Evidence for God from Science

Recently the big argument on the evolution/ID thread has been the lack of significant empirical evidence for Intelligent Design being offered. It seems the post mostly just dissolves into evolution-bashing and nothing really being offered on the ID front. So, I offer this thread as a place for ID-proponents to post their evidence and reasoning supporting ID as a valid scientific theory, and in return for that evidence to be discussed/critiqued.

Because this argument typically involves only talk about evolution, I would like for this thread to be ONLY for ID. No evolution bashing or supporting, and personally I'd like to see empirical or experimental evidence presented, if it exists.

Ivellious wrote:Recently the big argument on the evolution/ID thread has been the lack of significant empirical evidence for Intelligent Design being offered. It seems the post mostly just dissolves into evolution-bashing and nothing really being offered on the ID front. So, I offer this thread as a place for ID-proponents to post their evidence and reasoning supporting ID as a valid scientific theory, and in return for that evidence to be discussed/critiqued.

Because this argument typically involves only talk about evolution, I would like for this thread to be ONLY for ID. No evolution bashing or supporting, and personally I'd like to see empirical or experimental evidence presented, if it exists.

For those not exactly familiar with ID, here's a brief description on this site:http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Thanks, I meant to post that link myself, it must have slipped my mind.

Ivellious wrote:Recently the big argument on the evolution/ID thread has been the lack of significant empirical evidence for Intelligent Design being offered.

This post is empirical evidence of intelligent design. Would you like to perform a repeatable experiment by scientific method?

Wow, talk about a condescending response. If you want to pull the "Intelligent design is already used in mainstream science" card, I'd save it. Just like when someone says that the Theory of Evolution is valid and you know they mean "macroevolution" and not "microevolution," I'm only talking about Intelligent Design as the supposed alternative to the Theory of Evolution. I'm not talking about determining if humans made something or if it was naturally occurring. I'm strictly asking for scientific evidence related to the type of Intelligent Design that the Discovery Institute cares about.

So, if you care to put forth evidence for that ID, please do. You can stop throwing up red herrings to throw off the point of the thread.

Ivellious wrote: So, if you care to put forth evidence for that ID, please do. You can stop throwing up red herrings to throw off the point of the thread.

Take it easy sir.

This was merely a leadin. To get you to think about what ID means because In truth your opening statement is actually worded incorrectly for what you are trying to get an answer for. I answered the question correctly as you worded it even though I knew what you were intending to say. I did this for a reason and it was not to be funny.
Evolutionary theory is an intent to explain not only the present but also the past. ID has this same intent. The problem for both concepts is that life is not arising by either method in a realtime testable way. So, how would one be able to determine if ID of historic forms is true? What is it about intelligent design that makes it unique? How can we look at anything and determine if an intelligent agent had an effect on it?
My intro here shows evidence of intelligent design. The question that requires thought is "what definable observations about it makes it attributable to design and not to random occurance?" nearly everywhere we look today we can find evidence for intelligent design, most of it is from stuff we know quite well and some not so well but in most every case when we make a conclusion about design there are definite signature things that give it away.

You seek for someone to define and put forth evidence for ID but the truth is we all already have tons of evidence for ID and I have no problem helping you to see this evidence the problem however, will occur when you are told that the same evidences that we observe in the here and now has left residual signatures effects in historic and current structures that we can conclude was caused by the action of intelligence.

My participation of course will depend on how much hate and discontent is exhibited during the discussion. I have no goals to prove to you that there is empirical evidence for a specific intelligent designer. Since ID simply posits that there are discernable signatures left behind in the wake of actions performed by intelligence I can at best simply point out common known things about what makes it unique and the same observable realtime evidences displayed in existing life.

The theory of intelligent design holds that CERTAIN FEATURES of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause...

Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.

Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act.

Alright, fair enough. Now, could you perhaps give an example? A summary of research being done currently or link to a paper or something would be a good start.

What I was hoping to get was a concrete example of how ID (in the "origin of species" sense) is a legitimate and scientific way of explaining what evolution explains. As it seems to be the goal of most ID proponents to get ID taught in science classes and accepted as a scientific theory, I simply ask for non-hypothetical examples of how ID is science. How is it researched? What are examples of ID in organisms that can be concretely identified? Is there a way of quantifying design or a list of criteria that must be met to show design? Et cetera, et cetra, you get the idea.

In short, it's not hard to see the general idea that ID presents, but I have yet to see the specifics and the details. Most things I see from ID proponents is simply arguments to attack evolution, and in turn they feel like it is evidence for ID. That is clearly a false dichotomy. It's nice that they can poke holes in evolution, but it doesn't make ID any stronger unless ID presents actual evidence itself.

