While many secular folks poo poo the idea of 'scientific' foundations for ID. I think most of them are behind the most recent research. Or.. maybe I am. Time will tell :)

http://www.bethinking.org/download.php?MediaID=480&Player=WindowsMediaPlayer

The main 'scientific' contention of the Bible regarding Creation is.

1/ God created the universe.
2/ God was 'outside' time in order to do this.
3/ The universe had.... a beginning.

Rather than try to capture all that was said on that illuminating talk linked above, I simply recommend that if you thought you had it all sown up and your conclusion 'God does not exist'....then a listen to Dr Ross will definitely shake your foundations. Research is very recent, though there will undoubtedly be newer....

Still.. the argument is VERY compelling... and I mean very.
Nothing to do with biology.. pure astro physics.

I love the bit where the atheist scientist has to conclude the 'Disturbing' results of establishing the existence of dark matter DEMAND that a miracle working God created the universe.
http://www.newstarget.com/020083.html

So, rather than admit this, he simply denies the proven fact of darkmatter :) I love it.... shows the 'objectivity' of the science underpinning so many whacky unbiblical ideas about origins.

I'm happy for the ideas set forth in that talk to be rebutted or refuted..after all...thats what an open mind is about :)

The supreme court in the USA ruled that ID was creationism in another guise and that there was no scientific foundation for this.

ID is a matter of faith and requires religious belief to have any foundation. Presenting it as a scientific theory is wishful thinking.

I have no issue with peoples' beliefs but justifying faith is contradiction in itself.

Democritus,

Hoyle (who had a bad church experience as a child) realized at one point, that due to the confirmation of Dark matter, the inescapable conclusion was that the Universe definitely had a singularity beginning, and that it could only have come into being OUTside the laws of physics, i.e.. 'miraculously' which points to..... what? or.. 'who' ?

Hoyle resolved this cognitive dissonance by deliberately choosing to deny DArk matter rather than accept the obvious which was, that an intelligent Creator 'made' the universe.

Now.. out of curiosity, when someone looks at a set of facts, knows the only possible conclusion is.. such and such.. then DENIES that conclusion for personal reasons..... err..what do you call that ? :)

I hope I have managed to recall the gist of the talk correctly there, but if I've not, please have a listen, and correct me.

I don't care what the supreme court said. I care more about what the science says.
I also am not silly enough to claim that this is the 'end' of the matter. Science changes, new information always comes to hand.. theories are altered etc..

But at the 'current' state of things, from what I gather, the above is relevant.
cheers.

'The US Supreme Court said it, I believe it and that settles it' doesn't sound much like science to me. I wonder if people from both 'religious' and 'non-religious' stances can sometimes fail to keep an open mind about such giant issues as the origins of the universe? While I see Democritus' point that proving faith is contradictory, having a basis for faith is not. When there is compelling evidence pointing to answers we are uncomfortable about, it does not do any of us credit to deny them out of hand. Instead we should look honestly at all the data we can find.

Quite a balanced post there chappy..

I have to correct myself also on 2 points from my first post.

1/ Its dark ENERGY..not dark "matter"
2/ It was not Hoyle who found the 'disturbing' evidence for a Creator, it was 3 Atheists.

As the talk says, how ironic it was that the paper was used as a promo for a seminar where dark energy would be deliberately denied, the week beFORE Dark Energy was confirmed :)

So, they had to deny the possibility of a Creator on FAITH grounds.... (because the prospect of a Creator had all manner of moral implications) rather than evidential... so they simply denied that Dark Energy existed.

A week is a long time in politics..and also science :)

It simply confirms what I've said for a long time. (err..I and millions of others) that 'science' is as much prone to 'faith' and bias and bigotry as anything is. But of course, just like there is a lot of great science out there, and we should never throw the scientific baby out with the 'denial of fact' bathwater, just so we should not write of ALL 'religion' or faith simply because of some bad eggs in the basket.

Right you are DB, and my heart sings 10 to the power of 97 to hear it. This might become my favorite link of all time. I could only hope my mind expands a bit faster than the universe to absorb it all!

Boaz, as someone who by their own admission leans towards Creationism, how are you able to use as evidence of your latest crackpot ID theory, an article that specifically describes an event thus:

"The existence of dark matter has been proven, according to Doug Clowe of the University of Arizona in Tucson, Ariz., due to a 4,700-kilometer-per-second collision between two clusters of galaxies 100 million years ago that created an object referred to as 1E0657-556."

You hop about with glee that:

>>the atheist scientist has to conclude the 'Disturbing' results of establishing the existence of dark matter DEMAND that a miracle working God created the universe... So, rather than admit this, he simply denies the proven fact of darkmatter""

Which is it to be, Boaz?

Does dark matter exist? If it does, where does that leave your Creationist views?

If it doesn't, then the "atheist scientist" is clearly getting his knickers in a knot needlessly, worrying about how it came into being.

The problem that this creates for you Boaz is that if you believe in the colliding galaxies, and you are comfortable that this occurred 100 million years ago, then presumably you can use the same techniques to trace the universe back to some singularity, just a teeny tad before the age of Noah.

