Evidence for God from Science

Could it be true? Apparently it is...

Noted Atheist Philosopher Thomas Nagel: "Defenders of Intelligent Design Deserve Our Gratitude"

And guess where this showed up.... in a new book... titled;

Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/no ... 63451.html

KBCid wrote:Could it be true?

Philosopher Nagel has held this position since at least 1974. It is not exactly breaking news.http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1 ... el_bat.pdf

But just because the title of this forum is "God and Science" not "God and Philosophy", i suggest that the interested reader consult a scientist such as Christof Koch.

Should I try to compile a list of the thousands of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other members of theistic faiths who accept evolution?

I appreciate that this guy is smart and doesn't accept naturalism as a perfect answer to everything. Nor do I, in fact. But I would point out that he really doesn't seem to fully endorse ID in the quotes given on your link...rather, he is just giving ID proponents kudos for presenting questions and going against the grain.

Ivellious wrote:Should I try to compile a list of the thousands of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other members of theistic faiths who accept evolution?

If you do, remember to include me. But seriously, Nagel is a very interesting philosopher and his fame is quite well-deserved (What is it like to be a bat?). But he certainly isn't an ID proponent and would probably be pretty unhappy to have that name attached to him.

sandy_mcd wrote:

KBCid wrote:Could it be true?

Philosopher Nagel has held this position since at least 1974. It is not exactly breaking news.

He must have been a mind reader then since;
Philosopher Barbara Forrest writes that the intelligent design movement began in 1984 with the publication by Jon A. Buell's the Foundation for Thought and Ethics of The Mystery of Life's Origin by Charles B. Thaxton, a chemist and creationist. Thaxton held a conference in 1988, "Sources of Information Content in DNA", which attracted creationists such as Stephen C. Meyer.[20]

Intelligent design
the first place that the term was systematically used, defined in a glossary and claimed to be other than creationism was in the 1989 textbook Of Pandas and People
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The ID movement begins1984 book The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton and others, foreword by Kenyon, argues for ‘a profoundly informative intervention' by an intelligent cause, "the authors conclude that while design can be detected in biology, science cannot determine from this evidence whether the design was from a creator outside the cosmos."[6] Barbara Forrest describes this as the beginning of the ID movement.[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... ent_design

Do you have any other intentional misdirects or misinformation to add?

Ivellious wrote:Should I try to compile a list of the thousands of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other members of theistic faiths who accept evolution?

If it makes you feel more secure have at it.

Ivellious wrote:he is just giving ID proponents kudos for presenting questions and going against the grain.

Did I portray it any other way? Thx for stating the obvious.

In chapter 1, Nagel cites with favor the work of three Discovery Institute Fellows in particular:
In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture... by the defenders of intelligent design. Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.

No worries Nagel unfair is just a POV there are still plenty of people who are so incensed by the ID position and the creationist position that they regularly read and post on religious forums. I wonder what they are so worried about if ID isn't scientific.

Nice find KBC, I'm thinking maybe Nagel was a time traveler lol.
Seriously Nagel is the type of guy that reminds me Antony Flew, in other words someone who could end up following the evidence as Flew did and one day become a deist. Flews main fear was living forever in an afterlife and thats why he remained a deist.

Very interesting stuff about Nagel. I also recall hearing about a facebook page by atheists and agnostics that believe in ID.
I never bothered looking for it.
I lost my faith in evolution a few years ago first when I saw the evidence fir macroevolution as very weak and it spiraled downward from there.

bippy123 wrote:I lost my faith in evolution a few years ago first when I saw the evidence fir macroevolution as very weak and it spiraled downward from there.

I found my faith after I figured out that mechanically life can't reproduce without a system to control the 3D formation process. It was like a light had come on and I looked for everything I could to circumvent it and there is just no way around it. The system can never be simplified to the point that chance could form it so what is left? If it doesn't happen by chance then the only other alternative is on purpose.
The single strongest argument for the designer is now "no replication, no evolution." Evolution in its properly understood form is truely an effect, a byproduct of systematic action. These are the final years of the evolutionary hypothesis. As it becomes clearer that every movement inside and outside a cell are controlled scientists will have no choice but to recognise the system at some point.
I can't wait to see how they will try to rationalise how such a system just puts itself together.

