Evidence for God from Science

One should be very careful when discussing the Theory of Evolution, its limitations, things it has actually "proved" (if that word can actually be used in the science field), things it has not proved. Many people claim that ToE is not even a scientific theory, since it cannot predict future phenomena, while others postulate that it cannot be named a "theory" since it is only a tautology claiming that "Who surives? The fit to survive. Who is fit to survive? Those who survive"...

I have written an article which summarizes all of the above and which one can find the full article at http://harmonia-philosophica.blogspot.c ... ay-to.html or at http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.c ... lazj6wq-3/.

There one can see that the most important thing to remember is that the theory of evolution is only a biology theory. Not a philosophical one! (even though many atheists will try to use it as one)

And many philosophical dogmas are the basis for it which we should all be aware of them (materialism being the primal one)...

The case of Russel Wallace

The best example of how dogmatism has found its way into biology, is how Russel Wallace (the TRUE founder of the theory of evolution, publishing the theory one year before Darwin) was treated by the scientific community of his time.

Wallace was THE lead anthropologist of his era and thought that the Theory of Evolution - even though valid as a BIOLOGY theory - could not be applied to humans.
For that he was fought and defamed to the greatest of extent - causing him to die in poverty and isolation.

See http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.c ... lazj6wq-8/ for the details.

Well the obvious one is Good biology theory with limitations as micro-evolution is a fact. It creates variations within animals such as colour, size (within boundaries) and even immunity. But macro-evolution on the other hand is pure mythology.

Here's the thing about mythology though; what starts off as speculation and just-so stories, over time, develops a life of it's own, thanks to repetition. However the underlying mechanism, the "architect" of macro-evolution remains a myth.

However because it's the only game in town, it is has been forced to account for an ever increasing complexity witnessed in biological life. Failing of course to realise that it's built on a house of cards, and at it's very core, it's mechanism has shown to be incapable of creating any basic novel functions, let alone the complex, integrated, co-dependent systems that in fact do govern multicellular animals.

There's a great documentary on Alfred Russel Wallace you should check out here:

Darwin's Heretic: Did the Co-Founder of Evolution Embrace Intelligent Design?

Thanks for that. I will take a look.

The mechanism of evolution via mutations does exist. We have all seen viruses becoming more and more resistant to antibiotics and this is something no one can deny.

But the "good news" stop there.

The main questions I would like to pose are the following:

1. The mechanism described by ToE is probably not the only one! Humans strive to design things and to design new forms of like (call me gennetics). Design is an inherent part of the cosmos. Moreover, many people try to help the weak survive, something obviously against the main idea behind the theory of evolution.

2. Many philosophers think ToE is a tautology. All it "says" is that the fitetst for survival... survive! And who is fittest for survival? Who else? The ones who survive! (those who adapt better to changes).

3. ToE is based on the definition of species. But how is a species defined? Darwin himself thought that with his theory had solved the great problem of "species", because the idea of an ever changing species does not leave room for... "species" (!) The problem of definition of species is a fundamentaly philosophical one and many think that species as categories do not even exist!

4. Many people have tried to capitalize on ToE and use it for their own purposes. Theory of Evolition is a purely scientific theory! Not a philosophical one! Stating that "God does not exist" because we have found that viruses evolve is not a valid argument.

Stu you hit the nail right on the head. Micro-evolution is observable science but macro-evolution is as much a fairy tale as the truth fairy, but the Darwinian crowd has to continually hold onto the fairy tale no matter what the cost.

The thing is, its not what evidence there is for macro-evolution, the thing is there is no better thesis to pose an alternate and even explain the vast diversity of life. macro evolution is good theory because if it is true than yeah, we can account for what we see today.

It is one reason I find Intelligent design not really an alternate hypothesis cause in it things eventually go arbitrary. It is not a scientific mechanism. Macro-evolution is only true in theory but a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of
observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.

For example, Aristotle believed Empedocles’s theory that everything was made out of four elements, earth, air, fire, and water. This was simple enough, but did not make any definite predictions. On the other hand, Newton’s theory of gravity was based on an even simpler model, in which bodies attracted each other with a force that was proportional to a quantity called their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Yet it predicts the motions of the sun, the moon, and the planets to a high degree of accuracy.

