Why is God invisible to me?

[DBowling]

According to Wikipedia, 50% of the scientists in USA think that The evolution theory without any intervention of any God is the correct world view. That includes the scientist of all kinds. For scientists in biology the figure is far higher. In Western Europe the figures are still higher. The conclusion is that there are no obvious evidence for evolution without God intervention.

For a person who is willing to dismiss the conclusions of over 90% of the humans on the planet, those numbers are hardly a convincing argument. In fact yor numbers just confirm the fact that there is enough evidence to convince a significant percentage of scientists to agree with 90% of the humans on the planet that some sort of god does in fact exist.

We are discussing if it's irrational of me to ignore what you call evidence against evolution. If 50% of all scientists and almost all scientists in biology agree with me my position it's daring to call this position irrational.

I don't think I have described your position as irrational.
I have described your position as inconsistent with the evidence that is present in many of the sciences, such as biology, cosmology, and physics. Which is why a significant percentage of scientists believe in some sort of god.

However it is very evident, based on this and other discussions, that your personal paradigms have blinded you to scientific evidence that comes into direct conflict with your personal paradigms.

I am not claiming that mutation and natural selection are false.
I'm not even claiming that common descent is false (which might annoy some people here).

What I am claiming is that the empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that the observed rate and scope of "random" mutation at the genetic level is incapable of producing the changes necessary to explain the scope and rate of information that has been infused into the the DNA of life on our planet.
Behe clearly demonstrates this in his genetic analysis of "random" mutation in nature and in the lab.

No, he doesn't. I read his article a few years ago. To come to his conclusion he makes an assumption that isn't accepted by the evolution theorists. (When I say "evolution", I usually means The evolution theory based on mutation and natural selection only, without God's interference.)

Again you are simply wrong.
Behe is a scientist who draws his conclusions on observable empirical evidence.
It is those who attempt to rebut Behe who depend on unverified speculation.
Asserting that Behe is wrong without presenting empirical evidence to back the claim is nothing more or less than an unverified assertion... no matter who makes the assertion.

There is empirical evidence to validate "natural selection"
There is genetic and fossil evidence that supports common descent. (There is also fossil evidence from the Cambrian explosion that is inconsistent with common descent)
There is empirically observed evidence in nature and in the lab concerning the rate and scope of "random" mutation.

However, despite all of the speculation and attempted rebuttals, there is NO empirical evidence that Behe's analysis of the observed scope and frequency of "random" mutation is wrong.

The question is: Should I trust Behe or The scientific community. To me the answer is clear beyond doubt.
If you prefer to say that you trust Behe instead, it's up to you, but don't say that it's based on scientific research.

I trust the scientific community and I trust Behe, because Behe is part of the scientific community.
But I don't trust either blindly.

When the scientific community is not in agreement with itself, I do my best to understand which scientific positions are based on observable empirical evidence and which are based on unverified speculation.
And then I embrace those scientific positions that are based on empirically observed fact and reality.

I'll comment on the discussion of Jesus' death in a separate post.

One more quick question...
Do you believe that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC?
Why or why not?

[Nils]

Here’s Nils, wondering why God is invisible to him.

Rick,
you are wrong again. I asked my wife and she says that's not me, I look older.
Is it you?

[Nessa]

Here’s Nils, wondering why God is invisible to him.

Rick,
you are wrong again. I asked my wife and she says that's not me, I look older.
Is it you?

Obviously it's a single guy here - no wedding ring

[RickD]

Here’s Nils, wondering why God is invisible to him.

Rick,
you are wrong again. I asked my wife and she says that's not me, I look older.
Is it you?

Obviously it's a single guy here - no wedding ring

You don’t know any married men that don’t wear wedding rings?

[RickD]

Here’s Nils, wondering why God is invisible to him.

Rick,
you are wrong again. I asked my wife and she says that's not me, I look older.
Is it you?

Yes, it’s me. You caught me. I’m claiming that Nils doesn’t exist, while I cover my eyes.

[Nils]

Here’s Nils, wondering why God is invisible to him.

Rick,
you are wrong again. I asked my wife and she says that's not me, I look older.
Is it you?

Yes, it’s me. You caught me. I’m claiming that Nils doesn’t exist, while I cover my eyes.

That's a common philosophical claim, that we the world doesn't exist if there in nobody watching it. That's why I always carry a mirror.

[Nils]

Here’s Nils, wondering why God is invisible to him.

Rick,
you are wrong again. I asked my wife and she says that's not me, I look older.
Is it you?

