Evidence for God from Science

Some critiques of this website have accused it of being for stupid people who don't know anything about science, is there any validity to this accusation? Do you see any ways this site could improve? I personally think better and more solid sources should be given for some of the claims the website has made.

Of course there is always room for improvement.
Would that stop people who vehemently claim no room for God within science from throwing around slander.
No.
At the core of it, it's not the science or lack thereof they are so opposed too but rather the belief in God.
Differing ideas within science are vast, from the minor to quite major variations in scientific understanding. Within that is healthy debate, the end goal being everyone trying to make sense of the world around us, using a pretty diverse scientific understanding. Scientists can be presented with the same data and come to varying degrees of interpretation.

Is it so much an attack on the science presented on this website or the fundamental core belief that behind every science lies God?

Which claims to you believe could be better presented and hashed out?
I'm not asking that to be cheeky but rather like any website presenting scientific interpretation it's not an exact science it never is, there is always room for discussion and better understanding.
That is somewhat why we are here, to maybe be a little less stupid and grow and understand more.

there any validity to this accusation

Not really. I've checked out the people who think they have 'debunked' this website. There was a post about one such website here recently, forgot where it was... I had seen it before and figured I'd give it another chance, see if would be interesting to post on. It was just sad. Pathetic really. The person running that website is a pseudo-intellectual (too many of these on the internet. And I have no interest in wasting my time with them). He shows he doesn't have the fundamental knowledge to have scientific discernment (or rational for that matter..). E.g. doesn't understand stats, doesn't seem to understand much on the molecular level, quantum physics, etc.

Is this website completely concrete? No. Could there be more shown evidences and sometimes better presentations? Sure.
Could someone with half a brain be able to check the pages posted and see how much BS vs. reason there is and know how to est it? Most definitely. But a pseudo-intellectual would never know the difference.

Bluejay4 wrote:Some critiques of this website have accused it of being for stupid people who don't know anything about science, is there any validity to this accusation? Do you see any ways this site could improve? I personally think better and more solid sources should be given for some of the claims the website has made.

The moment someone criticizes a website by stating that it is for "stupid people" INSTEAD of showing where the website is incorrect, they are resorting to the lowest form of "logical fallacies", that of the "ad hominem" attack:
Attack the people, not the argument.
People that do that usually do that because they do NOT have any valid counter to the arguments.

Fact is that we do strike a good ( not great) balance between science and faith.
Can we do better? Of course.

Fact is, many, MANY people who criticize the science views of regular Christian posters on this site, themselves, have very problematic scientific views. This is true ESPECIALLY when it comes to their origins of the universe and life. So many believe their "certainty" of UNGUIDED and RANDOM evolution proves there is no God/no God was ever necessary. But what such people actually believe in is metaphysics and miracles, but just don't realize it. First, they want to argue over processes (evolution) that could only have occurred well over 10+ billion years AFTER what they most need to explain. They believe that all of the incredibly specific, comprehensively interactive, and necessary building blocks of all physical things somehow sprang into physical reality, unguided, with enormous power, AND THEN, instantly, and immediately began comprehensively SELF-organizing themselves with previously non-existing matter, dimensions, time, and with awesome specificity, mind-blowing design and purpose.

There is NO scientific - or LOGICAL - way of suggesting that so many crucial and perfectly configured elements - all previously non-existing, bursting into a physical reality and then so beginning such a self organization. And on such a scale and with details we can scarcely comprehend or ever understand to this very day. But that is what many believe. AND, typically, it's quite enough for such people to simply shrug their shoulders and say something like, "Well, there are many possibilities as to how that might have come about, and just because we don't know how or can't prove it, there are theories that explain it." Or: "The scientific knowledge of today will seem laughable in 100 years - even in 50 - remember, people once believed the earth was flat and that the planets revolved around the earth." And so, such people, claiming to put such value in science, often, in reality, believe in metaphysical events that are unproven, immensely improbable, scientifically (per ALL observed scientific data and analysis) inexplicable, and yet they often assert that Christians, who believe ALL things have a cause, and that their belief in a Creator is directly connected, as He is the ultimate Cause - well, they believe the Christians are naive and unscientific. Which is crap! When such people say their faith is in a Godless science, what they are really telling you is, ultimately, that they believe in unproven ("for now") metaphysics, but that they are (conveniently) just fine with that.

Philip wrote:
and yet they often assert that Christians, who believe ALL things have a cause, and that their belief in a Creator is directly connected, as He is the ultimate Cause - well, they believe the Christians are naive and unscientific. Which is crap! When such people say their faith is in a Godless science, what they are telling you is, ultimately, they believe in unproven ("for now") metaphysics, but that they are (conveniently) just fine with that.

Bluejay4 wrote:Some critiques of this website have accused it of being for stupid people who don't know anything about science, is there any validity to this accusation? Do you see any ways this site could improve? I personally think better and more solid sources should be given for some of the claims the website has made.

This website is for stupid people who don`t know anything about science? So that`s why I like it so much!

Seriously though, before I joined this forum I read a lot, if not all, of the articles on the site and to be honest they blew me away. I had always been trying to match what I felt with what I knew and there was a lot of stuff on here that helped join the two together.