Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]

But if you define the universe as anything and everything that exists, you can't make any claims about it from what we have discovered scientifically. Our scientific understanding only relates to the observable universe. You can't make claims about the entire universe because it's not clear that we will ever be able to observe even .1% of it.


[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly can make claims about the parts and nature of the Universe that has been observed so far. Thus far, no real sign of God or a creator/designer. There's no reason to believe it, because we have no evidence of it. What I can't do is claim that God exists because we can't see all of the Universe. I'll leave that up to you.

[ QUOTE ]

So basically I'm saying that you can only make claims about the observable universe and it is perfectly consistent to claim that God (whatever that term means) is outside of the observable universe.


[/ QUOTE ]
OK. You can say that God is outside the observable Universe. Fine. God must, therefore, be reaaaaalllly [censored] far away, millions and billions of light years away from the earth, hidden by gas, dust, galaxy clusters and untold space and time. What do you propose is the mechanism by which he interacts with us here on earth? Wormholes? Faster than light communication? Quantum tunneling? Id love to hear an explanation.

Or, if you're a deist, and don't think that God interferes in human affairs, do you think that he was at the center of the big bang? Perhaps he is stuck out there, at the center of an expanding universe, with all of his creation flying inexorably away from him.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Would you consider the DNA analysis, by itself,


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to debate the human-chimp genome similarities a new thread might be best.

Bottom line is none of this type evidence is more indicative of evolution than design.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Bottom line is none of this type evidence is more indicative of evolution than design.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of evidence are you looking for exactly? What would be sufficient?

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Bottom line is none of this type evidence is more indicative of evolution than design.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of evidence are you looking for exactly? What would be sufficient?

[/ QUOTE ]
More specifically, what evidence would make NR think creationism could not possibly be true? There is a laundry list of items that, if discovered, would force a reasonable person to reject evolution. The fact that creationists do not have a falsifiable position should concern them if they want to pretend they are arguing honestly.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But if you define the universe as anything and everything that exists, you can't make any claims about it from what we have discovered scientifically. Our scientific understanding only relates to the observable universe. You can't make claims about the entire universe because it's not clear that we will ever be able to observe even .1% of it.


[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly can make claims about the parts and nature of the Universe that has been observed so far. Thus far, no real sign of God or a creator/designer. There's no reason to believe it, because we have no evidence of it. What I can't do is claim that God exists because we can't see all of the Universe. I'll leave that up to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no argument with this. I was objecting to your claim that Biology tells us that God must have arisen through an evolutionary process. I was simply pointing out that if God exists he likely exists outside of our observable Universe and that Biology can't tell us anything about what is outside the observable Universe. So while you can claim that we have no physical evidence of God, you can't start making scientific claims about him.

Honestly, I don't think that we can even say that Biology tells us much about life outside of our solar system. We have no way of knowing what else is possible because we have such a limited set of observations compared to the size of the observable universe.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

So basically I'm saying that you can only make claims about the observable universe and it is perfectly consistent to claim that God (whatever that term means) is outside of the observable universe.


[/ QUOTE ]
OK. You can say that God is outside the observable Universe. Fine. God must, therefore, be reaaaaalllly [censored] far away, millions and billions of light years away from the earth, hidden by gas, dust, galaxy clusters and untold space and time. What do you propose is the mechanism by which he interacts with us here on earth? Wormholes? Faster than light communication? Quantum tunneling? Id love to hear an explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you're assuming that something which by definition is beyond our understanding must use methods that we can currently understand. You're also assuming that the entire universe (anything and everything that exists) is just like the observable universe and I don't think you can claim this. How do you know that we don't live in a small subsection of the universe that has different physical laws than other parts of the universe? How do you know we don't live in some sort of multiverse?

[ QUOTE ]

Or, if you're a deist, and don't think that God interferes in human affairs, do you think that he was at the center of the big bang? Perhaps he is stuck out there, at the center of an expanding universe, with all of his creation flying inexorably away from him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an atheist, but I don't think it is inconsistent with science to be some sort of deist. If someone wants to call the first cause of our universe God, that's fine with me. I don't think that we have good evidence that God exists, but I also don't think we need to make overzealous claims to prove our point.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone wants to call the first cause of our universe God, that's fine with me. I don't think that we have good evidence that God exists, but I also don't think we need to make overzealous claims to prove our point.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that what most people refer to as "God" earns all these extra attributes like omniscience and an interest in our lives. If you stripped that stuff away and just called this god "Universe Entity", I don't think atheists would necessarily have a big problem with it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone wants to call the first cause of our universe God, that's fine with me. I don't think that we have good evidence that God exists, but I also don't think we need to make overzealous claims to prove our point.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that what most people refer to as "God" earns all these extra attributes like omniscience and a hatred of homosexuals . If you stripped that stuff away and just called this god "Universe Entity", I don't think atheists would necessarily have a big problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Would you consider the DNA analysis, by itself,


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to debate the human-chimp genome similarities a new thread might be best.

Bottom line is none of this type evidence is more indicative of evolution than design.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you evaded the point that it's inconsistent of you to accept DNA evidence of common descent between close relatives but not more distant ones.

Fine, I'll start a new thread when I have time.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
For all the atheists on the forum:
If Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God ) is able to accept evolution and believe in God, why can't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an atheist for reasons which have nothing to do with evolution, or any other scientific theory.

The point is that most (if not all) creationists reject evolution based on religious, rather than on scientific grounds. That's true even for those creationists (such as NR) who claim otherwise.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What kind of evidence are you looking for exactly? What would be sufficient?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, it's not my hypothesis. What would be sufficient to prove creation to you?