[_ Old Earth _] "God did it" - the end of human inquiry?

[Jayls5]

When we are confronted with a perplexing issue in science, how does the explanation "God did it" advance human knowledge?

Is it not an answer that essentially squelches further investigation? If not, then why?

I can't see how anyone would continue investigation after that answer unless they followed it with, "well let's find out how God did it." In that instance, how is that practically different than someone who denies God's influence on a scientific matter and investigates it? At best, it seems like an unnecessary step to include God.

Thoughts?

 

[Drew]

Interesting question.

I think that there might indeed be some merit in allowing one's investigation of the world to be informed by a belief in God. In other words, there might indeed be some kind of practical benefit to this approach.

Let's say that we are trying to explain some phenomena "X" in the sense of trying to develop a scientific model of it (or extend and / or modify an existing model to accomodate X). Lets say that we also have a set of beliefs {B} about God and His/Her nature. If God really does exist, and if the set of beliefs {B} is indeed factually true of God, then our search for a scientific description of X might be shortened - since we can use {B} to get at the "best" scientific model sooner than we otherwise would have.

I believe that nothing I have said contradicts the strengths of the scientific approach to understanding the world.

I believe that all advances in science are initiated by an "intuition" or a hypothesis. Then we apply the scientific technique to see how it fares. If a correct knowledge of the characteristics of God informs these initial intuitions, and if we are otherwise true to the scientific approach in transforming those intuitions into a valid scientific theory, we can, I claim, get at a good scientific model earlier than we otherwise might.

 

[John]

"Evolution is unproved and is unprovable. We
believe in it because the only alternative is Creation which is unthinkable"
- Sir Arther Keith

Hey cool, all this debate and such and this small sentence exposes the truth better then any i have seen.

 

[Drew]

"Evolution is unproved and is unprovable. We
believe in it because the only alternative is Creation which is unthinkable"
- Sir Arther Keith

Hey cool, all this debate and such and this small sentence exposes the truth better then any i have seen.

No it does not.

It is simply thought-stopping "religious propaganda". As a Christian, I will continue to argue that we need to take the high ground and actually engage the debate (evolution, in this case) and not use the cynical tools of the rhetorician to try to win the point.

 

[John]

"Evolution is unproved and is unprovable. We
believe in it because the only alternative is Creation which is unthinkable"
- Sir Arther Keith

Hey cool, all this debate and such and this small sentence exposes the truth better then any i have seen.

No it does not.

It is simply thought-stopping "religious propaganda". As a Christian, I will continue to argue that we need to take the high ground and actually engage the debate (evolution, in this case) and not use the cynical tools of the rhetorician to try to win the point.

Implied Sarcasm

 

[jwu]

"Evolution is unproved and is unprovable. We
believe in it because the only alternative is Creation which is unthinkable"
- Sir Arther Keith

Hey cool, all this debate and such and this small sentence exposes the truth better then any i have seen.

Uh...are you aware that Arthur Keith died 1955? That's a mere two years after DNA was even discoverd, and long before any significant analysis has taken place.

Moreover, nothing in science is ever proven...

 

[TanNinety]

At best, it seems like an unnecessary step to include God.

I am not quite sure about this question. Include God where? I know of no science that requires "God exists" as a premise/axiom/corollary. If your question is on a personal level about why a person should believe "God exists" to investigate, the question then can also be asked "why exclude God?". Excluding God seems like an unnecessary step as well.

If we take two researchers at SETI with a dish up at the sky and listening to the noise of the heavenlies. Does one guys opinion that "aliens exist" alter the experimental results to the other guys "aliens don't exist"?

Just as we both might like/dislike ice-cream for different reasons, two people might like to investigate the "how" of the universe for two different reasons. To assume that atheists are somehow excluding "unnecessary" steps is naive. I am sure you have your own personal reason for such a search which scientifically is unnecessary. But how can we declare that another person's search cannot begin in God? What objectivity do we use to say that one reason for investigation is more unnecessary than some other reason?

As long as we don't muddle the data/evidence with bias of these reasons and opinions I don't see any thing wrong with personally including or excluding God. Both including and excluding God however seem to be unecessary steps, IMO.

 

[Jayls5]

Interesting question.

I think that there might indeed be some merit in allowing one's investigation of the world to be informed by a belief in God. In other words, there might indeed be some kind of practical benefit to this approach.