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

Excerpt from "A brief history of time"

bippy123 wrote:Stu you hit the nail right on the head. Micro-evolution is observable science but macro-evolution is as much a fairy tale as the truth fairy, but the Darwinian crowd has to continually hold onto the fairy tale no matter what the cost.

Bippy, who's the "truth" fairy?

Bippy, who's the "truth" fairy?

RickD wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Stu you hit the nail right on the head. Micro-evolution is observable science but macro-evolution is as much a fairy tale as the truth fairy, but the Darwinian crowd has to continually hold onto the fairy tale no matter what the cost.

Bippy, who's the "truth" fairy?

Rick,My hands always seem to get ahead of my brain lol

neo-x wrote:The thing is, its not what evidence there is for macro-evolution, the thing is there is no better thesis to pose an alternate and even explain the vast diversity of life. macro evolution is good theory because if it is true than yeah, we can account for what we see today.

It is one reason I find Intelligent design not really an alternate hypothesis cause in it things eventually go arbitrary. It is not a scientific mechanism. Macro-evolution is only true in theory but a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of
observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.

For example, Aristotle believed Empedocles’s theory that everything was made out of four elements, earth, air, fire, and water. This was simple enough, but did not make any definite predictions. On the other hand, Newton’s theory of gravity was based on an even simpler model, in which bodies attracted each other with a force that was proportional to a quantity called their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Yet it predicts the motions of the sun, the moon, and the planets to a high degree of accuracy.

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

Excerpt from "A brief history of time"

Neo-x The problem I have with macroevolution is that pro-darwinian scientists are trying to pass it off as if its pure scientific fact, and the evidence is the exact opposite, and we have very few if any transitional fossils. What we see instead are leaps in information that are the exact opposite to what darwin himself predicted. Yet they keep trying to call it a fact. Its like trying to fit a square peg into a circle. It just doesnt Jive.

A lot of nonsense in this thread (transitional fossils, micro/macro evolution, egad!), but I just want to address one thing.

things it has actually "proved" (if that word can actually be used in the science field)

Things can be said to be proven when they approach a high enough confidence interval, at which point they become as true as anything we have known. Evolution is one such theory that has approached this level and will never be disproven, only modified. Other examples of 'disproven' theories, such as Newton's theory of gravitational motion wasn't disproven entirely either, it was mostly improved upon. Scientific theories, even if they are changed, are still mostly right. We only get closer and closer to what is right when we replace old theories with new ones, but that doesn't make them entirely wrong. There is a relativity to wrongness. It may be untrue that the Earth is a sphere, but it's certainly closer to being true than saying the Earth is flat.

The bag just proved exactly the point of this thread.
Conflate plus equivocate plus popularize= truth.
Brilliant.

I love this term, "mostly right." I'll have to remember that.

Beanybag wrote:A lot of nonsense in this thread (transitional fossils, micro/macro evolution, egad!), but I just want to address one thing.

things it has actually "proved" (if that word can actually be used in the science field)

Things can be said to be proven when they approach a high enough confidence interval, at which point they become as true as anything we have known. Evolution is one such theory that has approached this level and will never be disproven, only modified. Other examples of 'disproven' theories, such as Newton's theory of gravitational motion wasn't disproven entirely either, it was mostly improved upon. Scientific theories, even if they are changed, are still mostly right. We only get closer and closer to what is right when we replace old theories with new ones, but that doesn't make them entirely wrong. There is a relativity to wrongness. It may be untrue that the Earth is a sphere, but it's certainly closer to being true than saying the Earth is flat.

Macroevolution is a myth, it has never even gotten close to be proven to the point where it approaches a high enough confidence interval, and this is coming from me. I used to be one of the most enthusiastic evolution supporter on earth.
The problem is that the evidence continues to get worse every year for macroevolution. I think almost everyone on this planet agrees with microevolution (adaptation) though.

skakos wrote:The mechanism of evolution via mutations does exist.

Does it?
can anyone scientifically describe how it works?
How exactly does a genetic change occur (cause) and how is it translated into life (effect)

Micro evolution
Life exhibits variation...
We think it is caused by random changes (RM) in the genetic code...
We think that selection has an effect on what random changes will occur...

The only scientific part of micro evolution is the observation of the effect that life exhibits variation. Past that it is all conjecture.