Evidence for God from Science

Lately I've seen many atheists, on this board and off, that do not regard Intelligent Design as a theory, some say it's religion, some say it's untestable, others just don't like it. Well I got thinking during my schoolday and decided to write down whatever came to mind over the duration of a few hours (much to the chagrin of my teachers).

ID [Intelligent Design] Theory

Hypothesis: Life is not created by natural processes. It was formed due to the intervention of an intelligent being.

This hypothesis is based on the premise that life is far too complex to have been formed naturally. It is too complex for any process in the universe to be able to produce life.

Predictions made by Intelligent Design:

It will be determined that there is no process in which life may advance itself, or any process in which life can become more complex. There will be evidence that the simplest components of the simplest living cell will be far more complex than the most complex molecules constructible by natural processes. The fossil record will not show a gradualistic change in organisms. It will not indicate any change in organisms over long periods of time. The fossil record will indicate organisms abruptly emerging, surviving on Earth for millions of years roughly unchanged from their original form, and then abruptly going extinct, being replaced, as abruptly as before, with another organism.

It will also be found that the conditions nescessary for life to exist will be unique to Earth. Observations will conclude that conditions for life are extremely rare in the universe and that Earth is one of a kind. Complex life will not be found anywhere else in the universe.

Advantages of Intellignet Design:

ID is a complete theory that explains the origin and development of life with one concept. It centers around a single entity and the framework for all life appears afterwards. It is a single concise theory that can explain life much better than any naturalistic theory to date. It is a lucid theory that can explain all biological phenomenon found in life under one united framework.

The simplicity and completeness of ID is incredible. While naturalistic theories must rely on several separate processes to describe nature, ID focuses on only one. It is a sort of theory of everything for life sciences, united, and concise. It answers every question associated with the emergence and development of life on Earth.

Disadvantages of Intelligent Design:

ID blends the line between philosophy and science, both deal with a study of the world but are separated by what the focus is in each subject. Intelligent Design destroys this barrier and combines them. This does not sit well with the scientific community, which refuses to even consider ID on these grounds. Though there is no reason to discard ID on this basis, it still is a hurdle that impedes the credibility of ID in general.

General thoughts:

The foremost tool to test Intelligent Design is the fossil record. In times past, the record of fossils was small and incomplete. In modern times however the fossil record has swelled and for the most part is a good indicator of the development of life over billions of years.

Though it is not complete as of now, as the years go by the fossil record will be expanded and revised as it always has been. Barring biased interpretation and tampering, the fossil record will be the best tool in proving or disproving ID theory.

Chemistry is a powerful tool in biology, it can make or break a genesis theory. Currently, abiogenesis as a theory is not sufficiently developed to be in full agreeance with chemical data gathered. Intelligent Design, however, does not suffer this flaw. If chemical analysis shows that the basis components of life, enzymes, RNA, and the like, are shown to be impossible to create under natural circumstances, Intelligent Design will be a much more powerful theory than it is now. Though RNA may be produced by an unknown process, it is unlikely, more likely than not only currently known chemical processes will be needed to verify if RNA is producible or not without life itself.

Astronomy, Geology, and Environmental Science will also contribute to testing Intelligent Design. If it is found that the Earth is the only place in the universe where life is suited ID will have an advantage over naturalistic processes. It predicts <i>why</i> Earth is the way it is while naturalistic theories cannot explain the apparantly miniscule chances that Earth turned out the way it is.

By studying currently living organisms, evidence for Intelligent Design may be gathered. By analyzing the physiology of animals, the structure of a cell, and the structure of cellular organelles, it can be determined how complex life really is. Intelligent Design predicts they will be incredibly complex with no simpler parts contributing to the basic constituents. The simplest components of life should be impossible to create using simpler components. If simpler components cannot give rise to the complexity of the simplest form of life, Intelligent Design stands as the only theory capable of explaining where life came from, it will have a credibility greater than that of science.

----------------------------------------------------------

I am currently reviewing current evidence, such as the fossil record, looking for any indicators of if Intelligent Design is plausible or not. This takes time and dedication of course and so anything beyond this point will take a long time to be written. However this is very much a work in progress, until all current observations are taken into account, this post is not complete.

