in our schools. You pretty much admit it's straight up religion (which it is). And religion for the sake of trying to convert others to Christianity has no place in science.

Ivellious wrote:The Theory of Evolution details the method by which the current variety of organisms on Earth evolved from a single common ancestor. The origin of that organism isn't in the picture.

There is nothing in science that substantiates that clause. That being, macro-evolution is simply a faith based philosophy fused in religion.

Ivellious wrote:ID details nothing. "All-powerful creator created everything, the end" tells us nothing. So why is it unreasonable to ask that if you want to explain the origins of all the different species on Earth, you have to come up with the method, just as evolution does?

ID does not seek to thwart evolution from the classrooms but only stir up the controversies surrounding it. We all know that scientific disputes can actually enliven and stimulate the scientific thought process.

ID is already being used a number of areas of science such as archeology, anthropology, forensics and SETI , and it hasn’t hurt science. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

Ivellious wrote:Evolution gives a method, so why should ID get away with not having a method? This is a non-argument that is really distracting from the problems with ID.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.

Ivellious wrote:Wow. If that isn't the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard, I don't know what is. So what you are saying is that ID wins because it simply doesn't have to explain anything? You mean that because evolution hasn't provided an answer to every example possible, that your solution is just to say, "we win because our idea doesn't require any thought or evidence!" This is why ID gets no real credit in science.

No one wins anything.. It's just that we can't use science or natural facts to explain ultimate truth. It never could nor will it ever be able to explain it all...

Gman wrote:ID is already being used a number of areas of science such as archeology, anthropology, forensics and SETI , and it hasn’t hurt science. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.

The principles in the scientific use of ID (archeology, anthropology, forensics and SETI) depend on the comparison of natural and artificial effects. How does one apply these principles to nature itself? Could someone at least provide a reference to a paper detailing the application of this method in practice?

Ivellious wrote:What bounds does the Theory of Evolution overstep? Yeah, some individuals (see: Richard Dawkins) use evolution as a platform to attack religion but the theory itself is just science.

I just meant what you said here. If it stays "just science" I have no qualms.

Ivellious wrote: So...you essentially say here that ID is absolutely not science.

I don't see it as science at all. It's philosophy taken as the conclusion from scientific findings.

Ivellious wrote:I'm sorry, but if you start saying "screw evidence and any semblance of a scientific method, I just want to throw out an idea that spits in your face and say 'I'm right, you're wrong'" then you deserve nothing in the scientific community.

I don't see where I said anything you just mentioned, ID and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Only the philosophical baggage you lug in with the science. If you would like to say "screw evidence and any semblance of rational thinking, I just want to throw out a belief in random chance that dodges reality and say 'I'm right, you're wrong" than you deserve nothing in the philosophical community.

There is nothing in science that substantiates that clause. That being, macro-evolution is simply a faith based philosophy fused in religion.

Actually, yes it does. I'm not saying it's a fact or proven, as nothing in science truly is, but it is an explanation of what could have brought life to where it is today. If you want to forget that science has accepted all the current evidence for evolution, go ahead.

ID is already being used a number of areas of science such as archeology, anthropology, forensics and SETI , and it hasn’t hurt science.

Show me, please. You are right, archaeology/anthropology (arch. just being a subfield of anth.) sometimes tries to determine whether something was man-made or naturally occurring. SETI attempts to decipher written messages in space. But ID as it is being discussed here is completely separate from that...it is trying to explain the origins of species, not based on examples of man-made things, but on no basis. ID has nothing to cross-reference with, no standard by which it can define "designed." You cannot apply the same concepts because the difference between man-made and naturally occurring can be judged on previous examples, while the supernatural cannot.

Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).

OK. Define CSI. Otherwise you are studying and judging something arbitrarily. That's not science.

Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.

Same problem. You can say anything is complex. The carbon arrangement in diamonds is complex to me and specific to diamonds. Is that CSI?

Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.

Can you please provide an experiment that tests for CSI? To my knowledge, ID has yet to provide any such data to support itself, instead expending all its energy trying to bash evolution and claim to provide the answers. When somebody can actually give some scientific data and research to the table, then I'll listen.

No one wins anything.. It's just that we can't use science or natural facts to explain ultimate truth. It never could nor will it ever be able to explain it all...

ID does not seek to thwart evolution from the classrooms but only stir up the controversies surrounding it. We all know that scientific disputes can actually enliven and stimulate the scientific thought process.

Good. Then if it's not science, and you agree it can't be scientific, and you don't want to get rid of evolution, then stop trying to drive your wedge into science classrooms and force it ID on students. I'm fine with ID and all other religious views sticking in social studies class.