Why Science Does Not Disprove God

[IcyPatriot]

http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/

But much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the Universe: Why is our Universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life? This question has never been answered satisfactorily, and I believe that it will never find a scientific solution. For the deeper we delve into the mysteries of physics and cosmology, the more the Universe appears to be intricate and incredibly complex. To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden “wisdom,” or structure, or a knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature. And the situation becomes much more daunting as we expand our view to the entire cosmos.

 

[patsfan13]

Basically this boils down to is the universe intelligent ie conscious or just a dead dumb mechanism.

 

[SalemPats]

Science might not, but common sense and logic do

 

[The Brandon Five]

Science might not, but common sense and logic do

It's a shame that you lack both.

 

[Christiancat]

http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/

God created Heaven and Earth. No amount of science will ever change that. Yet evolutionists want to take away credit from God for creating everything. Another thing that upsets me is that prayer and the teachings of Christ were taken out of public schools. However, these public schools allow evolution to be taught.

Anyways, awesome post ICY!

 

[chicowalker]

God created Heaven and Earth. No amount of science will ever change that. Yet evolutionists want to take away credit from God for creating everything. Another thing that upsets me is that prayer and the teachings of Christ were taken out of public schools. However, these public schools allow evolution to be taught.

Anyways, awesome post ICY!

Evolution and creation are 2 different things.

Of course evolution is taught -- in science class. Creationism isn't science (nor is "intelligent design").

Why would the teachings of Christ be taught in public school, other than in a religion class if a school happens to offer that? and in that class, of course, the teachings of all major religions would be taught -- Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., not just Christianity.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Evolution and creation are 2 different things.

Of course evolution is taught -- in science class. Creationism isn't science (nor is "intelligent design").

I think stuff like ID is important to give kids an honest picture of what science can and cannot explain. Most curricula do not treat this subject honestly. There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns here. ID raises some interesting objections. There is another school looking at it from the angle of Information Theory. The basic idea is that random signals never generate information. DNA is information. QED.

Check out John Lennox of Oxford University if you have the time and interest.

http://johnlennox.org/

 

[chicowalker]

I think stuff like ID is important to give kids an honest picture of what science can and cannot explain. Most curricula do not treat this subject honestly. There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns here. ID raises some interesting objections. There is another school looking at it from the angle of Information Theory. The basic idea is that random signals never generate information. DNA is information. QED.

Check out John Lennox of Oxford University if you have the time and interest.

http://johnlennox.org/

I can't speak to how various curricula address that, but when I was in school we were always taught that there are limitations to science, and the people I know who have gone into science in some manner as a profession tend to be even more keenly aware of that than most other people.

So I agree with you that those limitations absolutely should be taught. I just don't view ID as a good way to do that.

 

[The Brandon Five]

I can't speak to how various curricula address that, but when I was in school we were always taught that there are limitations to science, and the people I know who have gone into science in some manner as a profession tend to be even more keenly aware of that than most other people.

I am glad that was your experience. That was definitely not mine. I remember my ninth grade science teacher treating all of it like established fact. I was an atheist at the time, so it didn't bother me. It does bother me to think that others might make a decision about faith based on that kind of sophistry. My college Biology teacher had a similar attitude.

So I agree with you that those limitations absolutely should be taught. I just don't view ID as a good way to do that.

Why is that? I think the questions about how mechanisms that would require multiple mutations in order to be constructed make perfect sense in light of the fact that they don't confer any advantage until that last step is completed. The usual response to those questions is more hand-waving.

 

[chicowalker]

I am glad that was your experience. That was definitely not mine. I remember my ninth grade science teacher treating all of it like established fact. I was an atheist at the time, so it didn't bother me. It does bother me to think that others might make a decision about faith based on that kind of sophistry. My college Biology teacher had a similar attitude...

That's too bad. I think I generally had good science teachers all the way into college. Was actually thinking about being some sort of science major until freshman year, when I realized that I wasn't all that good at any of it at the college level.

Funny thing about faith and science -- which fits neatly with the thread title -- is that, even though I'm an atheist and pretty much always have been one, I never viewed religious faith and belief in scientific theories as at all incompatible. I don't know if I was relatively sheltered, if views have changed or both, but I feel like far more people now are evolution-deniers than was the case 20-30 years ago.