All your predictions as yet are about what we're not going to find, rather than what we are. That's called "proving a negative" and is pretty much impossible (short of proving a contradictory fact, a chance for which is not provided as yet in your post). Plus, as evolutionists at places like TalkOrigins often point out, disproving evolution isn't proving ID. Looks like there's still more evidence to find.

I'm starting to think that maybe evolution is scientific but nonetheless wrong, and that ID is nonscientific (perhaps even "pseudoscientific") but nonetheless correct. Just like the statement "the universe exists" as I mentioned on the other thread.

This could also be true from the fact that science as many define it is by definition naturalistic, and thus will wrongly identify a naturalistic cause even where a supernatural one is objectively correct.

jerickson314 wrote:All your predictions as yet are about what we're not going to find, rather than what we are. That's called "proving a negative" and is pretty much impossible (short of proving a contradictory fact, a chance for which is not provided as yet in your post). Plus, as evolutionists at places like TalkOrigins often point out, disproving evolution isn't proving ID. Looks like there's still more evidence to find.

I'm starting to think that maybe evolution is scientific but nonetheless wrong, and that ID is nonscientific (perhaps even "pseudoscientific") but nonetheless correct. Just like the statement "the universe exists" as I mentioned on the other thread.

This could also be true from the fact that science as many define it is by definition naturalistic, and thus will wrongly identify a naturalistic cause even where a supernatural one is objectively correct.

Um... no.

Not once was evolution mentioned.

And yes, it is possible to prove a negative as you say it is, it is possible to prove that something cannot be made from something else. An orange cannot be made up of apple slices, this is the angle at which chemical evidence can be used to support intelligent design.

Then there's the prediction about the fossil record, it will be sporadic, abrupt, and choppy.

I've notided both Evolution and ID proponents make predictions that really have nothing to do with their theory but they know have already happened to make it look like their theory is valid. For example:

The fossil record will not show a gradualistic change in organisms.

Why not? What's stopping God from starting with simple creatures and making more and more complex ones?

It will also be found that the conditions nescessary for life to exist will be unique to Earth.
Observations will conclude that conditions for life are extremely rare in the universe and that Earth is one of a kind. Complex life will not be found anywhere else in the universe.

Why? Why can't God make life on other planets?


Another problem: Impossibility of Abiogenesis does not disprove Evolution (and since ID opposes evolution, it does not prove ID by default).

Mastermind wrote:I've notided both Evolution and ID proponents make predictions that really have nothing to do with their theory but they know have already happened to make it look like their theory is valid. For example:

The fossil record will not show a gradualistic change in organisms.

Why not? What's stopping God from starting with simple creatures and making more and more complex ones?

It will also be found that the conditions nescessary for life to exist will be unique to Earth.
Observations will conclude that conditions for life are extremely rare in the universe and that Earth is one of a kind. Complex life will not be found anywhere else in the universe.

Why? Why can't God make life on other planets?


Another problem: Impossibility of Abiogenesis does not disprove Evolution (and since ID opposes evolution, it does not prove ID by default).

Because in this version of ID, evolution isn't implemented by God, it's another angle at which to tackle the origin of life and it's development, not an excuse to attack evolution.

He wouldn't make life on other planets because that would detract from us, and what He did for us, He made us unique amongst all His creation. If He did create life elsewhere, it would be basic and monocellular, if it was any more advanced it would've been noted in the Bible.

Yes, this is a christianized ID >_>

He wouldn't make life on other planets because that would detract from us, and what He did for us,

How?

He made us unique amongst all His creation.

How does the existance of other sentient life not make us unique? Angels are sentient so that goes out the window. And does it actually say He made us unique? What verse?

if it was any more advanced it would've been noted in the Bible.

Why? Jesus told the apostles to mind their own business a few times. I have a feeling that if you would have asked Him about aliens, He'd have said the same thing. There is absolutely no obligation (or reason) for God to mention them in the bible.

Dan wrote:And yes, it is possible to prove a negative as you say it is, it is possible to prove that something cannot be made from something else. An orange cannot be made up of apple slices, this is the angle at which chemical evidence can be used to support intelligent design.

