Evidence for God from Science

From the Vox Day blog:
http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2012/10/mailv ... html#links

Sunday, October 14, 2012
Mailvox: an alternative mechanism
Stephen J. takes a logical approach in arguing for evolution by natural selection:

While this question is going to sound snarky, I can only ask our host to believe it is meant as a genuine inquiry and hope it is answered.

1) Let us take as evidentially established the fact that species which existed in the past now exist no longer and are extinct.

2) Let us take as evidentially established the fact that not all species now extant existed at all times throughout the history of organic life; if nothing else, we know for a fact Homo sapiens did not.

3) Therefore, it must be possible for species which did not exist to come into existence by some mechanism, just as species which do exist can go extinct by any variety of mechanisms.

4) If it is a fact that new species can come into existence while others go extinct, by what mechanism other than evolution through natural selection are these species proposed to arise, and does that proposed mechanism explain more of the observed evidence than TeNS?

I don't think it sounds snarky at all. In fact, this is one of the first rationally competent attempts to defend evolution that I've ever seen presented on this blog. Let's look at his postulates and his logic and see where it leads us.

1) I concur. We know from historical documentary evidence that there are species that previously existed and are now extinct. We can also infer from fossil evidence that there were a number of other species that previously existed and went extinct prior to the historical record.

2) I tend to agree and am willing to concur here for the sake of argument and on the basis of Occam's Razor. We certainly believe that homo sapiens sapiens did not exist from the beginning of the history of organic life on the basis of our current understanding of the geological and fossil records, but we cannot say that with the same degree of confidence that it is a fact in the sense that we say the Dodo is now extinct. The problem is that there appear to be an increasing number of indications that the current geological and biological timelines are not going to hold up to future evidence, the claimed 521-year half-life of DNA being one of them.

3) I concur, assuming (2) holds true.

4) Intelligent Genetic Manipulation is the mechanism that I propose. And yes, I believe that explains more of the observed evidence than TENS, since IGM is a scientific proposition, a readily observed action, and a successful predictive model, whereas TENS is a philosophical proposition, an unobserved process, and an unsuccessful predictive model.

Now, this does not provide any basis for assuming the existence of a Creator God, or even declaring that TENS did not actually take place. The logical fact of the matter is that even if TENS can be conclusively demonstrated to have taken place in various species, which has not happened despite more than 150 years of trying, that doesn't necessarily mean the process was sufficient to produce Man. If one contemplates the biological differences between ape and man, the vast leap in cognitive capacity taking place in a relatively small sum of generational cycles from the proposed common ancestor in comparison with the timelines supposedly required for other, less complicated evolutionary changes, the logic suggests - though it does not prove - that some degree of purposeful genetic manipulation has likely taken place at various points in the origin of the species and the development of homo sapiens sapiens.

I'm not talking about Intelligent Design, but rather intelligent editing. And the interesting thing is that IGM should be an increasingly falsifiable concept as genetic science continues to improve. Only recently have we learned that junk DNA serves a purpose; even though we have sequenced various genomes, we haven't yet understood how the code works or fully comprehended the various ways it can be manipulated. As our understanding grows, we should be able to develop an ability to recognize patterns that indicate purposeful alterations in the code have been made.

Now, I realize how crazy this probably sounds, especially in light of my argument that Man cannot easily distinguish between God, god, demon, and alien. But that is where Stephen's reasonably sound logic takes us.

1) Let us take as evidentially established the fact that species which existed in the past now exist no longer and are extinct.

PaulSacramento wrote: 1) I concur. We know from historical documentary evidence that there are species that previously existed and are now extinct. We can also infer from fossil evidence that there were a number of other species that previously existed and went extinct prior to the historical record.

One of the great problematics in this area is defining what a species is exactly. Being able to breed is usually an indicator of a different species but we have no way to test those asserted species that are extinct. There is also a problem with the observable properties of a fossil to make an inference form. There are a great many species extent that change in various ways over their lifetime, a butterfly is a good example here. So ultimately from my perspective there are many assumptions being made that don't have empirical evidence or a scientific method of backing it. The closest we can come to making a proper statement is to say "it is an established fact that variations which existed in the past do not exist now". This will keep us from making any huge blunders in logic.

2) Let us take as evidentially established the fact that not all species now extant existed at all times throughout the history of organic life; if nothing else, we know for a fact Homo sapiens did not.

PaulSacramento wrote: 2) I tend to agree and am willing to concur here for the sake of argument and on the basis of Occam's Razor. We certainly believe that homo sapiens sapiens did not exist from the beginning of the history of organic life on the basis of our current understanding of the geological and fossil records, but we cannot say that with the same degree of confidence that it is a fact in the sense that we say the Dodo is now extinct. The problem is that there appear to be an increasing number of indications that the current geological and biological timelines are not going to hold up to future evidence, the claimed 521-year half-life of DNA being one of them.

agreeing at all is again riding on a foundation of logic inferred from a number of assumptions. first as noted above is the defining of a species. Second is the assumption that everything in the fossil record is actually a record of when they occured in a historic timeline. We know for example that ceolecanth existed at some point in history according to the fossil record but, then it stops appearing all together until found still existing in nearly the same variation state currently. So we have evidence that a variation of a "specie" can exist for what appears like millions of years without leaving a trace in the fossil record. What if man has existed alongside the dinosaur and simply didn't leave a fossil record? If we are to perform proper scientific inquiry we must take into account the evidence that we have found. "some variations can exist for millions of years without leaving a record", this is observable factual observation. So it would be best not to agree at all with any logic that has an assumption foundation.

3) Therefore, it must be possible for species which did not exist to come into existence by some mechanism, just as species which do exist can go extinct by any variety of mechanisms.

PaulSacramento wrote: 3) I concur, assuming (2) holds true.

The extent of proper scientifically backed logic that can be applied here is that "variations which did not previously exist have come into existence"

4) If it is a fact that new species can come into existence while others go extinct, by what mechanism other than evolution through natural selection are these species proposed to arise, and does that proposed mechanism explain more of the observed evidence than TeNS?

PaulSacramento wrote: 4) Intelligent Genetic Manipulation is the mechanism that I propose. And yes, I believe that explains more of the observed evidence than TENS, since IGM is a scientific proposition, a readily observed action, and a successful predictive model, whereas TENS is a philosophical proposition, an unobserved process, and an unsuccessful predictive model.

Although historical genetic manipulation can be hypothetically asserted it holds less strength of logic than any other supposition because it requires more evidence. If the genomes of a variety of original specie types were in fact the case and each of these original types had as a foundational mechanic that they could produce variation within a range then wouldn't this also explain the observable evidence? The question still hinges on what defines a specie, where can one draw a line to say that a specie cannot vary beyond this point so that we can properly define what could definitely not be related in a historical context.

PaulSacramento wrote:I'm not talking about Intelligent Design, but rather intelligent editing. And the interesting thing is that IGM should be an increasingly falsifiable concept as genetic science continues to improve. Only recently have we learned that junk DNA serves a purpose; even though we have sequenced various genomes, we haven't yet understood how the code works or fully comprehended the various ways it can be manipulated. As our understanding grows, we should be able to develop an ability to recognize patterns that indicate purposeful alterations in the code have been made.

If an intelligence edited anything then that is intelligent design. However, making an assumption of simply an intelligence steering already existing natural design tends to infer that a natural method of formation was possible and if you give that such was possible then you would need conclusive proof of tampering from its natural state. This would be unimaginably hard to define since at a foundational level you have given nature the power to have formed complexity that is typically only seen by intelligent design. This is some yardage that I would not grant without empirical evidence.