KBC, like I've been saying all along this is amazing stuff and I'm still trying to wrap me head around it. I've made some progress, but still a ways to go. If the system can't come to be by chance your right, there is no other logical answer but to say it was created on purpose. To me life arising by chance and chemicals alone is inadequate.

Have you seen anything on YouTube about this?
Please keep on posting as I really think this will one day be the new paradigm that will finally break the back of Darwinian evolution , which I feel has advanced arthritis allready lol.
God bless

The system can never be simplified to the point that chance could form it so what is left? If it doesn't happen by chance then the only other alternative is on purpose.
The single strongest argument for the designer is now "no replication, no evolution."

I still have no clue how evolution could not have happened if this system of control existed at the outset of life. You're right: no replication, no evolution. But if replication came into being from a force before evolution ever took place, then your system has zero effect on whether evolution could take place afterward. Again, your issue deals with the origins of life and after that, your argument holds no water. Once I concede that it is entirely possible that the first life (which did not evolve from another organism) had this system in place, then evolution can take place regardless of how the system got there in the first place.

bippy123 wrote:KBC, like I've been saying all along this is amazing stuff and I'm still trying to wrap me head around it. I've made some progress, but still a ways to go. If the system can't come to be by chance your right, there is no other logical answer but to say it was created on purpose. To me life arising by chance and chemicals alone is inadequate.

You know Bippy one of the best ways to wrap your head around something is to discuss the areas that are giving you a hard time conceptually. Since my subject deals with a system we can explore the realities of what such a system requires. When I first began learning about systems there was a ton that was a big black box to me and it took time for me to wrap my head around it. Fortunately systems lend themselves to investigation and inquiry because they act in definable ways, this is how scientist are currently able to test lifes order... it is persistent in its replication.

bippy123 wrote:Have you seen anything on YouTube about this?.

I am mainly researching scientific papers and so far nothing has popped up from youtube but I havent searched there directly.

bippy123 wrote:Please keep on posting as I really think this will one day be the new paradigm that will finally break the back of Darwinian evolution , which I feel has advanced arthritis allready lol. God bless

I will keep adding to the thread as I find reference material that weighs in on it and don't be afraid to approach it as a child may since much of this understanding is simply not part of the usual stuff most people ever consider. Find the things that appear to be the hardest to understand and have no fear in voicing it as there may be others who read it and find things to explore within it.
The beginning of the understanding on this subject is to really consider how anything can be precisely and repetitiously positioned in space and time. We all understand how crystals and snowflakes form as it is the mechanic of their properties, life however is not built in this manner which means that another explanation of how its structure repeats is required. To get a grip on just how hard it is to precisely move matter from one position to another in space start with simple 2 dimensional stuff like taking a ping pong ball on a table and marking a spot a foot away and try to get it to move to that spot accurately and repetetively just don't use your inherent positional system to do it. Which means don't pick it up and place it. Also keep in mind this is a simple 2 dimensional game, the final game is actually played in 3 dimensions.

KBCid wrote:The system can never be simplified to the point that chance could form it so what is left? If it doesn't happen by chance then the only other alternative is on purpose. The single strongest argument for the designer is now "no replication, no evolution."

Ivellious wrote:I still have no clue how evolution could not have happened if this system of control existed at the outset of life.

Evolution of some form did begin when the system began. The entire reason that any conceptual form of evolution could exist rests entirely on the systematic persistence of replication, amazingly evolution cannot occur if the system was driven by such processes as crystal or snowflake formation since these processes cannot replicate error in a persistent manner. In the living system changes in the coding can be repeated because there is no 'natural' tendency to form in a specific organization. When there is no tendency then such a system requires a system of control.
What is the simplest way you can conceive of to control matter 3 dimensionally?

Ivellious wrote:You're right: no replication, no evolution. But if replication came into being from a force before evolution ever took place, then your system has zero effect on whether evolution could take place afterward.

