God and Science - Is There a Conflict?

A five star video - God and Science - Is There a Conflict? Faith and reason cannot conflict where they intersect. Durston shows the logical necessity of a Creator and information. IDvolution agrees wholeheartedly - "God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act." Complex information was right there "in the beginning". The DNA language is super sophisticated with layering, efficiency and can be read forward and back. He cites several recent science papers.

God is the foundation of science and the universe.  His fingerprints are all over. "God and science are mutually enriching" - Durston

 "There is a popular notion that as science advances, religion retreats. This is true of Greek mythology and superstitious beliefs, but is it true of Christianity? In this lecture given March, 2013 at Wilfrid Laurier University-Laurier Brantford, biophysicist Dr. Kirk Durston shows that science has failed to push back the major claims of Judeo Christianity pertaining to God and nature. Surprisingly, as science advances, the evidence in support of the major claims has actually increased."

Some heavyweight Oxford professors discuss and refute new atheist claims

This is worth watching - it is broken up into several parts. "Let's look at the big questions". Philosophy and the God debate Philosophy, Science and the God Debate: 'Science disproves the existence of God'. Scientists and philosophers interviewed: Alister McGrath (The Dawkins Delusion), Keith Ward (Why There Almost Certainly Is a God) and John Lennox (Gunning for God). This documentary shows Oxford professors responding and refuting the New Atheists, like Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Christopher Hitchens (God is not Great), Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation) and Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell).

Can Science Disprove God's Existence?

In the wake of the Ham vs Nye debate it is apparent many do not know how science is conducted and the reasoning methods employed. Ham was trying to show that when reasoning the past (historical science) uses abductive reasoning. Can Science Disprove God's Existence? from Magis Center In this brief videocast, Karlo Broussard, apologist and speaker for The Magis Center of Reason and Faith, dispels the popular myth that science has proven that God does not exist.

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Absolutely fantastic talk.  Over 100,000 hits over at UncommonDescent. 

 

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Nanotech and Jesus Christ - James Tour at Georgia Tech 

  

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.
I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.
Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.
I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”
If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.
But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.
The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come! Now remember, because I’m just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you’re talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can’t.
Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.
I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, “How does this come about?” And he says, “Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Now there’s a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that’s what it is. So that’s where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44)

 

Our Fragile Intellect

Trends in Genetics references this paper - Our Fragile Intellect.(download) What is interesting about this is that we peaked 2000-6000 years ago and now are devolving.  Or.... we started out pristine with the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality and freedom from sickness and have lost it.

Abstract

New developments in genetics, anthropology, and neurobiology predict that a very large number of genes underlie our intellectual and emotional abilities, making these abilities genetically surprisingly fragile.

"I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of
1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she
would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive
of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a
broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important
issues. Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be
among the most emotionally stable of our friends and
colleagues. I would also make this wager for the ancient
inhabitants of Africa, Asia, India, or the Americas, of
perhaps 2000–6000 years ago. The basis for my wager
comes from new developments in genetics, anthropology,
and neurobiology that make a clear prediction that our
intellectual and emotional abilities are genetically surprisingly
fragile."

and

"Taken together, the large number of genes required for
intellectual and emotional function, and the unique susceptibility
of these genes to loss of heterozygosity, lead me
to conclude that we, as a species, are surprisingly intellectually
fragile and perhaps reached a peak 2000–6000 years
ago. But if we are losing our intellectual abilities, how did
we acquire them in the first place? This will be the topic of
the next section [15]. "

couple this with

Human Genome in Meltdown

A previous post here - Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" Below is additional support for IDvolution. Some quotes from Dr John Sanford on genetic entropy. Very consistent with IDvolution and Scripture. To get the full effect take the time to view the videos. Listen carefully where he states it is "kind of a trade secret of population geneticists." The design of the genome is astonishing and shows intelligence, design and purpose. "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is a thought of God."Pope Benedict XVI

and now we have this in Nature. Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants 86% arose in the last 5-10,000 years.
and

Front Loading? Genetic Entropy? Complexity to simplicity?

More support for design and IDvolution.


Front Loading? Genetic Entropy? Complexity to simplicity? Devolution. Adam and Eve with preternatural gifts to modern day humans? Every day now more evidence comes in supporting IDvolution and design present at the beginning.

Research suggests that evolution sometimes meant becoming simpler, not more complex



(Phys.org)—The view that animals have become more complex over time could be a thing of the past, according to the latest research.


The new evidence, from scientists at the University of St Andrews, suggests that some modern day animals may have evolved instead by becoming less complex.

The researchers say that the discovery, of ghostly remains of gene neighbourhoods that once existed in a 550 million year old ancestor, suggests that the earliest animal was more complex than previously thought.

The findings, published later today in the journal, Current Biology, appear to contradict the common perception of evolution – that creatures have advanced by becoming genetically more complex over time.


more...
__________________________________________________________________

What is interesting about this is that we peaked and now are devolving.  Or.... we started out pristine with the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality and freedom from sickness and have lost it.

Paul Davies on the Origin of Life as an Information Problem

"Based on simple mathematical models, we think it may have happened suddenly, analogously to a heated gas abruptly bursting into flame." 

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

Paul Davies on the Origin of Life as an Information Problem

The Guardian features an interesting article by Paul Davies: “The secret of life won’t be cooked up in a chemistry lab: Life’s origins may only be explained through a study of its unique management of information.” Davies writes, 

"If we cast the problem of life's origin in computer jargon, attempts at chemical synthesis focus exclusively on the hardware – the chemical substrate of life – but ignore the software – the informational aspect. To explain how life began we need to understand how its unique management of information came about.

To take a simple example; whether a cell expresses a gene can depend on mechanical stresses or electric fields acting on the whole cell by its environment. Thus, a change in global information (a pattern of force) at the macroscopic level translates into a change in local information movement at the microscopic level (switching on a gene). More generally, a range of signals received from its environment help to dictate how a cell's DNA is distributed and transcribed. Walker and I propose that the key transition on the road to life occurred when top-down information flow first predominated. Based on simple mathematical models, we think it may have happened suddenly, analogously to a heated gas abruptly bursting into flame"

Past 5,000 years prolific for changes to human genome

 

A study published today in Nature³ now helps to clarify when many of those rare variants arose. Researchers used deep sequencing to locate and date more than one million single-nucleotide variants — locations where a single letter of the DNA sequence is different from other individuals — in the genomes of 6,500 African and European Americans. The findings confirm their earlier work suggesting that the majority of variants, including potentially harmful ones, were picked up during the past 5,000–10,000 years. Researchers also saw the genetic stamp of the diverging migratory history of the two groups.