Evidence for God from Science

Although I'm personally not confident it will be the mainstream position then, Michael Ruse who has philosophy of biology (especially Darwinism)
ethics, the history and philosophy of science, and William Dembski a mathematician and also philosopher, both seem to agree and accept it will at least be a common stance in schools and even amongst scientists in 10 years.

Download/view their discussion on Nightline at http://www.telicthoughts.com/media/dembski-ruse-1.wmv.

Kurieuo.

no

intelligent design is not science.

intelligent design is not science.

According to what standards? If you say some of these things, you have to define standards. And, I do believe, it is about as scientific as evolution...(and, as evolution isn't scientific...)

If ID is science, then how does one do an experiment to determine whether or not any given observation is the result of intelligent design or not? If it is not possible to do this, then ID is not a science.

It shouldn't matter if ID is a stance in the schoolbooks in 10 years, or tomorrow. What does it "prove" about theology in general? Does it weed through the complex myriad of Theistic propositions and choose one or the other that is absolutely true? Does it prove the infallibility of the Bible, or the truth of the Koran? What does it matter if there is intelligent Design and we still have to ponder over WHO this ID is?

Great point Hamilrob: Why would we teach a subject which offers us neither scientific insight nor religious insight. ID is a waste of time.

Kelly is right. there is no scientific insight in Intelligent Design; Only an effort to prove the existence of GOD. The anthropomorphic principle states that this is the universe that we understand and evaluate because WE are here. Any "intelligently designed" universe with numbers not equal to ours perhaps was not capable of supporting intelligent life, or at least US, so we have no way of knowing anything at all about that or those other universes that perhaps came about as a result of the interaction of mathematical values of a different description.

You can teach intelligent design, but you have to teach scholarly opposition to the conclusion that ID means there is a God. There could be quadrillions of universes "out there", of which the only one we can measure is "in here" where WE are. There could have been quadrillions of explosions of energy which failed to produce the numbers necessary for success, which would mean either the ID was throwing dice, or there was no ID, just probability, and probability is the best bet for what truly exists "out there".

Intelligent design would have to take responsibility for every flaw in human nature there is; Every birth defect, every war, every irrational murder or act. Intelligent design would include the contradiction between an intelligently designed environment replete with forest fires, hurricanes and tornadoes which kill, and the tectonic plates which shift and cause deadly earthquakes and tsunamis which wipe out large numbers of people, causing their survivors endless depression, sadness and misery.

If an intelligent designer intended to design a universe in which we humans would inevitably suffer, then he, she, or "it" could have asked us first if we wanted to participate.

Only an effort to prove the existence of GOD.

Who needs to prove the existence of God? ID is not an effort to prove the existence of God -- it's an attempt to put into terms that people can understand the truths that have been known for thousands of years already. You try to isolate one branch of science from the others, and then claim its conclusions are faulty. It is not from ID alone that we draw the conclusion that there is a God. Philosophy, Cosmology, Archaeology, Psychology, and Sociology all back up this conclusion. Doing a little bit of reading -- particularly "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis -- would do you good.

Intelligent design would have to take responsibility for every flaw in human nature there is; Every birth defect, every war, every irrational murder or act.

Yes...and no. Our God clearly takes responsibility for what we have, including birth defects. He does not, however, take responsibility for what we <B>do</B> with what He's given us. You might think a birth defect or a terminal disease to be a horrible, agonizing thing. In a sense it is, of course, but to a Christian it's merely a temporary inconvenience which will end only to be replaced with pleasures immeasurable. Read the parable of the talents sometimes -- Jesus fully admits that he gives more to some than to others. It seems unfair until you realize that He also expects more from the person to whom much is given. In other words, what you're given, and what's expected from you balances out.

Intelligent design would include the contradiction between an intelligently designed environment replete with forest fires, hurricanes and tornadoes which kill, and the tectonic plates which shift and cause deadly earthquakes and tsunamis which wipe out large numbers of people, causing their survivors endless depression, sadness and misery.

Yes, yes. The whole "how can a good God allow suffering" argument. What causes earthquakes? Tectonic plate activity. What does tectonic plate activity also do? Why, it keeps land above sea level, giving us a surface on which to live! Forest fires clear out old, dead growth and make room for new, richer growth! Ditto to tornadoes and hurricanes. The forces that <B>keep our planet alive</B> are powerful and can cause great destruction. We as people are smart enough, however, to notice that "here is a place with lots of tornadoes" and "here is a place that gets lot of hurricanes." <B>We choose to build in these places anyway,</B> and then have the gall to blame <B>God</B> for our stupid decisions. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

There could have been quadrillions of explosions of energy which failed to produce the numbers necessary for success, which would mean either the ID was throwing dice, or there was no ID, just probability, and probability is the best bet for what truly exists "out there".

