Replies

I take exception to the atheists who use science to refute spirituality, or the Bible.

I don't see how science can refute spirituality any more than spirituality can refute science.

If you have faith that God is the author of all natural laws, whether or not evolution was a "natural" or a "guided" process is inconsequential - either way we're here because of God's will. Science, due to its inherent limitations, is only capable of revealing "natural" laws, because the consequences of "guided" (i.e. supernatural) laws/processes yield no empirically predictable consequences.

I'm aware that science has its limitations. As you pointed out earlier, there's a lot of puzzles remaining to be solved about the Genesis of the universe (i.e. where's the "dark matter/energy" that makes up 96% of the universe?) or "how did a bacterial flagellum evolve?". The best answer science can give to these questions is "We don't know yet". Whether or not you want to infer the presence of an intelligent designer in these gaps is a matter of faith, not science.

[I had to take a break. I am now seized up on my couch totally fatigued and thought i'd type a response back on my pocket pc, instead of getting up to go to the big one.]

"Whether or not you want to infer the presence of an intelligent designer in these gaps is a matter of faith, not science."

Lets be very clear. Gaps in knowledge do not infer "God". I do not believe in God because of what I don't know, or can't explain.

I believe in God because of what I do know.

(I presume you are a physicist?)