How would a biologist determine the difference between that and one that is not designed or guided. Scientific study is agnostic.
Until you have evidence for either the design process or the designer, why would you assume the nature of such a force? Why would you assume such a force exists? Saying it "looks" designed is not sufficient. That still seems an awful lot like the god of the gaps. Thus far, every unknown discovery in science has ended up with a natural explanation. Every time design was inferred (Galileo, Newton for example), new knowledge was acquired and the designer was relegated to the natural force pile.
Absolutely, but it just seems to me that with the establishment of relativity and QM as solid theories that it opened up a multitude of new horizons to explore.
This is a problem, why? Isn't it "neat" or "fun" to learn about the world we live in? What fun would it be to know all of the ins and outs and workings of the universe? There would be nothing left to discover.
With the limited understanding I have of both fields I can't see that there should be any real need to reconcile them. I find them complimentary just as they are. Science answers questions concerning the physical and religion attempts to answer questions that are beyond the physical, with the belief that it actually exists.
That is one of the most honest things a I have ever heard come out of a creationist's mouth (keyboard?). Kudos to you. Now, just keep religion out of science and all is well.
"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan
™ Version 4.2