Why do you think that is so? Is it because of how you conceive evolution operates? What is the mechanisms of evolution? If I were to make such a system and give the system the ability to vary itself wouldn't that account for changes? wouldn't NS begin to operate as soon as there were 2 organisms in competition? All we need for the concept of evolution to occur in reality is to have a systematic method of replicating variability and poof you have evolution. Evolution is an effect, a byproduct of a functioning system. we can discuss this topic in detail without ever mentioning a designer but once you elucidate the necessary specifics required in such a system you will have to conceive of how it came to exist without of course the assistence of the evolutionary mechanism.

Ivellious wrote:Again, your issue deals with the origins of life and after that, your argument holds no water. Once I concede that it is entirely possible that the first life (which did not evolve from another organism) had this system in place, then evolution can take place regardless of how the system got there in the first place.

In your perception and bias that is how you want to represent it. The fact of the matter here is that this system cannot be the cause of the first life. Thus it is not asserted to be causal to the formation of life. However, it is an absolute requirement for lifes persistence. Not one subsequent form of life could have occured without the system existing within the first lifeform. You came into existence because of this system so to explain your own existence requires that you define how the system arranged your 3 dimensional form. Anytime you want to assert a cause for the formation of any specie or individual living form you must be able to define how its 3 dimensional form is arranged. So you can persist in trying to find a way around the logic or break with preconceptions and explore the realities of system engineering. I have 30 years of creating, researching and testing of systems that allows me to identify and define what is minimally required to make things function.
Every time you try to discredit the concept you will fail since it requires understanding about systems to actually have a logical discourse on the subject. Don't you think it wise to explore first and denounce later?

Evolution of some form did begin when the system began. The entire reason that any conceptual form of evolution could exist rests entirely on the systematic persistence of replication, amazingly evolution cannot occur if the system was driven by such processes as crystal or snowflake formation since these processes cannot replicate error in a persistent manner. In the living system changes in the coding can be repeated because there is no 'natural' tendency to form in a specific organization. When there is no tendency then such a system requires a system of control.
What is the simplest way you can conceive of to control matter 3 dimensionally?

I really don't see your point at all. I say that it is perfectly logical to say that it is possible that the first life was designed with a complex 3-dimensional control system and the ability to replicate. I see no problem in that statement. But, if you follow that statement, evolution is perfectly capable of taking place after that first life, no designer intervention required after that first life. If the first life came into being with the ability to reproduce and henceforth evolve, then that system could be in pace in all future life, yes? Again, evolution is not affected by the origin of life. If the system was there from the start and evolution happened afterward, there is zero conflict with the Theory of Evolution.

Why do you think that is so? Is it because of how you conceive evolution operates? What is the mechanisms of evolution? If I were to make such a system and give the system the ability to vary itself wouldn't that account for changes? wouldn't NS begin to operate as soon as there were 2 organisms in competition? All we need for the concept of evolution to occur in reality is to have a systematic method of replicating variability and poof you have evolution. Evolution is an effect, a byproduct of a functioning system. we can discuss this topic in detail without ever mentioning a designer but once you elucidate the necessary specifics required in such a system you will have to conceive of how it came to exist without of course the assistence of the evolutionary mechanism.

If I read that right then what you are telling me is that you believe that evolution is a programmed function in all life? OK, so again, you are answering a question about the origins of life. If life was originally designed with DNA and a system of replication, then yes, you could argue that this "designer" designed the first life with the necessary parts and functions to evolve.

Now here's where I'm confused about your point...ID as far as I know it (and every single thing I've read on it, both from anti-ID and pro-ID sources) says that according to ID, each individual species was designed by the designer. No species are even remotely related to each other, because all of them were designed separately from each other. Now, you almost seem to say here that it is possible that a designer designed life to evolve...Which would seem to contradict the whole point of "nothing is related to each other."

In your perception and bias that is how you want to represent it. The fact of the matter here is that this system cannot be the cause of the first life.

Wow, ok, you really aren't reading anything I wrote. I literally stated that I think it is possible that the system was designed in the first life. I never once have said that the system somehow caused life or whatever you mean. Again, quit dodging the question. If life was designed with this system (i.e. the system was designed), then why can't evolution happen afterward with that system already imbued in the first life? I'm not arguing over the origin of the first life with you. I make no claim to know that answer. That said, the origin of life was not created by evolution and evolution is not contingent on a naturalistic origin of life...so why is this such a hangup for you?

