Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance

Welcome to the fray! No. Theories only become theories in science when they have withstood many tests (beginning as hypotheses) and when they successfully explain all of the relevant data. A theory must also be able to make predictions which can be verified. First, there is no such thing as "proof" in science. Theories are never proven. When a theory adequately explains all of the relevant data we can speak of that theory as being supported, but never proved. You might be better off looking at natural selection as an explanation for a lot of data. It does successfully explain the data, but it is still a theory and has no physical existence nor any need for proof. Natural selection is not accepted on faith, but because it adequately explains the evidence. And it does so better than any other explanation. That is the hallmark of a scientific theory.So far there has been no scientific evidence provided for supernatural beings. Without evidence of some kind there can be no theories, at least not as the term is used in science. But you are right, many people accept the existence of the supernatural as an article of faith. No proof, only evidence. And there is a lot of evidence to support the theory of natural selection.Unfortunately for your argument there is no evidence for the supernatural, let alone for any specific actions on the part of such beings.Here are a couple of definitions that might help:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

​

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

​

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

​

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No, scientists demand evidence. So far you have produced none.Nor have you addressed any of the points in my post, above. I believe mine was the first response to you, and you have ignored it.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

If this supernatural stuff can't be detected, why are we not safe in just ignoring it as if it didn't exist?And contrarily, if it can't be detected, why are you convinced that it exists?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The modern version of ID was cooked up after the Supreme Court's Edwards decision to try to sneak creationism back into the schools.The smoking gun is cdesign proponentsists -- the result of faulty cut-and-pasting in the book Of Pandas and People.Without changing anything else, "creationists" was globally changed to "design proponents." But they missed one and ended up with cdesign proponentsists -- giving away the whole sordid operation.Missing link: "cdesign proponentsists"This is just one example of the "science" done by creationists. The various attacks on science do nothing to "prove" creationism. That takes evidence, but so far we have yet to see any. Perhaps you could provide some?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Given the propositions that 1) the supernatural exists, and 2) the supernatural does not exist, the evidence is not equal in both cases. The vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that the supernatural does not exist. The evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural is pretty much squat.While the "logical rational position" might be that we don't know, I suspect that there are few equivalent cases out there with those same odds that you would bet all the rent money on.And because of this, have you not left the "logical rational position" behind in favor of religious belief?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You can hide behind logic games all you want, but that does not change the facts.There is simply no good evidence for the supernatural.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.