Obviously it's a single guy here - no wedding ring

You don’t know any married men that don’t wear wedding rings?

Nessa,
I belong to the community of married men and they wear wedding rings. Rich said earlier that belonging to that community implies that I also wear a ring. On the other hand, I don't wear a ring (pun not intended). Am I married then? I have to ask my wife.

(The reason I don't wear a ring is that I'm a part time peasant working with my hands and then it's inconvenient and also dangerous to wear a ring. Anyhow, poor peasants don't afford having rings. It's for the bourgeoisie.)

[Nessa]

Here’s Nils, wondering why God is invisible to him.

Rick,
you are wrong again. I asked my wife and she says that's not me, I look older.
Is it you?

Obviously it's a single guy here - no wedding ring

You don’t know any married men that don’t wear wedding rings?

It was a joke...

[Nessa]

Here’s Nils, wondering why God is invisible to him.

Rick,
you are wrong again. I asked my wife and she says that's not me, I look older.
Is it you?

Obviously it's a single guy here - no wedding ring

You don’t know any married men that don’t wear wedding rings?

Nessa,
I belong to the community of married men and they wear wedding rings. Rich said earlier that belonging to that community implies that I also wear a ring. On the other hand, I don't wear a ring (pun not intended). Am I married then? I have to ask my wife.

(The reason I don't wear a ring is that I'm a part time peasant working with my hands and then it's inconvenient and also dangerous to wear a ring. Anyhow, poor peasants don't afford having rings. It's for the bourgeoisie.)

Community of men....rings.....danger wearing a ring.... Very Lord of the rings-ish

[Nils]

We are discussing if it's irrational of me to ignore what you call evidence against evolution. If 50% of all scientists and almost all scientists in biology agree with me my position it's daring to call this position irrational.

I don't think I have described your position as irrational.
I have described your position as inconsistent with the evidence that is present in many of the sciences, such as biology, cosmology, and physics. Which is why a significant percentage of scientists believe in some sort of god.

If there were clear evidence my position were inconsistent but there are no undisputed evideces. On the contrary, a massive majority of biologist think there isn't.
So my position is neither irrational nor inconsistent.

I am not claiming that mutation and natural selection are false.
I'm not even claiming that common descent is false (which might annoy some people here).

What I am claiming is that the empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that the observed rate and scope of "random" mutation at the genetic level is incapable of producing the changes necessary to explain the scope and rate of information that has been infused into the the DNA of life on our planet.
Behe clearly demonstrates this in his genetic analysis of "random" mutation in nature and in the lab.

No, he doesn't. I read his article a few years ago. To come to his conclusion he makes an assumption that isn't accepted by the evolution theorists. (When I say "evolution", I usually means The evolution theory based on mutation and natural selection only, without God's interference.)

There is empirical evidence to validate "natural selection"
There is genetic and fossil evidence that supports common descent. (There is also fossil evidence from the Cambrian explosion that is inconsistent with common descent)
There is empirically observed evidence in nature and in the lab concerning the rate and scope of "random" mutation.

That's is mostly correct.

However, despite all of the speculation and attempted rebuttals, there is NO empirical evidence that Behe's analysis of the observed scope and frequency of "random" mutation is wrong.

This is the crucial point but you avoid commenting my comments to it. Behe's analysis is based on ASSUMPTIONS that you mentioned earlier in #30, which I quote again:
"So a mutation that requires four coordinated point mutations for an organism to evolve from one selectable state to another would require a rate of 1 in 10^40, which exceeds the number of living cells that have existed during the history of life on earth.
And there are many mechanisms within many living creatures that require much more than four specific coordinated mutations for that particular mechanism to work. "
It's exactly these assumptions what evolution "require(s)" that the standard evolution theory dismisses.

Behe's conclusion that non-governed evolution is impossible is based on some facts/evidence and assumptions. The conclusion is NOT an evidence.

You ask for "empirical evidence that Behe's analysis" is wrong. His assumption that SOME step in the evolution is impossible isn't falsifiable. Compare with someone that thinks that the gravitation theory isn't valid at SOME places. In the same way that assumption isn't falsifiable. You can check the gravitation theory at an enormous amount of places, the gravitation theory antagonist can always claim that you haven't found the right place.

To summarise: The Irreducible Complexity theory of Behe has NO evidence, isn't falsifiable, and is only proposed by a few professionals with an agenda.

I'll comment on the discussion of Jesus' death in a separate post.