Let's say that we are trying to explain some phenomena "X" in the sense of trying to develop a scientific model of it (or extend and / or modify an existing model to accomodate X). Lets say that we also have a set of beliefs {B} about God and His/Her nature. If God really does exist, and if the set of beliefs {B} is indeed factually true of God, then our search for a scientific description of X might be shortened - since we can use {B} to get at the "best" scientific model sooner than we otherwise would have.

I believe that nothing I have said contradicts the strengths of the scientific approach to understanding the world.

I believe that all advances in science are initiated by an "intuition" or a hypothesis. Then we apply the scientific technique to see how it fares. If a correct knowledge of the characteristics of God informs these initial intuitions, and if we are otherwise true to the scientific approach in transforming those intuitions into a valid scientific theory, we can, I claim, get at a good scientific model earlier than we otherwise might.

Wait, so "God did it" is a scientific description? How can you test that?

How would a scientific model with an explanation, "God did it" ever be practical in any way? I simply cannot see it being practical unless it is "practical" to stop searching for answers. By practical, I mean useful.

The only possible useful thing a "God did it" explanation could ever lead to is less money "wasted" on research. However, in order to scientifically support this claim, you'd have to spend money researching whether or not it's wasteful to research something - if at all it is possible to prove that "God did it." That's essentially what happens already with scientific research... if we don't get reliable results, we stop researching.

A "scientific" model of "God did it" can never be useful to the general public in my eyes. Maybe you can explain how it would.

 

[Drew]

Wait, so "God did it" is a scientific description? How can you test that?

Whoa. I never said anything remotely like this. Please read exactly what I write and do not assume that I believe things that are not stated or implied in my post - I believe my post in no way implies that "God did it" is part of the scientific description. Perhaps you have assumed that my model will contain stuff from the set {B}. I never said that it would.

My point was this: If God exists and if we have correct beliefs about God, this can hone our search for "starting hypotheses" and therefore save us time. However, the content of the model itself does not contain any "God did it" stuff.

I believe that God exists and that He has divinely inspired humans to write the Bible. Fine. Is it possible that I am correct about this? Of course it is possible. Now suppose some prophet in the Bible declares "verily and forsooth, our God loveth even numbers and has constructed the universe in such a manner".

If I am sitting in meadow scratching my head and trying to come up with a hypotheses, that I will later subject to the normal "no God" scientific process, about the number of elementary particles that exist. Suppose further, and I suggest this is entirely possible, that the available evidence seems to leave the possibility of 4,5,6,7 equally open.

I may choose to hypothesize that there are 4 or 6. I would save exploring 5, 7 till later. If the Scriptures are indeed reliable, I have saved time since I will, on average get to the best scientific model sooner than otherwise. This is all I claimed in my first post (I think).

I have not included "God did it" in any way in my actual model.

 

[freeway]

I believe that sometimes all we can say is God did it, like where did all the matter in the universe come from? Now really! does anyone really know, So for me to say "God did it" is by no means any worse than for you to say "well we must have came from some spacemen or form a puddle of water billions of years ago"

I believe johnmuise quoted it best in his little quote.. without evolution what do we have left, a creator!

little side note, you say when man first evolved("I believe thats a load of crap") if evolution started by just a few primates or whatever you want, a couple of tadpoles trying to see who could climb out of the slim hole first. But while in those few same numbers evolution was occurring? but today with over 6 billion humans alone running wild, we see no sign of evolution. You would think with that many numbers we would see something, the tips of our fingers becoming square to fit the keypad on the computer better. Or are we perfect (nah) That is just one little piece of non-evidence to make me look to the creator. "GOD"

1 - This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe:
Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

2 - This is the evolutionary formula for making life:
Dirt + water + time = living creatures.

