[_ Old Earth _] Lex parsimoniae and the preclusion of God from science

[Jam]

Don't worry- this isn't an "Occam's razor therefore God" or a "science therefore no God" thread. I'm hoping my thoughts will be a little more sophisticated than that;)

So yeah, I've been doing a lot of thinking about intelligent design recently, and my thoughts on God and science have essentially come about as a result of that. Basically, is it not true that no scientific observation will ever point toward the existence of a god due to the methodologies and heuristics employed by science? A being as "big" as God will never be necessitated by any observation or empirical evidence, as there will always be another explanation that requires fewer new assumptions to be made. Science will inevitably select this "simpler" explanation over God, because the God hypothesis would be unnecessarily complex.

This isn't me concluding that God doesn't exist, and this isn't me concluding that science is stupid... it's just what I've deduced must be the way things are: science continues to rule out possibilities that are entirely consistent with the evidence that we have, and it could not function as a method for the investigation of reality without doing so.

For example, imagine that we observe a particle travelling from Position A in direction x at time t₁, and then at time t₂ observe the same particle travelling in direction x arriving at Position B. We conclude from this that the particle travelled from A to B in time |t₁-t₂|. In fact, though, it is entirely consistent with the observational evidence that we have that a supernatural being took the particle immediately after our observation at time t₁, flew it from one end of the galaxy to the other and back again, causing it to orbit Betelgeuse 746 182 times in the process, and then replaced it back on the same trajectory immediately before time t₂ - our second observation. We rule this out - quite rightly, you probably think - because it requires far more new assumptions that the explanation that the particle simply travelled from A to B...

This, my friends, is exactly why God will never be the result of a scientific study: there will always be a simpler explanation than the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent being for any given set of observations.

Your thoughts?

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, I think so. And keep in mind, science is by it's very methodology, confined to the physical and physical evidence. And though God's miraculous creation of nature is true, science can never see it.

But scientists can. We aren't limited to science, after all.

 

[Mike]

I don't participate much in the Science Forum, because most of the time the topic is way out of my wheelhouse. But I know there great minds in science that embrace theism. Unfortunately, they get black-balked by academia. They're scoffed at and labeled as "lesser-than scientists". Some of them hold prestigious positions at highly regarded institutions, and I have deep admiration for them. In spite of their secular peers discounting their research, they have stood their ground. I'm not in position to search for the names of these thought leaders, but I'm sure others know who I'm thinking of.

 

[jasoncran]

mike most creationist sites have links to men of faith who believe and i can post from one on facebook.

they arent friendly too oecers though but do list them.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't participate much in the Science Forum, because most of the time the topic is way out of my wheelhouse. But I know there great minds in science that embrace theism. Unfortunately, they get black-balked by academia.

Francisco Ayala is one of the major names in evolutionary science. He's a Christian, and a better theologian than most creationists. Francis Collins headed the Human Genome Project, and he's an evangelical Christian. Theodosious Dobzhansky remains a great name in evolutionary science, and he was a Christian.

They're scoffed at and labeled as "lesser-than scientists".

No one who cares about his reputation would call them that.

In spite of their secular peers discounting their research, they have stood their ground.

These men are very frequently cited in scientific papers. They are well-regarded as being at the top of their profession.

I'm not in position to search for the names of these thought leaders, but I'm sure others know who I'm thinking of.

Here are a few to consider. Among YE creationists, we should consider Kurt Wise, an openly-YE scientist who was nevertheless welcomed as a doctoral candidate by Stephen Gould.

 

[jasoncran]

what demonation on the first?, and i noticed you said all evolutionists.

funny aint it. i was going to throw in collins.

but somehow those guys just dont count.2

 

[Barbarian]

what demonation on the first?,

Catholic, I think. Not sure, though.

and i noticed you said all evolutionists.

Don't see it. Where?

funny aint it. i was going to throw in collins.

There are lots of evangelical evolutionists. One was the the asst. department chair in zoology at my university. I learned about the paleontology of North Texas from another.

but somehow those guys just dont count.

In science, they count.

 

[Barbarian]

what demonation on the first?,

Catholic, I think. Not sure, though. (edit: yep. Catholic)

and i noticed you said all evolutionists.

Don't see it. Where?

funny aint it. i was going to throw in collins.