Now you get into the metaphysical and theological yourself. Could there have been an infinite number of spawned "universes?" Perhaps. This cannot be confirmed, examined, or tested, however, so is just as much theology as anything we claim.

Then there's the problem of where all these infinite random universes came from. There would have to be some sort of super-universe, or a universe-making machine. Which then begs the question -- where did this "super universe" come from? Where did it get the materials and the energy to churn out these universes?

The only answer is that this universe-making machine is transcendent. It has an infinite amount of matter and energy to spew out because it doesn't adhere to our universe's laws. A cursory glance shows that our universe is a universe of order. The earthquake, the tornado, the flood...unpleasant, but quite orderly. So the most logical assumption is that this "super universe" is also orderly -- that it creates all these universes with a design in mind.

What a great forum. Alas, it is now keeping me from my affairs, but i must acknowledge your reply, little shepherd. read the home page of the website and you will see where the effort is being made to prove the existence of God through the concept of ID. I didn't make that up.

Philosophy, Cosmology, Archaeology, Psychology, and Sociology all back up this conclusion

I am not sure what you mean here. I don't mind speculation and inference leading to the conclusion that there is a God because those means can be challenged. Direct evidence is far more difficult to challenge. You mix Id in with these venues as if ID has no special nature in itself as an attempt at empirical proof of God. What exactly makes you conclude that there is a God, apart from inference, imagination, and speculation?

I have to get to the rest of your reply at a later time. Yes, i was speculating on the other universes, but there is a similarity between theology and science as well as a major difference. Science willfully withdraws its conclusions in light of new evidence to the contrary. Theology, or might i say, religion is far less resilient. It sticks to its story no matter what, making excuses and rationalizing, and that's what you did with your responses to the birth defects and the hurricanes, etc.

I do a LOT of reading, not a little, and I HAVE read C.S. Lewis. I just don't agree with him. Thank you for your reply. i have to get back to you later.

hamilrob wrote:What a great forum. Alas, it is now keeping me from my affairs, but i must acknowledge your reply, little shepherd. read the home page of the website and you will see where the effort is being made to prove the existence of God through the concept of ID. I didn't make that up.

I will say that I think ID is evidence for the existence of some kind of God. Nonetheless, the fact that some people attempt to prove God through ID does not mean that everyone does.

hamilrob wrote:I don't mind speculation and inference leading to the conclusion that there is a God because those means can be challenged. Direct evidence is far more difficult to challenge. You mix Id in with these venues as if ID has no special nature in itself as an attempt at empirical proof of God. What exactly makes you conclude that there is a God, apart from inference, imagination, and speculation?

What exactly makes you conclude that you have a brain, apart from inference, imagination, and speculation? Ever cut open your head or X-rayed for it? Can those who have never had x-rays believe that they have brains?

What exactly makes you conclude that your anatomy is like everyone else's, apart from inference, imagination, and speculation?

What exactly makes you conclude that multiple universes exist, aside from inference imagination, and speculation?

What exactly, apart from inference, imagination, and speculation, makes you conclude that there is something wrong with a conclusion from inference, imagination, and speculation?

hamilrob wrote:I have to get to the rest of your reply at a later time. Yes, i was speculating on the other universes, but there is a similarity between theology and science as well as a major difference. Science willfully withdraws its conclusions in light of new evidence to the contrary. Theology, or might i say, religion is far less resilient. It sticks to its story no matter what, making excuses and rationalizing, and that's what you did with your responses to the birth defects and the hurricanes, etc.

Actually, this is because we believe in divine revelation from God, who logically cannot be wrong. This is why the conclusions don't change. Science makes no such claim.

I have had several EEGs that show I have a brain. I have thoughts, and I have imagination. I am a pianist. I am human. Need I go on?

I have had An echogram and an EKG that shows I have a heart. I hear and feel my heart beating. I have had stomach aches and bone fractures and a host of other events which prove that I have an anatomy. And yes, I have seen the x-rays, the EEG and the EKG as well as the bone protruding from my hand when it broke. Excuse me if I decide against cutting myself open.

Are you confusing inference with empirical reality? Am I not making myself clear? Can you give God my Phone number and have Him/Her/It call me? Can you take a picture of him/her/it or an X-Ray?

What exactly, apart from inference, imagination, and speculation, makes you conclude that there is something wrong with a conclusion from inference, imagination, and speculation?

Nothing's wrong with that kind of conclusion until you try to force it on others and irrationally claim it to be true as you did with your closing statement. nothing's wrong with it until you use it to force social action through warfare. You have to be open to change and your closing statement indicates you are rigid.

Fortunately, science provides a venue for change.

