Replies

Oh great, that would lead to the death of intellectual inquiry. If a supernatural being tampered with the universe and left evidence that leads to a false conclusion, than nothing true can really be learned by studying the universe. If you can't find Truth that way, why even bother with science? Most scientists on some level or another are driven by the desire to know what happened and why and how the world works.

I am not saying intellectual inquiry should end. What I am saying is that science makes certain assumptions and if those assumptions are wrong for a given field, the science around those assumptions is probably wrong as well. As far as Truth goes, science really is not about "Truth" but an best understanding of a situation given the amount of information we have about that situation. When Einstein developed the theory of general relativity, that did not make Newton a liar, that changed our understanding of how gravity works. Any false conclusions we come to are based on our flaws and not any supernatural being that fooled us.

Many of the things we understand about evolution is because of other theories which also make assumptions. There are quite a few assumptions made in dating rocks because God did not drop us a rock and say: "this rock is 100 million years old and you can use it as a baseline for dating rocks." There is no know baseline for dating rocks and the theories and formulas were derived in nuclear reactors with highly unstable elements with nanosecond half-lives. Are the values evos come up with for ages valid? We hope so but we do not know for certain.

Bottom line is that science about things that are extremely old face challenges that directly testable sciences do not. Evolution claims the process that resulted in all the diversity of life are naturalistic and that no supernatural entity was involved once life started. It also says we all came from the same initial life form, a singularity. These are both assumptions which could be wrong.

Even if evolution was a guided process instead of an unguided one, science should be able to figure out how it works. But it will not even consider the former possibility, and that is a problem related to man, not science.

I am not saying intellectual inquiry should end. What I am saying is that science makes certain assumptions and if those assumptions are wrong for a given field, the science around those assumptions is probably wrong as well.

Interesting. Can you think of any field other than biology that requires supernatural intervention in its explanations? Geology? Physics?

Exactly where do you want to insert the miracles?