If you don't, of course, then your entire thread-starter is totally and utterly pointless.

But then, that wouldn't be unusual, would it?

Hoyle, while having recognition for his contribution to astrophysics was also an eccentric. Albert Einstein also tried to introduce a gravitational constant because relativity predicited an expanding universe. The fact that the greatest minds are not always correct does not detract from their contribution.

There is no unified field theory yet, and the indications that there was a singularity in the past conforms to relativity but not quantum mechanics.

The concept of a Creator does not require dark matter, singularities or any other phenomenon. Neither are any of these phenomenon proof of ID or disturbing proof of a creator, they are simply yet unexplained or undiscovered as was relativity a century ago.

If dark matter/energy and the big bang are disproved in 30 years, does this prove that God does not exist? Creationism has been fighting a rear guard action from 6000 years ago to 14b years ago.

ID is a patch up job of creationism that has crumbled in the face of physics and biology.

Well said Pericles. If you're going to use scientific principles to try and back your case, then you can't just pick and choose where convenient.

As an aside, when I read the title for this thread, I couldn't help but think "of course there is... at least, they'll say there is."
Which is exactly the problem.

The thing about the 'god' concept is that it's so broad you can tie it all together.

Allow me to demonstrate: this thread could have just as easily been titled:

"Puppies, postmodernism, cheesecake, Adelaide and GOD - any connection?"

Presumably there is. Which just goes to show that you can get so intangible it becomes utterly meaningless.

Pericles and Shadow minister... the point about the proof of dark energy and 100,000,000 years... is not a problem, but glad you noticed it. You have highlighted a major point about why I personally don't seek to use science as a final 'proof' of the existence of the Almighty. You would need to read Gen 1:1-2 very closely to see exactly what it IS saying..and what it is not.

It is always only 'suggestive' at best, and due to the changing nature of scientific conclusions, it may point more or less strongly at different times.

-No argument from me there.

Pericles, you don't really have to use words like 'crackpot'... your arguments have, or don't have merit without those little morsels.

On the issue of Quantum mechanics and the Singularity/Big Bang reconciliation.. the talk gives some background to that, and it's a bit beyond me to capture it all well enough to bring it out here.
Have a listen :) The speaker is world class, and if his audiences can include well mannered Russian Scientific atheists, why not well mannered OLO posters ?

Paul Davies:

version 1.1 ... >>argues against God's agency in the creation of the universe.<<

Version 1.2 (regarding the progression from chaos to order)

>> has been revising his position. He (now) concludes that we have "powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all."<<



TRTL..not really. But given that Adelaide is called 'The City of Churches'...hmmm might be a connection there afterall 0_-

KATIE_0 yes, its a good link, but given the essense of many of your posts, I know that your (as mine) faith is in the unchanging Risen Lord, and not the oft changing face of science :)

One major point of the talk is that the current state of the evidence, suggests that there had to be 'something/one' outSIDE space time, in at least 2 dimensions.. (if I heard right) for the universe to be brought into existence.

Boaz, it is stating the obvious to say that science will never prove the existence of a God - of any kind - simply because it is not designed to do so.

Science explains, as far as it is able at the time, the various phenomena around us - space, time, mankind - in as logical and testable manner as possible. If we do ever get "proof" of a God, it will be because he (she?) will reveal themselves in an unambiguous and unmistakable way.

And given that the essential ingredient of religion is faith, that ain't likely, is it?

But I'm afraid I will continue to use the word "crackpot" next to the word "theory" when talking about ID. It only exists as a spoiler theory anyway, and relies on negatives (how else could this happen except for...) as its main argument. The word crackpot isn't referring to you, of course, only the theory.

As I've mentioned before, I have absolutely no time in my day to sit and listen to religious apologists. Of any persuasion.

BD, Yes! But my husband (chemical engineer/economist/banker) is not, and he is increasingly compelled by the complexity of design in our universe. Pericles et al help me in anticipating what his logical objections might be. Thanks folks! Great discussion in our household over this weekend, guaranteed.

You're welcome Katie :)

keep up the great posts.

Pericles.. one reason you are kind of missing the mark here, is that without listening to the talk, you will not have a handle on the various positions, which is why your comments don't seem to connect at the moment.

The evidence is quite persuasive for an intelligent Creator, and it's based on science.. on the confession of atheists..not Creationists.
That seems to be the key bit ur missing.

You can allocate your time as you see fit, but if you come across any talk about Mosely, I'll happily find time to listen :) you see.. a lot of work I do requires only that my hands keep moving, and I often listen for a whole day to intersting subjects.

But this is hardly an unimportant issue... it regards your eternal destiny.. most worthy of some careful attention I'd say.
cheers anyway.

Oh, please!!

>>without listening to the talk, you will not have a handle on the various positions<<

It's true, Boaz, I haven't listened to the "talk". But the interesting thing is that you cannot actually present any coherent "takeaway" from it, in the form of a quote, or an example, or an insight, that has any bearing at all on your argument that it provides "a handle" of any kind.

Just a bit of blind adulation, as usual, lacking in any critical faculties whatsoever.

