In the context of believing in God, bolder-dash stated the following as a valid argument
Message 268:
"...I think the Theory of evolution has so many basic problems to it scientifically, in terms of reconciling the randomness of their mutations, and being able to develop and subsist life and all its complexities in this environment and so forth, so it seems there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things..."
When it was noticed that the advance of perihelion of the orbit of Mercury could not be explained by Newtonian gravitation, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"?
When it was found that an electric current could deflect a compass, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"?
When it was found that radium could fog a photographic plate, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"?
If you think there are large holes in any theory, then you develop a new theory which explains to better degree what we see. You don't go running off, crying - see, see, we need a non-materialistic explanation. If scientists acted like that we would still be in the dark ages.
"Is it science?" I guess...
™ Version 4.2