There are lots of evangelical evolutionists. One was the the asst. department chair in zoology at my university. I learned about the paleontology of North Texas from another.

but somehow those guys just dont count.

In science, they count.

 

[Free]

This, my friends, is exactly why God will never be the result of a scientific study: there will always be a simpler explanation than the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent being for any given set of observations.

Your thoughts?

I disagree somewhat. I think there is at least some evidence which can only be explained by the existence of God. Thinking specifically of how RNA and DNA are formed and the information contained therein. I will not be able to argue it well without going back and doing some significant reading, and even then, it won't be my ideas, it will be from John C. Lennox (his book, http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-John-Lennox/dp/0745953034, is excellent, btw).

 

[jasoncran]

Catholic, I think. Not sure, though. (edit: yep. Catholic)



Don't see it. Where?



There are lots of evangelical evolutionists. One was the the asst. department chair in zoology at my university. I learned about the paleontology of North Texas from another.



In science, they count.

gee francis collins teaches evolution does he not?

and name them chruches.

for i could say that ecla which is for gay marraige and ordains is evangalical too.


and its in their name. barb at one point will decide where the scientists cant answer the origins and say only a supernatural being will do it

your ilk can ignore the impossibilities of abiogenesis on the earth and some meterite that carried protolife hitting the earth being debunked.


uh thats right god does miracles everyday when macroevolution occurs he set up the natural laws to be violated everday.

 

[Barbarian]

gee francis collins teaches evolution does he not?

Yep. A lot of evangelical Christians do.

and name them chruches.

Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis[38] as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and finally became an Evangelical Christian during a hike on a fall afternoon. He has described himself as a "serious Christian".[20]

In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship". In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos. He appeared in December 2006 on The Colbert Report television show[39] and in a March 2007 Fresh Air radio interview[40] to discuss this book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

barb at one point will decide where the scientists cant answer the origins and say only a supernatural being will do it

your ilk can ignore the impossibilities of abiogenesis on the earth and some meterite that carried protolife hitting the earth being debunked.

Or we could accept God's word, and acknowledge that life came from non-living material.

 

[jasoncran]

which church barb. you answered with the question, and uh so god used something that violates his laws eh barb? thats called a supernatural event.

if its not abiogenesis where by violates pasteurs thinking on that. life comes from life.

so god cant make something from life or his earth by moving on it? yet we cant even repeat it? so if he set natural laws to create care to explain that?

i can get the data debunking abiogenesis but lets not do this here

and uh barb., you do realease that the toe doesnt mean squat to the actual problem solvers who want to save man from ilness and so forth.

so your problem with creationsist amounts to what? so if i go to school and disagree with the entire naturalism postulated origins of the earth and life and yet pass every class and so forth and then move on to find a curee for a cancer. im not a scientist?

 

[Barbarian]

which church barb. you answered with the question, and uh so god used something that violates his laws eh barb? thats called a supernatural event.

The creation of nature had to be a supernatural event, by definition. But it appears that God did the rest of it by natural means.

if its not abiogenesis where by violates pasteurs thinking on that. life comes from life.

Since Genesis says that life comes from non-life, it's not really an option to deny it. Pasteur showed that spontaneous generation was false. But he didn't show that abiogenesis is false. Indeed, God says it's true.

So god cant make something from life or his earth by moving on it?

He chose to make life from existing creation. Who am I to say it was wrong?

yet we cant even repeat it? so if he set natural laws to create care to explain that?

Since He does most everything in this world by nature, why would it be surprising if He did life that way?

i can get the data debunking abiogenesis but lets not do this here

The data is now increasingly showing that the Bible was right. Life was brought forth by the Earth.

and uh barb., you do realease that the toe doesnt mean squat to the actual problem solvers who want to save man from ilness and so forth.

In fact, antibiotic protocols are prepared according to evolutionary theory. The way they are used, is precisely determined by knowing the way we can make it hardest for bacteria to evolve new resistance.

so your problem with creationsist amounts to what?

Mostly that they are an impediment to people coming to Christ.

so if i go to school and disagree with the entire naturalism postulated origins of the earth and life and yet pass every class and so forth and then move on to find a curee for a cancer. im not a scientist?

In fact, there are such people. Kurt Wise, for example. He was a doctoral candidate under Stephen Gould, and a dedicated YEC. As Gould remarked elsewhere, all that really counts is ability. It's not like creationist schools.