"1 and 2 are from a site I like to visit." freeway

Evolutionist needs billions of years to say evolution works without seeing evolution happen, without the billions of years for it to happen, then it can't happen! then all they have left is (faith) that it did happen? Isn't that curricular reasoning? :crazyeyes:

Whats left to say... "GOD DID IT"

 

[Dunzo]

I believe that sometimes all we can say is God did it, like where did all the matter in the universe come from? Now really! does anyone really know, So for me to say "God did it" is by no means any worse than for you to say "well we must have came from some spacemen or form a puddle of water billions of years ago"

I believe johnmuise quoted it best in his little quote.. without evolution what do we have left, a creator!

little side note, you say when man first evolved("I believe thats a load of crap") if evolution started by just a few primates or whatever you want, a couple of tadpoles trying to see who could climb out of the slim hole first. But while in those few same numbers evolution was occurring? but today with over 6 billion humans alone running wild, we see no sign of evolution. You would think with that many numbers we would see something, the tips of our fingers becoming square to fit the keypad on the computer better. Or are we perfect (nah) That is just one little piece of non-evidence to make me look to the creator. "GOD"

You're vastly overestimating the "speed" at which evolution works, and you've misunderstood the entire mechanism. Squarer fingers and greater typing ability aren't going to make us more likely to survive and pass on our genes at all.

Evolutionist needs billions of years to say evolution works without seeing evolution happen, without the billions of years for it to happen, then it can't happen! then all they have left is (faith) that it did happen? Isn't that curricular reasoning? :crazyeyes:

<Insert evolution in school curriculum joke here>

 

[John]

You're vastly overestimating the "speed" at which evolution works, and you've misunderstood the entire mechanism. Squarer fingers and greater typing ability aren't going to make us more likely to survive and pass on our genes at all.

No, but evolutions only mechanism is not just to help us survive and pass genes, a thread (of which i lost the link) on Richard dawkins forum claims that all blue eyed people came from brown eyed people through the evolution process, thats not beneficial in any way, it is a supposed "mutation" The same could be said for fingerprints we all started with the exact same prints then for no reason end up with with unique fingerprints for each human.

I have no clue where one or how one could find evidence for this, since multi colored eyes as well as prints have always been different since recorded history, but i suppose this is best left for another thread.

Evolutionist needs billions of years to say evolution works without seeing evolution happen, without the billions of years for it to happen, then it can't happen! then all they have left is (faith) that it did happen? Isn't that curricular reasoning?

Its true without the vast time frame evolution as presented to us could not happen, thats why they need the Geologic "evidence" to support them, the Geo time scale is the Bible for the evolutionists.

Its funny the times (Jurassic, creatatious etc) were erected long before any dating method was around, and when dating methods arrived they "had" to fit, this seems like a huge coincidence and begs one to ponder why they were "made" to fit.

 

[freeway]

I believe that sometimes all we can say is God did it, like where did all the matter in the universe come from? Now really! does anyone really know, So for me to say "God did it" is by no means any worse than for you to say "well we must have came from some spacemen or form a puddle of water billions of years ago"

I believe johnmuise quoted it best in his little quote.. without evolution what do we have left, a creator!

little side note, you say when man first evolved("I believe thats a load of crap") if evolution started by just a few primates or whatever you want, a couple of tadpoles trying to see who could climb out of the slim hole first. But while in those few same numbers evolution was occurring? but today with over 6 billion humans alone running wild, we see no sign of evolution. You would think with that many numbers we would see something, the tips of our fingers becoming square to fit the keypad on the computer better. Or are we perfect (nah) That is just one little piece of non-evidence to make me look to the creator. "GOD"

You're vastly overestimating the "speed" at which evolution works, and you've misunderstood the entire mechanism. Squarer fingers and greater typing ability aren't going to make us more likely to survive and pass on our genes at all.

no I never overestimated the speed, because it never happened to start with

[quote:a7a5a][quote:a7a5a]Evolutionist needs billions of years to say evolution works without seeing evolution happen, without the billions of years for it to happen, then it can't happen! then all they have left is (faith) that it did happen? Isn't that curricular reasoning? :crazyeyes:

[/quote:a7a5a]

<Insert evolution in school curriculum joke here>[/quote:a7a5a][/quote]


no joke needed, evolution is the joke itself.. until they "school" stop shoving this down the throats of children. yea lets get creation taught in school and reopen the minds of the little ones.. ;-)

 

[Jayls5]

Wait, so "God did it" is a scientific description? How can you test that?

Whoa. I never said anything remotely like this. Please read exactly what I write and do not assume that I believe things that are not stated or implied in my post - I believe my post in no way implies that "God did it" is part of the scientific description. Perhaps you have assumed that my model will contain stuff from the set {B}. I never said that it would.