BTW, Where do you want people to live to be sheltered from the trials of nature? Where do YOU live? Are you safe and secure from all. alarm where you have chosen to live?

Actually, this is because we believe in divine revelation from God, who logically cannot be wrong. This is why the conclusions don't change. Science makes no such claim.

And Thank God for that, huh?

I really must go. I will get back to you. I promise...unless I get raptured before I get back.

hamilrob wrote:I have had several EEGs that show I have a brain.

OK, but if you hadn't would you still conclude you had a brain?

hamilrob wrote:I have thoughts, and I have imagination.

A soul, perhaps? Inference to just assume it must be a brain.

hamilrob wrote:I am a pianist.

Player pianos don't need brains. The brain isn't the only logically possible cause of this effect. Perhaps a soul would work as well.

hamilrob wrote:I am human.

Inference. Some people don't have legs, why do you have to have a brain?

hamilrob wrote:Are you confusing inference with empirical reality? Am I not making myself clear? Can you give God my Phone number and have Him/Her/It call me? Can you take a picture of him/her/it or an X-Ray?

Can I give Osama Bin Laden your phone number and have him call you? I guess he doesn't exist.

Actually, I would say that maybe God doesn't want to perform the miracle of calling you on the phone. He could if He wanted to. However, not being God I can't fully explain His reasons.

What about the solution to a calculus problem? Math is like 99% inference; does that make it invalid? I can't x-ray just any problem involving imaginary numbers for instance.

Oh, and I can't photograph the body of some historical person who has been creamated. I could photograph the ashes, but that would be poor proof. I guess everyone who was cremated before the camera was invented just never existed. And don't try paintings. Ever heard of Dali? Paintings don't prove anything, aside from inference.

What exactly, apart from inference, imagination, and speculation, makes you conclude that there is something wrong with a conclusion from inference, imagination, and speculation?

hamilrob wrote:Nothing's wrong with that kind of conclusion until you try to force it on others and irrationally claim it to be true as you did with your closing statement. nothing's wrong with it until you use it to force social action through warfare.

Empirical evidence, please.

Without that you can't force it on me.

And "inference" is the odd ball out. Inference is perfectly reasonable, as valid as empirical evidence.

I would consider any conclusion for which a truth claim is "irrational" to have something seriously wrong with it.

hamilrob wrote:You have to be open to change and your closing statement indicates you are rigid.

No, I am open to some changes as the evidence leads. However, I have found plenty of other evidence that divine inspiration exists. Fulfilled prophesy, for example. I have changed views before, though. I used to believe in a young earth and now I believe in an old earth, for example.

hamilrob wrote:Fortunately, science provides a venue for change.

Here it seems that you hold a philosophy called "scientism". Scientism holds that science is superior to all other intellectual disciplines. However, even science itself rests on philosophy, and thus science cannot be superior to philosophy! Scientism doesn't make any sense to me.

hamilrob wrote:And Thank God for that, huh?

Actually, yeah! Although as pointed out elsewhere, evidence for my statements does exist. It's not just subjective belief.

You ARE persistent, L.S. Right now we are talking past each other, so I think I have made my point. And I am not a player piano. Jeez... give me a break, will ya? You KNOW what I am saying and your attempts to discount me are not very effective, but i admire your courage and maybe your faith if it is a good thing for you and the world around you.

So you are now an old earth creationist. Well THAT's a step in the right direction. Keep it up. Enlightenment begins as a glimmer in many.

I will have to look up the word inference, because I amy have used it wrongly.

Additional link to all concerned:

I have a book I think is relevant to the whole discussion, not just ID. You may check out the website for the book at http://www.ggod.info. Reactions are well received and greatly appreciated, (as well as orders).

hamilrob wrote:You ARE persistent, L.S. Right now we are talking past each other, so I think I have made my point. And I am not a player piano. Jeez... give me a break, will ya? You KNOW what I am saying and your attempts to discount me are not very effective, but i admire your courage and maybe your faith if it is a good thing for you and the world around you.

I guess you proved that the brain example wasn't the best. I'm still waiting on the multiple universes, though.

I do happen to believe that you have a brain . I am just pointing out that empirical evidence may not have been collected for a particular person having a brain. This doesn't invalidate the conclusion. Although as you did point out, empirical evidence is available. However, I imagine you would accept the existence of a brain for someone who had never had EEGs. You don't demand empirical evidence for everything you accept.

BTW, I'm not LS. You did figure that out, didn't you?

hamilrob wrote:So you are now an old earth creationist. Well THAT's a step in the right direction. Keep it up. Enlightenment begins as a glimmer in many.

Does it interest you that I sometimes look at TalkOrigins? I don't just ignore evidence as you seem to think.