Ivellious wrote:could you perhaps give an example? A summary of research being done currently or link to a paper or something would be a good start.

Done

Research
Everyone agrees that life is full of systems and structures that have an appearance of intelligent design. The big question is whether or not that appearance is misleading. Although scientists disagree on the answer to this, they ought to agree that careful science is the best way to resolve scientific disputes. And as with any dispute, ‘careful’ implies ‘fair-minded’—allowing the competing alternatives to be properly developed and presented.
The scientists of Biologic Institute are developing and presenting the scientific case for intelligent design in biology. We think life looks designed because it was designed, and we think that careful science is backing this up—not just in one field, but in many.
http://www.biologicinstitute.org/research

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

These would be good starts ... If you really want to research it

Ivellious wrote:What I was hoping to get was a concrete example of how ID (in the "origin of species" sense) is a legitimate and scientific way of explaining what evolution explains.

Legitimate...
ID in its pure form as used in the past before the topic of origins occured is the study of human intelligence that primarily was applied in forensics and law enforcement. The scientific studies performed in these areas were / are performed by scientific method. After a period of time some people began to notice what they considered evidence of design in life based on what they had learned about how other intelligent agents act and effect the world around them.
I consider this approach Legitimate based on understandings that I gained by analysing mechanical design and the intelligences that created them. I myself create physical objects and complete mechanical systems in 3D for a living. I reverse engineer unknown designers mechanisms. in many ways I have gained a fairly complete understanding of what must occur physically in order for systems made of matter to become arranged into high complexity interactive functional forms.

Ivellious wrote:As it seems to be the goal of most ID proponents to get ID taught in science classes and accepted as a scientific theory,

Indeed its a goal by a group of people who see the design in nature and say "maybe it was actually designed" and we want our children to understand this concept and explore it. Really, how harmfull can this be? I will always keep in mind that "the truth never changes no matter how much you may not believe it". So, ultimately if for some odd quirk of understanding I may be wrong in my perceptions what is the worst that could occur? There would have been a truth revealed to expose an untruth.

Ivellious wrote:What are examples of ID in organisms that can be concretely identified?

This is a good ID question. obviously such items as a flagellum are top of the list of defined 'structures' that appears to require design according to the number of components that are required to interactively perform a single function. This is the conventional view that many minds have agreed with. I too agree with them but, the fact is I am not agreeing with them because they taught me an understanding. I came in to the camp based on my own understanding of mechanics.
[My understanding] is that prior to any self replication system being able to precisely self replicate it requires the ability to spatialy organise matter. Such a system minimally requires a reference point and a three point reference relative to the reference point. Only intelligence has formed such a complex system. Even the simplest cell we can conceive of logically would require this system before any type of evolution via replication could occur.
This is the truest simplest irreducible complexity that can be brought as evidence for the necessity of intelligence to explain it existence.

Ivellious wrote:Is there a way of quantifying design or a list of criteria that must be met to show design? Et cetera, et cetra, you get the idea.

Hmmmm... "criteria"
In my world a good criteria used to base a hypothesis of ID on, is to be able to make an observation of something that causes the type of functionality that we observe in life which also has never been observed to be caused by anything else. This is how science operates. I observe that intelligence alone has caused systems to be arranged to control matter by precise spatial positioning. The structure of the flagellum would be quite simple in comparison of components required to make such a system functional.

Ivellious wrote:In short, it's not hard to see the general idea that ID presents, but I have yet to see the specifics and the details. Most things I see from ID proponents is simply arguments to attack evolution, and in turn they feel like it is evidence for ID. That is clearly a false dichotomy. It's nice that they can poke holes in evolution, but it doesn't make ID any stronger unless ID presents actual evidence itself.

I'm actually with you here. The truth is true regardless of beliefs. If something is true then it can be shown. I don't really have anything against evolution as a basic understanding that alleles change constantly. It is actually when one crosses that line with a belief in their hand that I feel they leave real scientific inquiry behind.
Science is for me is a cornerstone in my understanding from a mechanical perspective. I have given you my understanding of why I know that ID is required in order to form life in as simple of a statement as I can convey. I try to stick to the KISS principle "Keep It Simple Stupid" which I 'religiously' self apply whenever I try to do something.