Most people I knew growing up had some level of religious faith, yet virtually none had any trouble also believing in evolution. Even the most devout friends and family had no problem with evolution.

...
Why is that? I think the questions about how mechanisms that would require multiple mutations in order to be constructed make perfect sense in light of the fact that they don't confer any advantage until that last step is completed. The usual response to those questions is more hand-waving.

Two reasons come to mind. For starters, and this is the most important to me is the most basic -- that the limitations of science don't require ID as an example in order to be taught.

The second is that intelligent design simply isn't science. If you want to talk about hand-waving, isn't simply resorting to the notion of some god being behind everything the ultimate in handwaving? (No offense intended here -- I know you're religious and I respect that, but when we start mixing science with religion, I hope I can speak frankly without it being taken the wrong way)

Third regards what you sem to be bringing up here, the irreducible complexity argument. I've read alleged examples of that and, with them, pretty convincing refutations of them as examples supporting ID or disproving evolutin.

 

[Boogs]

I'm no science guy. But I did take an anthropology class. And I was shocked that evolution has very little evidence from ape like caveman to modern humans. I just figured they would have more to back up their side. No offense to evolutionists. I never bought it to begin with becuase I believe God created man like in Genesis. The lady that taught our small class was a very nice lady. So I never asked too many questions and didn't want to offend. But they would find one bone and construct a skull out of it and act like it was scientific fact that this picture we were looking at was our ancestor. I think all we have been able to prove is natural selection within a species. Am I right on that? I cannot prove God created everything either but I believe it.
I do think the earth is older than what creationists say. And I believe that there was tens of thousands of years or more between Genesis 1:1-2 and Genesis 1:3. And that thought doesn't necessarily go against what the Bible says. Starting with verse 3, that is when he started counting days.
I believe Satan and 1/3 of his angels were cast out of heaven before verse 3. I think the lost civilization of Atlantis could have been these evil spiritual beings and God destroyed it because he had plans on earth for man (who is made in his image) to fill the earth.
But who really knows.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Most people I knew growing up had some level of religious faith, yet virtually none had any trouble also believing in evolution. Even the most devout friends and family had no problem with evolution.

I dunno if evolution-denial is more common now or not, but I am not an evolution denier. My stance is that the mechanism of evolution (mutation plus natural selection) is established scientific fact. That is not in dispute. The issue is whether that mechanism explains the complexity of all life and where that first cell came from.

Two reasons come to mind. For starters, and this is the most important to me is the most basic -- that the limitations of science don't require ID as an example in order to be taught.

The second is that intelligent design simply isn't science. If you want to talk about hand-waving, isn't simply resorting to the notion of some god being behind everything the ultimate in handwaving? (No offense intended here -- I know you're religious and I respect that, but when we start mixing science with religion, I hope I can speak frankly without it being taken the wrong way)

I think it is just as much science as theories like the "Hopeful Monster" theory and "punctuated equilibrium".

Third regards what you sem to be bringing up here, the irreducible complexity argument. I've read alleged examples of that and, with them, pretty convincing refutations of them as examples supporting ID or disproving evolutin.

I haven't seen any refutations that I found convincing as of yet. Any refutations I have seen are theoretical in nature and not based on quaint scientific principles such as physical evidence, but maybe I am out of the loop.

 

[chicowalker]

I dunno if evolution-denial is more common now or not, but I am not an evolution denier. My stance is that the mechanism of evolution (mutation plus natural selection) is established scientific fact. That is not in dispute. The issue is whether that mechanism explains the complexity of all life and where that first cell came from.
...

I don't think evolution theory purports to explain all that.

...
I think it is just as much science as theories like the "Hopeful Monster" theory and "punctuated equilibrium"....

maybe -- I'm not sure what those are. I was never taught either in any classes I took.

...
I haven't seen any refutations that I found convincing as of yet. Any refutations I have seen are theoretical in nature and not based on quaint scientific principles such as physical evidence, but maybe I am out of the loop.

If you demand physical evidence, how can you support ID -- or irreducible complexity arguments -- as science?

My recollection on the irreducible complexity arguments and their refutations is that the very premise of the irreducible complexity arguments has been pretty persuasively been shown to be false. if the premise of a hypothesis is false, the hypothesis is going to be false.