Right, because you can prove that an orange is made of orange slices. This is what I meant by "proving a contradictory fact". Likewise, proving ID disproves naturalistic evolution. What doesn't follow is that disproving naturalistic evolution proves ID. Maybe the universe always existed exactly as it is now. This has been empirically disproven but is an example of a hypothetical alternative.

Maybe I have been listening too much to my English teacher about proving negatives, though...

Dan wrote:Then there's the prediction about the fossil record, it will be sporadic, abrupt, and choppy.

I glossed over that one. That would be an example of a positive prediction that would support ID, unless an alternative explanation could be found. Evolutionists usually use explanations like "fossil formation is rare". Some have shown their explanation to be statistically flawed, though, so your original argument still looks decent.

I do believe in OEC and ID, but I am wary of using arguments that have easy counterarguments. I have seen too many atheists reject ID and even Christianity just because the particular arguments they have seen don't hold water. Therefore, it is best to scrutinize evidence before using it. As I have mentioned before, the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims is a good place to check whether an argument is good or not (even though its creators probably don't like this use!).

Irreducible complexity and the anthropic principle are examples of arguments TalkOrigins obviously doesn't have a good refutation for, even though these arguments mostly just disprove the current naturalistic theories. The anthropic principle does seem to rule out naturalism almost entirely, though!

I will repeat the question I asked in the other forum: How does one do an experiment to determine if evolution as described by ToE is the result of intelligent design or just the consequence of existing physical laws? More generally, how does one do an experiment to determine if any observation is the result of intelligent design or not?

The scientific method is simple: hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. If one cannot do an experiment which could potentially falsify ID, then it is meaningless to discuss it as a scientific theory.

The ID theory suffers from Devine Fallacy. That is that whatever cannot be explained can be attributed to a designer.

"There is no evidence that evolution occured, therefore God created it."

"It looks complex. God did it."

Why not? What's stopping God from starting with simple creatures and making more and more complex ones?

This can be applied to anything that evolution can come up with. For all we know the universe was caused by naturalistic causes. whilst it did have a beginning are we to assume that the beginnings of a universe is something that only ID can vouch for?

I think not.

Just because something cannot be explained does not suggest that one day it will be.

Darwin_Rocks wrote:The ID theory suffers from Devine Fallacy. That is that whatever cannot be explained can be attributed to a designer.

You mean DIVINE fallacy?

This can be applied to anything that evolution can come up with. For all we know the universe was caused by naturalistic causes. whilst it did have a beginning are we to assume that the beginnings of a universe is something that only ID can vouch for?

I think not.

Just because something cannot be explained does not suggest that one day it will be.

I'm a theistic evolutionist so keep that in mind when rebutting points that are in your favor.

Darwin, it's not that things look complex....the fact is they are complex.

This can be applied to anything that evolution can come up with. For all we know the universe was caused by naturalistic causes. whilst it did have a beginning are we to assume that the beginnings of a universe is something that only ID can vouch for?

There has to be a universe for there to be naturalistic causes. Then, in addition, something cannot create itself.

Religion has long served the purpose of explaining observations which cannot be explained otherwise. Once upon a time, virtually all natural phenomena were explained using religious arguments. As our understanding of nature grew, we came to see that far simpler explanations existed, and we abandoned certain religious fables. There are two implications in this trend:

1. As humans we feel compelled to explain the world around us. It is evidently very difficult for us to accept an unanswered question. Thus, when confronted with the enormous complexity of biology—and all its unanswered questions—we feel absolutely compelled to fall back on the tendency to invoke religion and the supernatural to explain what we ourselves cannot.

2. There is a fear among some religious people that science may ultimately explain everything, and leave no room for religion. This is not true. If and when science discovers all the laws of nature, there will still be the question of why these laws exist at all. Science can never explain this; science can only discover these laws and make predictions based on them. Nothing more. The religious should embrace the scientific method, not brand its practicioners as atheists. Scientists study God's creation, and pose no other threat than to challenge your own personal and fallible beliefs. They cannot dethrone God, only your sense of well-being. When you impede them, you impede humankind's progress toward understanding God.