My point was this: If God exists and if we have correct beliefs about God, this can hone our search for "starting hypotheses" and therefore save us time. However, the content of the model itself does not contain any "God did it" stuff.

I believe that God exists and that He has divinely inspired humans to write the Bible. Fine. Is it possible that I am correct about this? Of course it is possible. Now suppose some prophet in the Bible declares "verily and forsooth, our God loveth even numbers and has constructed the universe in such a manner".

If I am sitting in meadow scratching my head and trying to come up with a hypotheses, that I will later subject to the normal "no God" scientific process, about the number of elementary particles that exist. Suppose further, and I suggest this is entirely possible, that the available evidence seems to leave the possibility of 4,5,6,7 equally open.

I may choose to hypothesize that there are 4 or 6. I would save exploring 5, 7 till later. If the Scriptures are indeed reliable, I have saved time since I will, on average get to the best scientific model sooner than otherwise. This is all I claimed in my first post (I think).

I have not included "God did it" in any way in my actual model.

I think you are changing what I was talking about.

Having "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" as a general framework while being inquisitive about the natural world, in itself, is not necessary for investigation.

All that is needed is a desire to find out about the natural world.

I have framed my discussion towards "God did it" as a conclusion. The alternative view of a lack of God will never say, "Just because" for an explanation because everyone will readily agree that the answer isn't sufficient. People naturally respond with, "Just because why?" I argue that "God did it" is currently being passed off as a legitimate answer in mainstream society (though not in the scientific community). This answer effectively ends human inquiry. Would you not agree?

 

[John]

Would you not agree?

For fellow Christians yes but for other No.

 

[Free]

No, and no Christian should agree. Why should "God did it" end all human inquiry? That makes as much sense as "evolution did it" should end all human inquiry.

 

[freeway]

No, and no Christian should agree. Why should "God did it" end all human inquiry? That makes as much sense as "evolution did it" should end all human inquiry.

[/quote]

So very very true, sure some people take what they believe in just by someones word, big big mistake.. a lot of good honest people have had an early dimise because of just that. Christian and non christian alike. So whatever you choose to believe, by all means""check it out""

 

[Jayls5]

No, and no Christian should agree. Why should "God did it" end all human inquiry? That makes as much sense as "evolution did it" should end all human inquiry.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. "God did it" doesn't effectively explain anything. Evolution causing something does explain it, although we do try to find out precise details on it each time.

Evolution is a naturalistic phenomenon. Saying that it occurred actually explains something.

God is not a natural phenomenon, and nothing is really understood about how He works. Saying He did something effectively explains nothing. It's synonymous with, "nothing is understood about how this came about." This IS passed off as a legitimate answer by people. I've seen it done countless times.

 

[John]

No, and no Christian should agree. Why should "God did it" end all human inquiry? That makes as much sense as "evolution did it" should end all human inquiry.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. "God did it" doesn't effectively explain anything. Evolution causing something does explain it, although we do try to find out precise details on it each time.

Evolution is a naturalistic phenomenon. Saying that it occurred actually explains something.

God is not a natural phenomenon, and nothing is really understood about how He works. Saying He did something effectively explains nothing. It's synonymous with, "nothing is understood about how this came about." This IS passed off as a legitimate answer by people. I've seen it done countless times.

Evolution does not tell us anything, its all based on unknown assumptions and therefore worthless, its getting annoying running in circles with these debates.

 

[Jayls5]

No, and no Christian should agree. Why should "God did it" end all human inquiry? That makes as much sense as "evolution did it" should end all human inquiry.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. "God did it" doesn't effectively explain anything. Evolution causing something does explain it, although we do try to find out precise details on it each time.

Evolution is a naturalistic phenomenon. Saying that it occurred actually explains something.

God is not a natural phenomenon, and nothing is really understood about how He works. Saying He did something effectively explains nothing. It's synonymous with, "nothing is understood about how this came about." This IS passed off as a legitimate answer by people. I've seen it done countless times.

Evolution does not tell us anything, its all based on unknown assumptions and therefore worthless, its getting annoying running in circles with these debates.

Some elements of evolution have assumptions that are not directly witnessed in macro-evolution. To say that this fact somehow means that using the world "evolution" tells us nothing as a natural explanation is... well... just plain false.

One could easily make the case that ID is based on unknown assumptions, and by your logic, it would be worthless as well.