This rings the bells with me that say "Uh oh, another bit of rhetorical fluff, about as meaningful as that guy on the TV who purports to channel dead people to a live audience."

A charlatan spruiker, in other words.

But go ahead, prove me wrong. Search through the verbiage, and write down something that represents evidence for, or corroboration of, ID.

To save you the bother, here is a (written) article that provides a view of Dr Ross that is totally compatible with his ability to blind you with pseudo-science, and to blather inanities without regard for accuracy.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ross.cfm#non

>>The evidence is quite persuasive for an intelligent Creator, and it's based on science.. on the confession of atheists..<<

This is a contradiction in terms.

Atheists cannot "confess" to the existence of an intelligent creator, since in doing so they prove that they are not atheists. By definition, there is no such thing as a religious atheist, or an atheist believer.

Former atheist, I would accept. Just as in every election there is a bunch of floating voters, so there are atheists and religionists changing sides every day. Nothing to see here, move along.

>>But this is hardly an unimportant issue... it regards your eternal destiny..<<

Nope. It's just science versus religion again. Scientific theory versus religious beliefs.

No-one is going to "win" that argument, as they are different topics.

Science cannot determine whether or not there are gods. Religion cannot begin to explain how a flower grows.

Perilous.....

I'm trying to recall a large quantity of information from a 1 hour talk that I heard once, and then, you are interacting with my less than perfect recollection. So, rather than actually encounter the info first hand, you resort to offering a diatribe by a web site which has a vested interest in not accepting Ross's views. It amounted to systematic character assasination, and they had the gaul to criticize Ross for attacking arguments of his opponents ? :) quaint.

>>In particular, Ross indicates (page 103) that the argumentation of the young universe creationists involves the following fallacies: 1) Faulty assumptions; 2) Faulty data; 3) Misapplication of principles, laws, and equations, and 4) failure to consider opposing evidence.<<

Now.. come back with me for a moment please..to my statement about 'on the confession of atheists'.

I was not suggesting they had become Christians, I was saying that they viewed the evidence, and concluded (as atheists) that the evidence pointed to:

"The beginning occurred only a few billion years ago and places the cause of the universe outside, that is, independent of, matter, energy, space, and time.

Now..this was the point at which those 3 atheists decided on 'faith' grounds.. to deny that Dark Energy pointed to this conclusion.

2 DIFFERING CONCLUSIONS.

1/ ATHEIST. (Closed mind)
The 3 atheists decided, contrary to the evidence, to deny Dark Energy rather than accept the possibility of a Creator. One week later, Dark Energy was a proven fact, not a hypothesis.

2/ CHRISTIAN (closed mind?)
Theologically this means that the Cause of the universe is independent of and transcendent to the universe.

QUESTION.. if you have 2 closed minds, and one set of facts, perhaps it is wise to ask "which of the closed minded conclusions best fits the facts"?

SCIENCE WILL PROVE GOD? no.. I don't think so :) specially when you have scientists who are 'bigoted' (in the nicest sense of that word)..
It just underlines that scientists often 'begin' with the deliberate exclusion of some possible conclusions, and hence interpret all data in terms OF those presuppositions.

I think it's persuasive that the supposed evidence for the pretend-theories of ID and Creationism have captured the formidable mind of the learned Boazy.

Boazy expects us to sit through an hour long audio diatribe from a discredited idiot - sorry mate, ain't gonna happen. I'm not going to waste either the time or the bandwidth to listen to a preacher recommended by a nutter - but I am prepared to scan a concise document if one exists.

As usual, what this thread reveals is more evidence of Boazy's credulity, combined with his lack of formal education, than anything else.

No, Boaz, I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't wash.

>>I'm trying to recall a large quantity of information from a 1 hour talk that I heard once, and then, you are interacting with my less than perfect recollection.<<

But wasn't it you who started this thread? Your contention was that listening to Dr. Ross would "definitely shake [our] foundations."

Yet when challenged, you cannot recall a single salient point that he made. Not really a recommendation for me to spend an hour of my time listening to him, is it?

The funniest part though is the way you still can't work out your own contradictions.

>>The 3 atheists decided, contrary to the evidence, to deny Dark Energy rather than accept the possibility of a Creator. One week later, Dark Energy was a proven fact, not a hypothesis.<<

There are two problems with this.

The way you describe it, the existence of dark energy is itself sufficient proof of the existence of a "Creator". It clearly isn't. It is simply a theory that supports an observation on the nature of the universe.

Equally odd, under the circumstances, is your proposition that the existence of dark energy is somehow "a proven fact". One article doesn't constitute "proof", however hard you blow on it.

The truly craziest part though is that you insist on equating scientific conclusions with some kind of search for a deity.

For the umpteenth time, science and religion take entirely different paths.

Science formulates hypotheses about the nature and origins of the universe, and with any luck gets closer and closer to an understanding of how it all came to be.

Religion of course already knows the answers, and can't be bothered to look any further. As a result, religionists spend an unnecessary amount of time attempting to read into the scientific results, things that aren't there.

As I said in my last post, no-one is going to "win" this argument, as they are different topics.

Science cannot determine whether or not there are gods. Religion cannot begin to explain how a flower grows.