One more quick question...
Do you believe that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC?
Why or why not?
[/quote]
Your question shows that you miss my point. I'll be back later

[DBowling]

However, despite all of the speculation and attempted rebuttals, there is NO empirical evidence that Behe's analysis of the observed scope and frequency of "random" mutation is wrong.

This is the crucial point but you avoid commenting my comments to it. Behe's analysis is based on ASSUMPTIONS that you mentioned earlier in #30, which I quote again:
"So a mutation that requires four coordinated point mutations for an organism to evolve from one selectable state to another would require a rate of 1 in 10^40, which exceeds the number of living cells that have existed during the history of life on earth.
And there are many mechanisms within many living creatures that require much more than four specific coordinated mutations for that particular mechanism to work. "
It's exactly these assumptions what evolution "require(s)" that the standard evolution theory dismisses.

They dismiss it, but they have no empirical evidence to support their dismissal.
Their dismissal is not a function of evidence, it is a function of their world view.

In contrast, Behe's analysis is based on empirical evidence...
1. It has been observed that a single point mutation is required for malaria to develop resistance to atovaquone.
The observed rate of that specific mutation is one in 10^12
Do you dispute either of those empirical observations?

2. It has been observed that two specific single point mutations are required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine.
The observed rate of those two specific mutations occurring is one in 10^20
Do you dispute either of those empirical observations?

If a single point mutation occurs at a rate of 1 in 10^12 and two specific coordinated mutations occur at a rate of 1 in 10^20, than that demonstrates that the relationship between the rate of a mutation and the number of coordinated single point mutations is exponential.
Do you dispute that the observed rate of of coordinated mutations is an exponential function of the number of coordinated single point mutations?

A study at the University of Georgia estimates that around 10^30 bacterial cells are formed on the earth every year.
Do you dispute the findings of the University of Georgia study?
Multiply that by the 4 billion years that life has existed on that planet, and you less than 10^40 cells.

So would you agree that multi point mutations that occur at a rate of less than 1 in 10^40 are unlikely (or impossible) to have occurred during the time that life has existed on our planet?

If you have different empirically observed rates for "random" mutation then I will be happy to look at any real evidence,
But I've read all kinds of unverified speculation.
And I am not convinced by argumentation that is based on unverified speculation when observed empirical data is inconsistent with the unverified speculation.

Behe's analysis is built on the observable rates and scope of "random" mutation in nature and in the lab.
Which is why Behe's data driven conclusions are more credible to me than unverified speculation.

[Nils]

However, despite all of the speculation and attempted rebuttals, there is NO empirical evidence that Behe's analysis of the observed scope and frequency of "random" mutation is wrong.

This is the crucial point but you avoid commenting my comments to it. Behe's analysis is based on ASSUMPTIONS that you mentioned earlier in #30, which I quote again:
"So a mutation that requires four coordinated point mutations for an organism to evolve from one selectable state to another would require a rate of 1 in 10^40, which exceeds the number of living cells that have existed during the history of life on earth.
And there are many mechanisms within many living creatures that require much more than four specific coordinated mutations for that particular mechanism to work. "
It's exactly these assumptions what evolution "require(s)" that the standard evolution theory dismisses.

They dismiss it, but they have no empirical evidence to support their dismissal.
Their dismissal is not a function of evidence, it is a function of their world view.

In contrast, Behe's analysis is based on empirical evidence...
1. It has been observed that a single point mutation is required for malaria to develop resistance to atovaquone.
The observed rate of that specific mutation is one in 10^12
Do you dispute either of those empirical observations?

2. It has been observed that two specific single point mutations are required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine.
The observed rate of those two specific mutations occurring is one in 10^20
Do you dispute either of those empirical observations?

If a single point mutation occurs at a rate of 1 in 10^12 and two specific coordinated mutations occur at a rate of 1 in 10^20, than that demonstrates that the relationship between the rate of a mutation and the number of coordinated single point mutations is exponential.
Do you dispute that the observed rate of of coordinated mutations is an exponential function of the number of coordinated single point mutations?

A study at the University of Georgia estimates that around 10^30 bacterial cells are formed on the earth every year.
Do you dispute the findings of the University of Georgia study?
Multiply that by the 4 billion years that life has existed on that planet, and you less than 10^40 cells.

So would you agree that multi point mutations that occur at a rate of less than 1 in 10^40 are unlikely (or impossible) to have occurred during the time that life has existed on our planet?

