Evidence for God from Science

Zenith wrote:i am not an advocate of the accepted version of the 'Theory of Evolution'. i think that all science is at least slightly biased by the philosophy of the person making the conclusions on an experiment or observation. but i would say the same goes for not just science, but any kind of observation or experience. science should try to explain things from many positions, and it attempts to in its current form, but there is still a fair amount of descrimination and undue criticism.

i do not describe the theory of evolution as purposeless and random. i also know that many scientists (though they might appear to believe it is) do not actually believe this either. to people like me and them, there is no such thing as purposeless, or random; random is just a label we use to describe something too complex for us to see a pattern in. the fact is, everything has a cause and every observation ever made is evidence for this. therefore, evolution, as with any natural process, is not random and not purposeless, but rather their purposes and structure are unknown to us, or wholly different than any kind we are aware of now.

i am also not specifically claiming that evolution is a tool of intelligent design, but rather trying to show that it could be. a lot of theists believe strongly (and wrongly) that christianity and evolution are inherently controversial. i believe this to be due to misunderstanding on all sides.

What would that misunderstanding be? And if things are unknown to you, you are arguing from ignorance, so why should there be any value in your position?

August wrote:What would that misunderstanding be? And if things are unknown to you, you are arguing from ignorance, so why should there be any value in your position?

i would think that the misunderstandings would be obvious. a preacher (usually) does not know the intricacies of the theory of evolution just as the biologist (usually) doesn't know the intricacies of scripture. a christian might get an idea in their head about evolution from some small thing they may have heard that makes evolution seem completely absurd, but only because they don't know nearly as much about it as a scientist. i have heard many arguments from theists against evolution whose understanding of evolution is severly lacking and the obvious cause of their argument (rather than a flaw in the theory of evolution). this happens in all things; when people who don't know about an idea force their arguments on those that do.

but, on the other hand, we cannot know everything, and this is for the second part of your post. you say things are unknown to me and that there is no value to my position because of it, but then why should anyone listen to anyone? why should i listen to you? the fact is, i know things that you don't just as you know things that i don't. if you talk to as many people as you can, you get a more rounded view of human ideals and philosophies. if you collect as much data as you can, you get a more rounded view of the processes behind that data. we are all arguing from ignorance, but we have different levels of ignorance in the things we argue about. it all depends on our personal experiences and our ability to percieve those experiences clearly. i have more experiences from a secular viewpoint, whereas you have more experience from a religious view. we can teach each other things that we know and the other doesn't.