However, it is an absolute requirement for lifes persistence. Not one subsequent form of life could have occured without the system existing within the first lifeform.

Ok, I already agreed with you on this point...and yet, if it was indeed in the first life form, there is nothing about it that stops evolution after the origin of life.

So you can persist in trying to find a way around the logic or break with preconceptions and explore the realities of system engineering. I have 30 years of creating, researching and testing of systems that allows me to identify and define what is minimally required to make things function.

I'm not saying that life could not have been designed at its origin. I'm saying that, if indeed life was designed with the minimal requirements for life and reproduction as you have defined them, there is nothing stopping evolution afterward. All you have said is "my system of 3-dimensional control could not have evolved because it is a requirement of life and reproduction." I countered repeatedly with "OK, if life originated with this system, then it does not have to be formed via evolution and so your point is moot." So, for the hundredth time: If life was originally designed with the system in place, why does that stop evolution?

And, for what it's worth, I've probably taken more biology and chemistry courses in my life than you have...you don't see me pointing out my superior knowledge of biology as some kind of debating tool. I can appreciate that you are intelligent, but being a master chemist wouldn't likely get me much credit in an astrophysics debate.

I appreciate atheist philosophers like Nagel and Searle. They seem to be basically honest in their philosophy and not flippantly writing off any position that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. I of course think they're wrong in their rejection of theism but its much easier to appreciate a Nagel or Searle than it is a Dawkins or Harris, they're in different leagues really.

KBCid wrote: Evolution of some form did begin when the system began. The entire reason that any conceptual form of evolution could exist rests entirely on the systematic persistence of replication, amazingly evolution cannot occur if the system was driven by such processes as crystal or snowflake formation since these processes cannot replicate error in a persistent manner. In the living system changes in the coding can be repeated because there is no 'natural' tendency to form in a specific organization. When there is no tendency then such a system requires a system of control. What is the simplest way you can conceive of to control matter 3 dimensionally?

Ivellious wrote: I really don't see your point at all. I say that it is perfectly logical to say that it is possible that the first life was designed with a complex 3-dimensional control system and the ability to replicate. I see no problem in that statement. But, if you follow that statement, evolution is perfectly capable of taking place after that first life, no designer intervention required after that first life. If the first life came into being with the ability to reproduce and henceforth evolve, then that system could be in pace in all future life, yes? Again, evolution is not affected by the origin of life. If the system was there from the start and evolution happened afterward, there is zero conflict with the Theory of Evolution.

I understand what you are conceeding here. Really I get it. The problem I am trying to point out is that evolution in its present hypothetical state does not define how life changes and reproduces the changes since specificly in its current form it asserts that random changes in conjunction with some affect from NS is all thats needed to originate 3 dimensional forms we call species. So ultimately im am pointing out that the current concept of evolution is considered the cause of 3 dimensional formations when in fact it is simply an effect or byproduct of the action of a system. Understanding how the system functions is where it is incompatible with the current evolutionary concept and this is why I am making sure to clarify why it is not simply that your concept of the evolutionary mechanism can simply begin when the system occurs.

KBCid wrote:Why do you think that is so? Is it because of how you conceive evolution operates? What is the mechanisms of evolution? If I were to make such a system and give the system the ability to vary itself wouldn't that account for changes? wouldn't NS begin to operate as soon as there were 2 organisms in competition? All we need for the concept of evolution to occur in reality is to have a systematic method of replicating variability and poof you have evolution. Evolution is an effect, a byproduct of a functioning system. we can discuss this topic in detail without ever mentioning a designer but once you elucidate the necessary specifics required in such a system you will have to conceive of how it came to exist without of course the assistence of the evolutionary mechanism.

Ivellious wrote:If I read that right then what you are telling me is that you believe that evolution is a programmed function in all life? OK, so again, you are answering a question about the origins of life. If life was originally designed with DNA and a system of replication, then yes, you could argue that this "designer" designed the first life with the necessary parts and functions to evolve.