If you have different empirically observed rates for "random" mutation then I will be happy to look at any real evidence,
But I've read all kinds of unverified speculation.
And I am not convinced by argumentation that is based on unverified speculation when observed empirical data is inconsistent with the unverified speculation.

Behe's analysis is built on the observable rates and scope of "random" mutation in nature and in the lab.
Which is why Behe's data driven conclusions are more credible to me than unverified speculation.

I haven't read the scientific articles where your points above are described but I don't have any reason to question the results. As usual you miss the important point that the evolution theory assumes that in most cases there is only one mutation at a time. According to your figures a three point mutation is improbable, but that isn't a problem for the evolution theory, it doesn't expect multipoint mutations.

There is a problem discussing these issues with you because you don't comment my important critique of Behe's position Irreducible complexity which is the theoretical motivation for the conclusion he arrives at. But it good to note that you finally concede that what Behe does is making a theory motivated "data driven conclusion" rather than finding some evidence. "Data" is NOT the same thing as "evidence". You need good data and a good theory to get evidence. If the theory is wrong, as it is in Behe's case, there is no evidence.

Then it is up to you saying that the evolution theory, which is regarded as one of the best supported scientific theories, isn't "data driven" and is only "unverified speculation". I wonder what those thousands of scientist world wide that are working with topics related to the evolution theory are doing.

If you trust Behe and a the Discovery Institute gang more than the overwhelmingly majority of biological scientists, I can't convince you. But don't say that I should find Behe's unfalsifiable and ideological driven speculations reliable. I find no evidence what so ever for a teleologically driven evolution (by God).

[DBowling]

In contrast, Behe's analysis is based on empirical evidence...
1. It has been observed that a single point mutation is required for malaria to develop resistance to atovaquone.
The observed rate of that specific mutation is one in 10^12
Do you dispute either of those empirical observations?

2. It has been observed that two specific single point mutations are required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine.
The observed rate of those two specific mutations occurring is one in 10^20
Do you dispute either of those empirical observations?

If a single point mutation occurs at a rate of 1 in 10^12 and two specific coordinated mutations occur at a rate of 1 in 10^20, than that demonstrates that the relationship between the rate of a mutation and the number of coordinated single point mutations is exponential.
Do you dispute that the observed rate of of coordinated mutations is an exponential function of the number of coordinated single point mutations?

A study at the University of Georgia estimates that around 10^30 bacterial cells are formed on the earth every year.
Do you dispute the findings of the University of Georgia study?
Multiply that by the 4 billion years that life has existed on that planet, and you less than 10^40 cells.

So would you agree that multi point mutations that occur at a rate of less than 1 in 10^40 are unlikely (or impossible) to have occurred during the time that life has existed on our planet?

If you have different empirically observed rates for "random" mutation then I will be happy to look at any real evidence,
But I've read all kinds of unverified speculation.
And I am not convinced by argumentation that is based on unverified speculation when observed empirical data is inconsistent with the unverified speculation.

Behe's analysis is built on the observable rates and scope of "random" mutation in nature and in the lab.
Which is why Behe's data driven conclusions are more credible to me than unverified speculation.

I haven't read the scientific articles where your points above are described but I don't have any reason to question the results.

That's a step in the right direction

As usual you miss the important point that the evolution theory assumes that in most cases there is only one mutation at a time. According to your figures a three point mutation is improbable, but that isn't a problem for the evolution theory, it doesn't expect multipoint mutations.

But in the chloroquine example we don't really know if it was a single multipoint mutation or if two sequential single point mutations were required.
We just know that two coordinated specific mutations were required to provide resistance to chloroquine, and that the fastest path to reaching those two coordinated mutations occurred at an observed rate of 1 in 10^20.

There is a problem discussing these issues with you because you don't comment my important critique of Behe's position Irreducible complexity which is the theoretical motivation for the conclusion he arrives at.

That is because your rebuttal to Behe's is nothing more than assertions.
And I haven't seen any data driven (or even remotely plausible) single point selectable paths for the tremendous number of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms that Behe and other scientists have identified.

But it good to note that you finally concede that what Behe does is making a theory motivated "data driven conclusion" rather than finding some evidence. "Data" is NOT the same thing as "evidence". You need good data and a good theory to get evidence. If the theory is wrong, as it is in Behe's case, there is no evidence.

Again you are simply wrong on the facts.
I would recommend that you take a quick refresher on the basics of the Scientific Method

A good theory, like Behe's, is built on experimentation, and observation. And when a theory is inconsistent with experimentation and observation, then the theory in question needs to be modified to come in line with the experimental data and observed empirical data.