 

[jasoncran]

The creation of nature had to be a supernatural event, by definition. But it appears that God did the rest of it by natural means.



Since Genesis says that life comes from non-life, it's not really an option to deny it. Pasteur showed that spontaneous generation was false. But he didn't show that abiogenesis is false. Indeed, God says it's true.



He chose to make life from existing creation. Who am I to say it was wrong?



Since He does most everything in this world by nature, why would it be surprising if He did life that way?



The data is now increasingly showing that the Bible was right. Life was brought forth by the Earth.



In fact, antibiotic protocols are prepared according to evolutionary theory. The way they are used, is precisely determined by knowing the way we can make it hardest for bacteria to evolve new resistance.



Mostly that they are an impediment to people coming to Christ.



In fact, there are such people. Kurt Wise, for example. He was a doctoral candidate under Stephen Gould, and a dedicated YEC. As Gould remarked elsewhere, all that really counts is ability. It's not like creationist schools.

open a site and problem that theisitic evolutionists did it and you have the same thing. and no its not they look at science.

and you are wrong on creationist schools. prove that one.


heres one for you so if man can never show abiogensis happened as its impossible then what?


and it has been shown just that. for its impossible to know what was there and on the earth a lab speculating that it could happen doesnt mean it did.thats like saying just because we are on the earth and alive that there has to be life in the other star systems.

so if we did away with the origins debate all together and stuck with how it works , would have a problem after its ability. right

and so if its just ability then as you say need i remind you that the mri was designed by a yecer.

 

[jasoncran]

odds are against barb. show me the odds of chemical evolutiion barb.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0982955219

poof they must happen all at the same time and yet we cant even reproduce it. we cant make life from non life. ie totally make dna and our coded. we can copy others or make hybrids.

 

[Barbarian]

and you are wrong on creationist schools. prove that one.

Try this experiment: Apply to the ICR graduate school. But refuse to say you accept YE creationism. See how far you get.

heres one for you so if man can never show abiogensis happened as its impossible then what?

It that were true, then Genesis is wrong. So I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. But Darwin suggested that God just created the first living things. That would be fine with evolutionary theory.

and so if its just ability then as you say need i remind you that the mri was designed by a yecer.

There are some creationist engineers. But not too many. Mostly, they accept science. But it's true that creationists tend to be more common among engineers than scientists:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/08/04/engineers-terrorism-and-creationism.htm

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/thermo_patterson.html

Not anything like a majority of them. But a lot of them.

 

[Jam]

I disagree somewhat. I think there is at least some evidence which can only be explained by the existence of God. Thinking specifically of how RNA and DNA are formed and the information contained therein. I will not be able to argue it well without going back and doing some significant reading, and even then, it won't be my ideas, it will be from John C. Lennox (his book, http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-John-Lennox/dp/0745953034, is excellent, btw).

No matter how complicated the issue that we have to try and explain is, though, a god who is omnipotent, omniscient etc. will always be an unnecessarily complicated explanation. A process for the formation of RNA/DNA could well be incredibly complex (although I believe that there are "natural" explanations for this), but this complexity does not necessitate any of the "omnis". Because of this, scientific heuristics will inevitably lead to the rejection of a god as an explanation as there will be other explanations that require far fewer/smaller assumptions.

 

[Free]

No matter how complicated the issue that we have to try and explain is, though, a god who is omnipotent, omniscient etc. will always be an unnecessarily complicated explanation. A process for the formation of RNA/DNA could well be incredibly complex (although I believe that there are "natural" explanations for this), but this complexity does not necessitate any of the "omnis". Because of this, scientific heuristics will inevitably lead to the rejection of a god as an explanation as there will be other explanations that require far fewer/smaller assumptions.

All I can say then is that there are Christian scientists who disagree.

 

[Jam]

All I can say then is that there are Christian scientists who disagree.

Oh absolutely! I'm not denying that... but this, I think, is why a significant proportion of the scientific community regards theories such as intelligent design as unscientific: they are entirely compatible with the evidence, but the conclusions are unnecessarily complex.

It's interesting to note, too, that there are Christian scientists who agree with this, and consider their faith and occupation somewhat irrevelant to each other in factual terms.

 

[Asyncritus]

There are some creationist engineers. But not too many. Mostly, they accept science. But it's true that creationists tend to be more common among engineers than scientists:

You trying to say that engineers aren't scientists?