Evidence for God from Science

I just finished an adventure novel which is based in quantum mechanics and biology. It gave me an interesting insight, evolution is controlled from the future. It is the future that predicates and defines the mechanics that we see as evolution.

I instantly took this a step further, this is the basis of divine creation itself, it started in the past but it is defined by the future. God didn't just create everything in the distant past, what we are seeing is the record of a story that is being shaped from its destined end. That is how free will can coexist with predestination, they are not mutually exclusive from this perspective. In a world like this individual choices do not determine the outcome, they are absorbed into it. This also implies a living and active God, an eternal and timeless God, A God who is Creator and Redeemer

I would like to see a valid prediction by evolutionists they can make given the past variables they already induced from they're so called 'hard scientific' analysis and determine one future outcome based on RM&NS. What is the next mutation that should produce x by the given variables of RM&NS specifically for humans. Given 1 million years, how will we adapt and thus change to whatever we are changing into next. If evolutionists are confident in the fossil record and have incredible amounts of evidence of how living things will change over time, and are sure that RM&NS are the major factors that contribute to dramatic changes, whats the next unintelligent unguided goal of evolution then, any predictions? In science, we can predict certain things given the knowledge of existing phenomena, such as in electronics, we can predict that if we add a given set of circuitry to the CPU, we can produce more output from it and we can measure that output.

godslanguage wrote:I would like to see a valid prediction by evolutionists they can make given the past variables they already induced from they're so called 'hard scientific' analysis and determine one future outcome based on RM&NS. What is the next mutation that should produce x by the given variables of RM&NS specifically for humans. Given 1 million years, how will we adapt and thus change to whatever we are changing into next. If evolutionists are confident in the fossil record and have incredible amounts of evidence of how living things will change over time, and are sure that RM&NS are the major factors that contribute to dramatic changes, whats the next unintelligent unguided goal of evolution then?

They would be quick to point out that this is totally unpredictable, simply because random mutations (random) are unpredictable, and because natural selection would depend upon the selective pressure placed upon populations with the new mutations. Unless they want to predict environmental changes that place these selective pressures on the populations...which I doubt anybody would want to do.

One very popular predictive model is the vestigal organ as the product of evoluiton and that over time the living system will eventually 'throw away' or dispose of those so called un-needed organs. So we have a model, now we can make a prediction given that "vast" set of knowledge. If the prediction fails, evolution as an explanation fails the test. Clearly, if one cannot make a valid prediction in they're theory then it is clear that the theory cannot be taken as a likely explanation for product a to come about by product b and vice versa. Predictive models create and map a statistical model of future behaviour influenced and given by predictor variables. Preditictions are made , data is validated and a comparison is made between the initial prediction and the outcome.

godslanguage wrote:One very popular predictive model is the vestigal organ as the product of evoluiton and that over time the living system will eventually 'throw away' or dispose of those so called un-needed organs. So we have a model, now we can make a prediction given that "vast" set of knowledge. If the prediction fails, evolution as an explanation fails the test. Clearly, if one cannot make a valid prediction in they're theory then it is clear that the theory cannot be taken as a likely explanation for product a to come about by product b and vice versa. Predictive models create and map a statistical model of future behaviour influenced and given by predictor variables. Preditictions are made , data is validated and a comparison is made between the initial prediction and the outcome.

There is a difference between predicting the occurrence of vestigial organs and predicting which organs may become vestigial. You are asking them to predict which enviromental changes will occur that, in their theory, will place selective pressures on populations, not to mention predicting the (again, from their theory) random mutation events that would change proteins. Can't make a prediction on events that depend on variables that cannot be determined. If we knew how the environment would change and the mutations, we would still have to know how the new mutations interact with existing genes.


(Of course, vestigial organs have been well documented to not be strong evidence for evolution at all, given that we know that most do have functions)

Again, we need to define what we are testing. Plenty of empirical evidence for small-scale changes within existing genes and populations. They can create hypothesis for structures that allow for selective advantages. (Of course, this would merely be for microevolution and not macroevolution at all). But you cannot place such a challenge to a theory that hinges on unpredictable occurences such as environmental changes or mutation events.

The model is based on knowledge of the current vestigal organs in humans. Such as the appendix as one of the most talked about and praised in evoluitonary context. If the appendix is a useless organ which performs no function then we can predict our bodies will shut down the cellular function for that organ and will slowly dispose of it given enough time (whatever the term is for that). It doesn't matter what the selective pressures are etc... it will eventually reach that point according to evolutionary standards (more time or less), since they have reached the conclusion it performs no function and is vestigial, my point is, is that if the body does not get rid of it, then how does the vestigal organ differentiate between any other organ? Therefore what predictions can evolutionists actually make? If the theory is well understood and believed to be the result of RM&NS, and a historical/statistical outline of the past evolutinary period is mapped, this should be a minor task, no?, especially when they have already "figured" out how the human eye evolved

I wondered if I was posting this to the correct topic. What I am suggesting has little to do with the actual mechanics of evolution.

I see no real difference between science and religion. Both are talking about different aspects of only one reality, they see it from different perspectives, but there is only one reality.

My point here is that we are looking at this whole issue from the wrong direction, it doesn't start at the beginning and proceed to an end. The end and the beginning are part of a whole and the whole process is driven by the end. What will be is more important than what was, you cannot predict what will be from what was.

This means that evolution is merely a record, it could only predict if the future was known, therefore it is useless as a theory. A theory that says that the form of something will change if the dynamics of its existence change doesn't say much, that would seem obvious to most observers. I guess the concept that life is adaptable is the only real groundbreaking issue here. The theory of evolution is really only the observation that form adapts to change, it can predict nothing.