You are indeed reading that right. The variability we see within life is part of it preprogrammed functionality. This is why I consistently point out that Evo's need to show the empirical evidence for why they belive random mutations are random. In this vein of thought you can take it to the beginning of life to infer how the program began but it is not necessary to do so. The fact is that the system is in continuous action it is responsible for every form of life since the first so it is not simply a question of the origin of life, it is properly a question of the origination of every form of life since the first. You and I are not the first life formed but we must still recognise that this system is part of the explanation for how we came to exist since it occurs at every replication event and its functionality is quite different conceptually from the current evolutionary concept so it has meaning for describing how change has occured since the first life arose which make it a necessary part of any discussion on the origination of variety. So to be clear here this topic is relevant when it comes to how you explain the origin of variety and how it is implemented and thus cannot be relegated to a simple argument about the origin of life.

Ivellious wrote:Now here's where I'm confused about your point...ID as far as I know it (and every single thing I've read on it, both from anti-ID and pro-ID sources) says that according to ID, each individual species was designed by the designer. No species are even remotely related to each other, because all of them were designed separately from each other. Now, you almost seem to say here that it is possible that a designer designed life to evolve...Which would seem to contradict the whole point of "nothing is related to each other."

Some people definitely read things that way. I will try to clarify the meaning if possible. ID is asserting that a number of original forms is necessary to explain the variety of body plans. In effect we all agree that variation has and is occuring but, instead of the evolutionary assumption of a single common ancestor of all life we feel that such a range of variance is not what is possible by the system being considered.
So ID feels that a variety of body plans occured with the ability to vary within certain limits which we are still trying to scientifically define. The same basic tools were used in the formation of each type and many of the same functions were designed in which is how convergent evolution is explainable by ID.

KBCid wrote:In your perception and bias that is how you want to represent it. The fact of the matter here is that this system cannot be the cause of the first life.

Ivellious wrote:Wow, ok, you really aren't reading anything I wrote. I literally stated that I think it is possible that the system was designed in the first life. I never once have said that the system somehow caused life or whatever you mean. Again, quit dodging the question. If life was designed with this system (i.e. the system was designed), then why can't evolution happen afterward with that system already imbued in the first life? I'm not arguing over the origin of the first life with you. I make no claim to know that answer. That said, the origin of life was not created by evolution and evolution is not contingent on a naturalistic origin of life...so why is this such a hangup for you?.

I believe I have answered this just above but I will restate it anyway. The current conceptual idea of evolution as the driver of variety is not compatible with this system and this is why there is conflict in trying to assert that it could in its current theoretical form operate once the system is functioning. The thing you need to get a grip on here is to understand what I mean when I say that a form of evolution or change over time will happen as an 'effect or byproduct' of the operation of the system. It is not the controller of variety that it is conceived as. Thus, the problem of assuming it could just be functioning the way you conceive that it does. So when I say a form of evolution I am clearly stating that it is not the current conceptual form of the idea presented by evolutionists.

KBCid wrote:However, it is an absolute requirement for lifes persistence. Not one subsequent form of life could have occured without the system existing within the first lifeform.

Ivellious wrote:Ok, I already agreed with you on this point...and yet, if it was indeed in the first life form, there is nothing about it that stops evolution after the origin of life.

Well there there is something that stops the current concept of how evolution works from occuring after it is operational. This is why I am going the extra mile to make sure you understand why.

KBCid wrote:So you can persist in trying to find a way around the logic or break with preconceptions and explore the realities of system engineering. I have 30 years of creating, researching and testing of systems that allows me to identify and define what is minimally required to make things function.

Ivellious wrote:And, for what it's worth, I've probably taken more biology and chemistry courses in my life than you have...you don't see me pointing out my superior knowledge of biology as some kind of debating tool. I can appreciate that you are intelligent, but being a master chemist wouldn't likely get me much credit in an astrophysics debate.

Biology and chemistry each have their strengths and I appreciate that you may possibly have some understandings that I may not have since we have no way to compare education. The reason I am pointing out that engineering is important here is that in this aspect is applies the strength of a multitude of sciences. It is the understanding of systems that reveals some hidden truths if you have specific understandings of how systems work. So for what it is worth I'm not trying to lord over others with what I know, I am however, describing how I know something that isn't redily apparent by studies in the individual areas you have pointed out and I am willing to take the time to attempt to convey how it works and why.
None of us can know it all and it takes a concerted effort from every discipline to gain proper understandings. So consider this a contribution from engineering as it applies to how systems of matter function.