For those who earnestly seek truth, it is often necessary to live with the discomfort of an unanswered question. The alternative is to make up a false answer, dismiss the question, and remain forever ignorant of this piece of truth. This is the tendency of many: they seek solace in the mistaken belief that science proves their particular view of religion, and so can continue with their lives as if they have answered some fundamental questions. This is not science, and those who think otherwise are only shrinking from a quest which their religion encourages them to undertake.

I am sorry for this. I came here as a scientist and a religious person, only to find the most superficial debate on the relationship between science and religion. I asked a couple of fundamental questions, only to have them swept aside in a fruitless debate on what is possible under our currently held beliefs of scientific law—and mostly from those who understand very little about these laws. There are exceptions, of course, and I am sorry that the voices of reason (typically) are squelched by those who feel their own time, place, egocentricities, and inadequacies are sufficient to justify their religious beliefs. It is a shame—though not atypical—that the most vocal of religious supporters are the least qualified to argue the case for God. It is the tragic history of humankind that ignorant loudmouths often determine the course of human events, only to find posthumously that their strident convictions are antithetical to the teachings of Christ.

Blessings to all, that each in his own way may find his truth.

Kelly wrote:Blessings to all, that each in his own way may find his truth.

This quote borders on relativism, unless you just meant that people should think for themselves. Either Christianity is true or it isn't.

Do you consider yourself a theist, or a deist, or what? And do you believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and that the historical evidence supports this?

Saying that God created something is not a complete theory. It is a cop-out. Just because there are flaws in evolution does not mean that Intelligent Design happened.

Still Intelligent Design is not even proof of God anyway.

Complexity is relative. We look at a cell and see that it is a complex structure because it is all we know. Indeed there could be more complex structures in the Universe that we know about.

Evolution can provide for this complexity.

The biggest mistake that ID followers advocate is that new features cannot be added that aid to survival. That the organism will either survive or die.

However evolution provides features that are BETTER SUITED for that survival. E.g- A rat may develop a tongue that can better collect water, it does not mean that other rats cannot drink it just means that this one is better at it. This rat will then carry its genetic information to the next generation. This is a more Scientifically provable idea then one that states ID is the reason for life.

Another problem with Intelligent Design rests in the fact that the sole 'scientific evidence' for the theory. You say that the way the body functions is proof of a designer but what about the way in which the body doesn't function. i.e: What about organs and bones that have no specific purpose? Why would this omnipresent God even enable them to be so?

Also why is human life as fragile as it is? If he truly did love us surely he would give us something better equipped to handle a world that 'he' created. Instead we are locked inside a frail cage with only one spinal cord!

How does ID account for the problems with the human body?

Darwin_Rocks wrote:The biggest mistake that ID followers advocate is that new features cannot be added that aid to survival. That the organism will either survive or die.

However evolution provides features that are BETTER SUITED for that survival. E.g- A rat may develop a tongue that can better collect water, it does not mean that other rats cannot drink it just means that this one is better at it. This rat will then carry its genetic information to the next generation. This is a more Scientifically provable idea then one that states ID is the reason for life.

1.) How does natural selection favor something that is only a slight improvement? What would cause the gene to permeate the population? Why aren't all the transitional forms still living, if there wasn't a reason for some to live and some to die? Then there's irreducible complexity, in which case all the features must be present in a system for it to have any benefit to natural selection. I have read several attempts by evolutionists to refute IC, but all of them were quite lame. See for instance here.

2.) Scientifically provable != true. ("!=" is "not equals"). If God did create the world, than that fact is true regardless of whether it can be tested using the scientific method. As I pointed out in another thread, even the existence of the universe can't be proven using the scientific method. Or the idea that things should be proven using the scientific method to be believed. See here for the evolutionist viewpoint.

3.) The ultimate problem with naturalistic evolution: How can you trust your brain's conclusion about evolution? Some people are born with mental disabilities and have a very warped view of the world. What if we all have a mental disability and our view of the world is completely false? If our brains come from random forces (even with gradualism and psuedo-design from natural selection), then we cannot trust them, period. We cannot begin to hope to comprehend the universe. You can read a failed attempt by TalkOrigins to refute this point here. Plus, your conclusion is then really just some chemicals reacting in your brain because of physical laws, so how can you know they correspond with reality?