Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

On what basis do you make the statement about science learning it seems guided?

An opinion only.

Here is the thing, science exists because people (scientists) can observe and document the world around us and they can even repeat and predict many things ( most thing some would argue) in nature.

Good so far.

Now, if nature was purely random and unpredictable

Which of course it is nor purely random. Some things are predictable and orderly other things are random and unpredictable. Things may be predictable on one level, random on another.

, that wouldn't be the case.
Science seems to "take for granted" that they can predict, they can observe and that there is an "order" to nature.

Well, no, that is a matter of empirical observation, not an assumption.

Also, in science there is no certainty. Just probabilities.

Even evolution, if we look at it with no bias ( or as little as possible), seems to leads us to a process that "selects" which mutations to pass on to the next generation, which mutations are deemed beneficial.

Well, allowing for the anthropomorphic nature of "select" and "deem", that is more or less right. I sure wouldnt have said it that way.

I mean, if there is a "selection process" ( which evolutionists say there is), that seems to imply some sort of "guidance".

Well, guidance is another word with human connotations.

Would you say that water is guided downhill, and that it selects what it deems to be the best path? Probably not. And if not, dont say it of evolution either.

Or if you don't like the word guided you can choose another

Its not about what I like, its about what is appropriate. I dont think any synonym for "guided" would be any better.

What word would you use when talking about water going downhill?

Why does water go downhill instead of Uphill? why does water go anywhere at all? why does water have the properties for "going" ?
And that really isn't what we are talking about at all anyways, so I am not sure why you brought that up...

PaulSacramento wrote:Why does water go downhill instead of Uphill? why does water go anywhere at all? why does water have the properties for "going" ?
And that really isn't what we are talking about at all anyways, so I am not sure why you brought that up...

We are talking about how natural forces operate, I thought.

Not why they exist.

You seem to think evolution needs guidance, Im saying it no more needs it than water does. There is no general principle, nor any specific evidence whatever that any guidance is involved, at all.

You see guidance taking evolution somewhere. But you dont see special guidance needed to organize random raindrops into a river system and take it to the sea.

Why would you think that the one only needs the basic forces of gravity etc, and the other needs special forces?

You seem to think evolution needs guidance, Im saying it no more needs it than water does. There is no general principle, nor any specific evidence whatever that any guidance is involved, at all.

I don't think that evolution needs guidance at all.
I just pointed out that Natural selection seems to be a type of "guidance" as to what mutations are passed on.

PaulSacramento wrote:

You seem to think evolution needs guidance, Im saying it no more needs it than water does. There is no general principle, nor any specific evidence whatever that any guidance is involved, at all.

I don't think that evolution needs guidance at all.
I just pointed out that Natural selection seems to be a type of "guidance" as to what mutations are passed on.

Ok, good enough. As long as its 'guidance" in quotation marks.

Is it important really to be able to talk science on its terms in order to reach the lost?Which is one of the few things that bothers me about ID. Because I can find no evidence that shows in science natural selection effects life.Like Eskimo's who are humans who adapted to live in the extreme cold and yet natural selection is nonexistent and they are still humans.We can use bacteria and it shows that natural selection is imagination that the evidence does not bear out natural selection having any effect on life.

PaulSacramento wrote:

You seem to think evolution needs guidance, Im saying it no more needs it than water does. There is no general principle, nor any specific evidence whatever that any guidance is involved, at all.

I don't think that evolution needs guidance at all.
I just pointed out that Natural selection seems to be a type of "guidance" as to what mutations are passed on.

There are many theories offered as to why natural selection has resulted in only one species being able to make sense of the world has survived. That's a shame really. The beginners guide to evolutionary theory could make a strong case around how mankind is not 'special' in any way if other species particularly from a distant line such as aves or reptiles were heading towards exploring the universe.

Audie wrote:I wonder what exactly is meant by / is the basis for saying "proteins deteriorate.."
and, as for the completed complex host, what information about a bright line distinction between living and non living is entered into this.

FYI. Even in a living host proteins deteriorate. It is commonly called 'aging'.

http://www.salk.edu/labs/hunter/research.php


The latest flavor of the month around abiogensis is the "proteins first" theory. This theory suggests one of the first steps towards a living life form was a protein evolving via some unknown chemical reactions. Proteins do not form on their own outside of a host, a host being, from a living organism from one of the 3 domains of life. ie a life form.

Take a sample that contains protein from a living host and it 'dies'. The notion of a protein, no matter how short, forming on its own via chemical reactions and surviving long enough to undergo some other evolutionary process appears to be disproved by the science of observation and all research conducted so far.