Then it is up to you saying that the evolution theory, which is regarded as one of the best supported scientific theories, isn't "data driven" and is only "unverified speculation". I wonder what those thousands of scientist world wide that are working with topics related to the evolution theory are doing.

I've already pointed out that much of evolutionary theory is in fact data driven.

The part of evolutionary theory that runs contrary to the observed behavior of mutation in the lab and in nature is the presumption that "random" mutation is an adequate causal agent.
And the adequacy of "random" mutation is nothing more than a speculative supposition with no supporting empirical evidence.

If you trust Behe and a the Discovery Institute gang more than the overwhelmingly majority of biological scientists, I can't convince you.

I trust Behe and the many other scientists who's theories are supported by observed empirical evidence over scientists who's presuppositions about the adequacy of "random" mutation are contradicted by observed empirical evidence.

Again I come back to a very simple principle.
Theories that are supported by observable empirical evidence in the real world are more credible than theories that are contradicted by observable empirical evidence in the real world.

[Nils]

DB,
you don't give any good reasons why I shouldn't regard the Irreducible Complexity Theory (IC) as pseudo science as it is commonly regarded. (Not only in Wikipedia. I discussed at length with a person that is teacher in theology and a devoted Christian and he finally admitted that IC isn't science, it is theology). This thread is about my question why God doesn't give better arguments for his existence. Pseudo science certainly isn't a good argument and your way of just repeating bad arguments without going into details makes the discussion tedious. We can discuss IC in the new thread Can Mutation Invent? if you want but I end the ID-discussion in this tread.

[Nils]

DB: For a person who is willing to dismiss the conclusions of over 90% of the humans on the planet, those numbers are hardly a convincing argument. In fact your numbers just confirm the fact that there is enough evidence to convince a significant percentage of scientists to agree with 90% of the humans on the planet that some sort of god does in fact exist.

Yes! So the question is, why does Nils not see sufficient evidences for belief in God, when the vast majority of the planet does AND a sizeable percentage of scientists do as well. Some of the best minds and scientists have held a strong belief in God, and they redundantly state they do so based upon the scientific evidences.

A small sampling of noted scientists realizing that there is a Creative Intelligence behind the universe:

American physicist and Nobel Prize winner Arthur Compton said, "For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence--an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered--'In the beginning God.'"

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater): "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Einstein: "As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed."

Einstein: "... every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

Nils, why do you not recognize as evidence what so many scientists and most humans on the planet do, that seems obvious to them?

Philip, this is an important question to which I don't have any answer. I can only notice that there are lot of scientists that share my view. I think that there is something more basic that makes you believe or not. Then you rationalize your world view accordingly.

And bizarrely, while rejecting the incredible cellular and DNA evidences revealing powerful evidences for a Creative Intelligence behind the Creation,

To me there are very persuading arguments why there isn't a "Creative Intelligence" behind the evolution of life. Just two of them:
- The evolution theory says that live has evolved gradually in small steps. This has been verified for instance by sequencing the DNA of plants and animals. If a living creature would be found that clearly didn't fit into the DNA tree of life it would be a falsification of the Evolution Theory, but has never happened. If the creation of life was guided by God why did he create so it seemed that life has evolved step by step. I don't se any reasons why. Why not create horses with wings and other creatures that exist in the tales for instance by combining DNA from several animals. There are many combinations that would be useful.There are only two reasons I can think of, either there is no creator or the creator wants to cheat the scientists.
- The mutation-selection algorithm is being used on computers and produces new information in different application. There is no reason why it couldn't create new biological living forms. There is no need of a God.

instead you DO find credible wild speculations with zero validation for String Theory? What a contrast - on one hand, you reject considerable, examinable evidence that a Creative Intelligence had to build the universe, and yet you are satisfied with a theory which has no evidence whatsoever???!!!

Now you are apparently talking about the creation of the universe. It's makes it easier to discuss if you separate that question from the Evolution question. There are at least two possible answers to former question, a personal God or a Multiverse. This is mainly not a scientific question, rather a metaphysical / theological question. I think that the two answers are capable of producing this world we live in but I have never seen any good arguments why any of these exists. To me the choice between them depends on other arguments. I, for instance, have a long list of arguments why there is no personal God. One is the argument of this thread.
[/quote]
Maybe your true problem isn't really a lack of evidences?
[/quote]
If you talk about the creation of the Universe, that's true, for both explanations.