(I'm not trying to convince you, btw -- I don't remember the arguments or evidence and am not going to spend the time to find good links)

 

[The Brandon Five]

If you demand physical evidence, how can you support ID -- or irreducible complexity arguments -- as science?

The ID argument is based on physical evidence. Things like a flagellum are made of multiple parts. A refutation that is based on opinion is not conclusive either way.

My recollection on the irreducible complexity arguments and their refutations is that the very premise of the irreducible complexity arguments has been pretty persuasively been shown to be false. if the premise of a hypothesis is false, the hypothesis is going to be false.

(I'm not trying to convince you, btw -- I don't remember the arguments or evidence and am not going to spend the time to find good links)

I'll have to read up on the objections, but I must admit to being puzzled by the idea of the premise being refuted.

 

[chicowalker]

The ID argument is based on physical evidence. Things like a flagellum are made of multiple parts. A refutation that is based on opinion is not conclusive either way.
I'll have to read up on the objections, but I must admit to being puzzled by the idea of the premise being refuted.

not sure if this is what you're saying, but just because something has multiple parts doesn't require a god to have designed it.

When it comes to irreducible complexity, the things I've read have demonstrated, for example, that interim evolutionary steps which supposedly could have served no purpose regarding survival may well in fact have done so.

 

[everlong]

God created Heaven and Earth. No amount of science will ever change that. Yet evolutionists want to take away credit from God for creating everything. Another thing that upsets me is that prayer and the teachings of Christ were taken out of public schools. However, these public schools allow evolution to be taught.

Anyways, awesome post ICY!

Christ should be taken out of PUBLIC schools. I'm sure if a school district decided to start teaching Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or something else non-Christian you would feel different. Regardless it's a separation of church and state.

I'm in the rare minority that believe in some sort of god and science at the same time. Science to me would be god's tools and how he managed it all. If people of faith just looked at science in this manner I think everybody would move on to solving more important issues.

 

[Nikolai]

Christ should be taken out of PUBLIC schools. I'm sure if a school district decided to start teaching Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or something else non-Christian you would feel different. Regardless it's a separation of church and state.

I'm in the rare minority that believe in some sort of god and science at the same time. Science to me would be god's tools and how he managed it all. If people of faith just looked at science in this manner I think everybody would move on to solving more important issues.

Smart post. My belief in a god is pretty much in line with whatever Judaism would toss out I guess, but I tend to see science as the process of revealing the inner workings of the universe. I don't think god and science contradict one another.

Now, science is useful as a cudgel to beat down silly or absurd religious claims about the universe, and has been faithfully doing that for centuries.

 

[patsfan13]

If one believes in God then science (ie the rules of the physical) can never be in conflict with religion. If you believe in a creator. Whatever we learn is simply a manifestation of that Creation.

There is math surrounding self organizing systems in nature, it could perhaps lend a clue to the idea of ID if one chooses to believe the universe is intelligent instead of random.

Some calculations have been done as to the odds of random mutation producing creatures like mammals the odds are pretty daunting.

 

[chicowalker]

...
Some calculations have been done as to the odds of random mutation producing creatures like mammals the odds are pretty daunting.

I've heard these "calculations" referenced many times, but I don't think anybody has ever been able to explain how they were performed.

If we're going to talk odds of something like this, I'd be curious what the analog was to one roll of the dice or toss of a coin, given how old and vast the universe is.

(The first paragraph of your post is clearly true.)

 

[patsfan13]

I've heard these "calculations" referenced many times, but I don't think anybody has ever been able to explain how they were performed.

If we're going to talk odds of something like this, I'd be curious what the analog was to one roll of the dice or toss of a coin, given how old and vast the universe is.

(The first paragraph of your post is clearly true.)

Here are articles discussing information theory and probabilities of random life occurrence. 1 'supporting' the idea and 2 'refuting' the idea. IT can't be proven one way or the other at this point I find some of the handwaving pretty funny though since the topic engenders a lot of emotion and prejudices.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

http://www.coppit.org/god/hoyle.php

I have wondered about FRedkin's Digital physics ideas which are pretty unconventional but interesting if yo have ever played with Cellular Automata.