Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

There are some things that do not have natural models.
As Anthony Flew wrote:"It's time for me to lay my cards on the table, to set out my own views and the reasons that support them. I now beleive that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I belive that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source.
Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half centrury? The short anwser is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensiions of nature that point go God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that has guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments.
My departure from atheism was not occasioned by any new phenomenon or argument. Over the last two decades, my whole framework of thought has been in a state of migration. This was a consequence of my continuing assessment of the evidence of nature. When I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains, as Plato in his REPUBLIC scripted his Socrates to insist: 'We must follow the argument wherever it leads"From "There is a God" by Anthony Flew pp. 88,89.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

Well if there is no natural mechanism and something exists, can one not consider a supernatural?I see on this board a resistance to think about philsophy or any other discplines other than natural science. There are other ways to solve problems and reach conclusions besides science.

That is really a silly answer. I have presented what I believe are problems with Darwinian & neo-Darwinian theory that were raised by scientists, and you just want to say, produce proof of God. I have already stated I can't produce God.By the way Anthony Flew was probaobly the first spokesman for atheism, adored and glorfied by Dawkins and Dennett. When he follows the evidence he is just an old man.
Philosophy is, if you didn't know, a very respected and productive discpline that has enriched many men and womens lives.
Take a little time to read some Philosophy, broaden your horizons.

Democracy comes to mind.

Do you have proof for that statement?

The problem is you belileve science is the answer to everything. There are other ways to solve problems. I know some on this board rely on Psychology.

No disrepect meant Larni. That was an inside joke. On another message post Granny diagnosed me with cognitive dissonance.

"Feeling the Future: Experimential evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect."
Daryl J. Bem
Journal of Personality and Social PsychologyIs this one of science's great explanations for things that used to be credited to the supernatural?"The editor of the journal, Charles Judd, a psychologist at the University of Colorado, said the paper went through the journal's regular review process. Four reviewers made comments on the manuscript, he said, and these are very trusted people.All four decided that the paper met the journal's editorial standards, Dr. Judd added, even though 'THERE WAS NO MECHANISM BY WHICH WE COULD UNDERSTAND THE RESULTS.'I'll stand on my conclusion that God created the universe and all we know is a scientific conclusion.I thought I was just told by many on this board that if I cannot show evidence of creation it was not acceptalble to the scientific world?Edited by shadow71, : sorry cite does not come up, but google asp paperEdited by Admin, : Fix link.

I read about Dr. Bem's paper "Feeling the Future: Expermential evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on congnition and affect" to be published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a copy of said paper can be read by going to Dr. Bem's web site at Cornell.What concerns me are several quotes about the paper.This from the NY times on 1-6-2011 In response to the publisher stating we decided to publish the paper "...even though there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results.""But many experts say that is precisely the problem. Claims that defy almost every law of science are by definition extrardinalry and thus require extrordinary evidence."My question is why isn't the hypothesis that God created the universe and all that is in it, a scientific hypothesis according to the test above?I can produce many people who will testify that the Lord has helped them and some swear to miracles beyond scientific proof. The bible has many such exhibits in the Gospels.Thus even though this hypothesis may require extraordinary evidence, it should according to the tests for the above article be allowed to be studied by science and not rejected out of hand.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

Hi Percy, thanks for fixing the link.I just posted about the paper in my reply to Dr. Adequate.

My thoughts are that this was not an appropriate paper for a scientific journal.
Bluejay 541, percy 552 coyote 554 and others, I agree I got off the OP. Sorry.