Evidence for God from Science

I am working towards my degree in biomedical science. I hold the less popular stance of believing in Intelligent Design. An argument was brought up to me today, explaining how humans build a resistence to antibiotics over time and use. A student in the class used this as potential evidence for evolution rather than the alternative (Intelligent Design). Any help or advice on how to tackle this subject would be greatly appreciated.

Intelligent design doesn't require the rejection of evolution. Evolution is well established and the example provided is, in my opinion, a strong example and argument illustrating evolution within a species. There are not many Intelligent design proponents and indeed, there are many YEC proponents evern, who accept without difficulty evolution on this level. What it doesn't prove however is that evolution and natural selection are responsible for the development of live from single cell simple organisms or even radical differentiation and transition to unique speciation.

I've often thought that natural selection is the opposite of speciation. I could never quite figure out how destroying the gene pool would provide a larger set of genetic material... Seems like we'd have very few amounts of variety in the end.

That sounds more like microevolution (natural selection) than macroevolution (the idea that a number of changes due to natural selection can result in a new species). There are some interesting articles on the site which look at the differences between the two. This is one example: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html (General Rebuttal to the Theory of Evolution).

explaining how humans build a resistence to antibiotics over time and use. A student in the class used this as potential evidence for evolution rather than the alternative (Intelligent Design). Any help or advice on how to tackle this subject would be greatly appreciated.

You really need to read the book about recognizing logical fallacies in evolutionary thinking. The basis of this argument is called the fallacy of equivocation. It is a subtle misuse of the word evolution. Evolution can mean many different things depending on the context. It is wrong to take something called 'evolution' in one context and then apply it in another. It is misleading and a common logical fallacy. I doubt your friend wants to base his biology on faulty logic.

Example of this argument: We can observe evolved changes in virus' and bacteria, and so evolution is true. Therefore people evolving from lower primates is true.

My understanding is that people do not build a resistance, but bacteria build resistance. Actually bacteria themselves do not build resistance. This is how it may appear. They are either susceptable to anti-biotics or not. The overuse of antibiotics results in the killing of useful as well as harmful bacteria. Often some bacteria are mutated which leaves them actually better suited to survive anti-biotics. Anti-biotics simply disrupt a process in the bacteria either slowing or preventing its replication. If certain bacteria lack the protein that the anti-biotic attaches to, guess what?

Bottom line. At the end of the day you are still left with a bacteria. Not an amoeba, much less anything one step closer to intelligent life. It is a bacteria

Example:

Let’s look at a famous example to help clarify this. During the anthrax scare shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) was given to potential victims. Cipro belongs to a family of antibiotics known as quinolones, which bind to a bacterial protein called gyrase, decreasing the ability of the bacteria to reproduce. This allows the body’s natural immune defenses to overtake the infectious bacteria as they are reproducing at a slower rate. Quinolone-resistant bacteria have mutations in the genes encoding the gyrase protein. The mutant bacteria survive because the Cipro cannot bind to the altered gyrase.

Bottom line. At the end of the day you are still left with a bacteria. Not an amoeba, much less anything one step closer to intelligent life. It is a bacteria

Good example of natural selection.

There is nothing wrong with natural selection, we can observe it, test for it, and see it over generations.

The question will always come down to whether mutations can provide enough variation to provide the changes we have seen historically

Wow, Jlay amazing response these statements will help out a ton.

The question here is how the terms are used. Natural selection is generally used in the context that nature or materialism is the only thing that exists and the only thing to explain life.. Therefore it can be used to express the atheistic mindset.. However, it is true in certain cases of creationism, like theistic evolution, it can also be used in a case for God, but not generally.

Basically it all get's down to how it's used in one's philosophy..