What I am proposing is that our world is changing in response to a divine plan, but it is not a rigid blueprint. There is flexibility resulting from the interaction of the divine and the world, it is not a direct or instantaneous process.

The same is true of us, God has a plan for each of us. It doesn't necessarily proceed in a straight line, it doesn't need to. It will in the end because the end is the final product and it will define the process, no matter what we may decide in the interim.

Just to add to this, even though it is obviously off topic (sorry J316). Evolutionary theory also predicts more complexity over time, more intelligent decision making processes etc... If a dinosaur, for a example a raptor was both more complex and more intelligent when compared to other predators of this day in age, that itself already distorts evolutionary thinking, not to say that it falsifies it since DE's have already established it as non-falsifiable due to its incredible and extraordinary randomness but heres the catch---> its not a random process. This not only makes the theory non-falsifiable, but stating that its anything but random is decieving, the reason is because something that is non-random therefore has a goal, whether there is consciousness or intlelligence playing a role, that does not matter, it has a goal and therefore scientifically we can say it has a purpose and there is a goal intended process, without even adding intelligence into the equation.

godslanguage wrote:Evolutionary theory also predicts more complexity over time ... If a dinosaur, for a example a raptor was both more complex and more intelligent when compared to other predators of this day in age, that itself already distorts evolutionary thinking,

Evolution does not predict that every new species will be more complex and/or more intelligent than previous species. [Evolution only 'predicts' more complexity in the sense that if life started off simple, most changes would involve more complexity.] Consider tapeworms or other parasites. They are less complex but survive just fine. [And by the way, complexity is not necessarily good - the more complex a species the more specialized and less adaptable it often is. It is a lot easier to wipe out dodos or dinosaurs than bacteria or cockroaches.]

An organism does not shut down organs that are not being used, this is not how they model the development of vestigial organs. This strikes close to Lamarckian evolution (if an organ is not being used, it will become smaller, less complex, etc).

The organ becomes vestigial because the organ is not contributing to the survival or reproduction of the organsim and thus is not selected for. THis allows for the reduction of the organ simply because no advantage exists for it.

Given that we could not predict which organ is not being selected for as this would be determined by the environmental response and what organ does not add to the fitness of the organism, they could not predict which organ would be.

j316, sorry tfor the divergence, interesting things to think on. Since God is beyond time, there are certainly intriguing possibilities as to the meanings of past events and future events.

The big question debated between creationists and evolutionists, is HOW does an organism become more complex on the basis of selective pressure and random mutation. This is the one of the great unanswered questions in science and mitigates against evolution as a valid theory. afaik, it has only been demonstrated in computer programs.

[Evolution only 'predicts' more complexity in the sense that if life started off simple, most changes would involve more complexity.]

If it starts simple and more changes involve more complexity, essentially thats saying that in the general sense evolution predicts more complexity, no?

Consider tapeworms or other parasites. They are less complex but survive just fine. And by the way, complexity is not necessarily good - the more complex a species the more specialized and less adaptable it often is. It is a lot easier to wipe out dodos or dinosaurs than bacteria or cockroaches.

I am not referring to survival, that is a completely differant issue/topic. Evolutionists don't want to address this question directly. The fact is that in the "general" sense of addition of complexity, if a organism's eye was more complex and efficient 65 million years ago than today, that would not fit the pattern you think? Once again, it doesn't matter how adaptable they are or any of the other magical pseudo-scientific creative blends of evolution, if DE's are brave enough to produce a diagram of the tree of life, essentially that forms a pattern of more complexity and more intelligence. Survival is non-essential for this argument.

godslanguage wrote:Just to add to this, even though it is obviously off topic (sorry J316). Evolutionary theory also predicts more complexity over time, more intelligent decision making processes etc... If a dinosaur, for a example a raptor was both more complex and more intelligent when compared to other predators of this day in age, that itself already distorts evolutionary thinking, not to say that it falsifies it since DE's have already established it as non-falsifiable due to its incredible and extraordinary randomness but heres the catch---> its not a random process. This not only makes the theory non-falsifiable, but stating that its anything but random is decieving, the reason is because something that is non-random therefore has a goal, whether there is consciousness or intlelligence playing a role, that does not matter, it has a goal and therefore scientifically we can say it has a purpose and there is a goal intended process, without even adding intelligence into the equation.

No it doesn't. Evolution only predicts that things that CAN survive WILL, it makes no distinction for HOW it does so. For example you have probably heard the theory that humanity is "de-evolving" because of a rampant increase in sexual relations, and those that are likely to bear children are, shall we say, less "evolved" than those that are less likely. This is not "de-evolution" it is "evolution" because evolution can only move forward. If we evolve into peons, it is because selective pressure has rewarded the fastest breeder, who happen to be less intelligent, but MORE "evolved". I should preface this with the point that I have no idea if this is happening or not.

In my graduate seminar class, one of the more obvious, in-your-face evolutionists suddenly realized that very fact....that those he considered more "enlightened" and therefore won't have as many children (after all, it's only those less intelligent who are still having large families ) are not contributing as many genes to the next generation. OF course, scripturally we know that children are a blessing and are not bound to the idea that having children is bad...

This is not "de-evolution" it is "evolution" because evolution can only move forward.

Evolution not only goes forwards, but it goes nowhere!

No it doesn't. Evolution only predicts that things that CAN survive WILL

So essentially, what your really saying here is that evolution predicts nothing, since survival doesn't do anything to the organsim in terms complexity etc...there really is no evolving species or process of adding structure or functional mechanism in that sense.