Evidence for God from Science

On Christmas Day a message to all honest Christians.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/galv.cfm

Kurieuo said Schonborn never outrightly rejected "evolution" as you seem to be making out, as well your MSNBC news piece which is quite misleading on Schonburn's original statements, and also over-exaggerates Schonborn's affiliation to the Intelligent Design movement. So again, what did Sc...

Kurieuo said So again, what did Schonborn reject which caused so many knee-jerk reactions by people such as yourself? While he accepts evolution in general may be true, he says that "evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense[/b - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selecti...

Popes are only human and have their posterity to consider. Would any pope choose to place themselves alongside Urban VIII in the history books? One would imagine not. Galileo was invited by his erstwhile friend to inspect the instruments of torture to help him in his deliberations as to whether or n...

The point about the scientific theory of evolution is that it provides a cogent possible natural explanation for the existence of many different species. It is the fact that the explanation involves natural causes and not God that makes it a scientific theory. The theory that it was God who was resp...

sandy_mcd - you are vindicated. Cardinal Schonborn has recanted; he now says that one may assume design but not on scientific grounds. In other words ID is not science. A senior Roman Catholic cardinal seen as a champion of intelligent design against Darwin's explanation of life has described the th...

nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembl...

August, you do nothing else than make unsubstantiated assertions. I have supplied a site where people can access information upon which to make their own judgements. Your statement that the TalkReason article is just an assertion is patent nonsense as it goes into the Behe v Doolittle debate in deta...

nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembl...

The article that our friend 'tootin' referred to did not address any of the core arguments in the original article, it merely asserted that Doolittle was misrepresented. Such a weak assertion can only be attributed to bias, and highlights the lack of factual refutation. The author of the TalkReason...

"TalkReason provides a forum for the publication of papers with well-thought out arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics. Papers whose goal is to promote creationism, Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, the compatibility of the Bible with science, a...

My views on God and science result from personal experience and formal study. I would, if pushed, be prepared to accept the label of pantheist. I do not call myself that but I would not argue too much if someone wished to call me that. God exists by definition for me, since I take the word to be syn...

Committed Darwinists continue this strategy today. For example, nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, a...

There wouldn't be much need for faith if a powerful enough microscope could examine molecules and find inscribed on the bottom of each, "(c) 4004 BC, God". sandy_mcd Very true. To employ science to try to prove God's existence is as foolish as trying to use it to disprove it. The same goe...