KBCid wrote:The scientists of Biologic Institute are developing and presenting the scientific case for intelligent design in biology. We think life looks designed because it was designed, and we think that careful science is backing this up—not just in one field, but in many.
http://www.biologicinstitute.org/research

http://www.biologicinstitute.org/research
Selected Publications
...
Gonzalez G (2008) Parent stars of extrasolar planets - IX. Lithium abundances. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Online Early Articlesdoi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13067.x

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 668.d03t02

ABSTRACT
We compare the Li abundances of a sample of stars with planets discovered with the Doppler method to a sample of stars without detected planets. We prepared the samples by combining the Li abundances reported in several recent studies in a consistent way. Our results confirm recent claims that the Li abundances of stars with planets are smaller than those of stars without planets near the solar temperature. We also find that the vsini and R′HK anomalies correlate with the Li abundance anomalies. These results suggest that planet formation processes have altered the rotation and Li abundances of stars that host Doppler-detected planets. We encourage others to test these findings with additional observations of Li in stars with temperatures between 5600 and 6200 K.

Because nothing says "design" like altered lithium abundances.

Ivellious--this is such a brilliant and appropriate thread for a forum like this. I look forward to reading papers that future posters will provide that offer evidence of intelligent design as the only option of the origin of our species. The false dichotomy that you mention is often ignored by those who are making an argument for ID; I would love to see more direct evidence for this argument.

This thread really got me thinking about what kind of evidence I would consider immediate support for intelligent design, and unfortunately I've realized that there are very few things that would actually convince me of this hypothesis. To accept ID as valid the way that I would for other scientific propositions (even with a great deal of flexibility around p<.05) my tiny brain can only imagine the following as solid evidence for intelligent design:

1) The existence of the human species on other planets/in other galaxies, even as a fossil record.

2) Evidence that a unique human genome is finite, excluding anomalies that can easily result from mutation. Perhaps this could be accomplished by technology that men cannot yet perform?

3) Supernatural revelation of the Creator to the majority of the population, such as a great bearded man exposing himself from the sky and explaining his works to humanity; personal observation of the apocalypse, etc.

4) Sudden introduction of a new and unique life (which exhibits all generally accepted qualities of life, including reproduction) that exists on this planet by some means independent of genetics--though this one is iffy and would probably exist more as evidence against evolution than TOWARD intelligent design, unless there was proof that this new life had not ever existed in the past. Not a Christian belief, but still consistent with intelligent design.

I am not saying that this is a complete list, and I would love to hear what proof (hypothetical or already proven) that others accept as scientific evidence for a creator. I know that this brief list creates a very unreasonable burden of proof for creationists, which was not my goal. I only meant to list hypothetical evidence that I believe could only be explained by intelligent design.

I am not persuaded by the argument that mechanical/spatial precision in life requires intelligent design. If you can provide me evidence that electromagnetics (or many other core concepts in physics and chemistry) has a creator, I would be more accepting of this argument as an objective argument.

For clarity, I do not believe that available evidence (as far as I've read) disproves the theory of creation, or any evidence against the guidance of evolution by an intelligent designer. However, against MANY comments I've seen throughout this forum, I believe that burden of proof for any theory is on those who support the theory, not on those who have yet to accept it.

I hope I will see some follow-up from those who have different standards (hypothetical or already existing) that they believe is consistent with the need for an intelligent designer, I am not STUCK on one view even if this post cam across this way. Thanks again

Eureka wrote: a great bearded man exposing himself from the sky

That sounds kind of creepy.

Sudden introduction of a new and unique life (which exhibits all generally accepted qualities of life, including reproduction) that exists on this planet by some means independent of genetics--

That's the sort of thing implied by various ID/special creation accounts. Evolution is unacceptable. So if the creator sees the dinosaurs have died off and leave empty places, then several batches of new creatures would be whipped up and installed to replace them.

Thanks, Sandy. I agree that the bearded man coming out of the sky sounds creepy, but it could happen and would be pretty convincing!

I wasn't clear when I described hypothetical evidence of a new creature that existed independently of genetics. I meant LITERALLY the discovery of life that doesn't run on genes. It sounds more like science fiction since we have all come to terms with heredity and constant maintenance of the human body by reading the "DNA blueprint," but if some species was able to reproduce without passing down its blueprints, then I would accept that this species was "created."

I think I described that poorly...I will be back soon to try an sort this out. Thanks again!

sandy_mcd wrote: Because nothing says "design" like altered lithium abundances.

Precise 3 dimensional positioning of matter says everything.

Eureka wrote:Thanks, Sandy. I agree that the bearded man coming out of the sky sounds creepy, but it could happen and would be pretty convincing!

It would appear that the thread is devolving into another arguement about the designer... who would have guessed. This is my queue to exit

KBCid wrote:It would appear that the thread is devolving into another arguement about the designer... who would have guessed. This is my queue to exit

It would be nicer if it were someone's cue to bring up evidence for design. I looked up some of the references and do not see the significance of the altered lithium abundance in stars. Perhaps someone can explain?