Flaws with Theistic Evolution

[SpiritMeadow]

It depends on the school (or college). My main issue is that evolution (and by that I mean random mutations plus natural selection) is taught as a hard fact, in the absence of “beyond a reasonable doubt” sort of proof. This is true (IMO) of all levels of school. It is a theory to explain the development of complex life, but one with many holes in it.

I’m afraid you can’t sidestep the issue. You claim evolution is being used to promote atheism. You must back that up with who, where and how. What perhaps you miss, is that for all intents and purposes it is a fact, and can be considered as such by the ordinary person. It has been tested and refined over 150 years. I’m not sure what beyond a reasonable doubt is doing here. The only place I’m aware of its being a standard is in a criminal case. Can you provide proof that it is taught like you claim at “all levels of school.” ? What are the holes? I would agree that science tells us there are many unanswered questions still, but I would disagree that they think any of these questions actually threatens the underpinnings of the theory.

Textbooks continue to include pro-evolution scenarios which have actually been proven false - such as a human embryo itself going through evolutionary stages with “gills”.

Please explain further. what scenarios are false? I will let the evolutionary stages to be addressed by actual scientists here. Can you document this falsehood?

I have no issue with teaching this sort of evolution as a theory (minus the outright lies of course), along with “and here’s the problems with this theory.”

Logic compells me to believe they do. Most disciplines I 've encountered start with what we know, then move to what we don’t know. Students are told this because it will fall to them to continue to search for answers on the “don’t know” side. Otherwise we would make no progress in any science.

You are free to disagree of course, but in my opinion there is an across the board effort by atheists to use whatever arguments they can find to undercut God, and religion. The evolution scenario above is only one element.

You won’t get a disagreement from me. Most any uses every tool at their disposal to argue their belief. Atheists would be no different I presume. Your argument is with atheists. See Ed, he has the same problem. Why aren’t you on the boards where atheists hang out and argue with them.?

I’ve brought up the “fine tuning” argument for the universe as well. It shares with the evolution debate an argument that “It’s beyond a reasonable doubt that this could have happened strictly through random events.” The arguments for this are quite powerful. As a defensive measure, atheists have latched onto the totally unverifiable idea of “infinitely many universes, all somehow coming to be randomly, and only one of which had to come out right.”

I really don’t know about the 'fine tuning" argument. If it means what I think, I kinda think that God was smart enough to get it right the first time without having to tinker. Multiple universes comes from physics and math. It is no doubt speculative, that’s nothing new in science. I’m sure atheists try to make use of it if they think that it could potentionally enhance their position. Again, what has this to do with the issue?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Nothing can be proven in science - I wasn’t the first to bring that up I mentioned it only in the sense of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” And the gander responded, as always, with insults. I’m actually all for the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

The idea of proof in science is special. Nothing is indeed proven beyond all doubt, since that would require we know everything. But and its a biggie. some things have been varied so well that for all PRACTICAL purposes they may be considered fact. Gravity for instance…it seems to work most all the time. Oh and btw, Gravity is a law. A theory is actually held to have more proof than a law. sooooo…There is no beyond a RD in science as far as I know. It is a legal concept reserved for a type of lawsuit.

It became apparent to me fairly lately that people here have different definitions of ID, evolution, creationism, and many other terms. Many heated arguments are taking place because of these different definitions.

I believe that the common usage of “evolution” (no qualifiers) refers to an unguided process of random (as in, uncontrolled) mutations followed by natural selection.

I say no…evolution is not “unguided” evolution doesnt address this theological issue. It simply reports the facts. And more than one person here has stated like 10 times now, that its not truely random either.

I also believe that this sort of evolution, whether strictly correct or not is usually referred to as “Darwinian evolution”.

I’m not at all sure there is such a thing as darwinian evolution to a scientist. It may well be a construct of non-scientists to define something, but as I understand it, its just evolution.

Let’s not get hung up on the name, it’s the concept that’s important. Although I admit the possibility that God could have used Darwinian evolution alone to “randomly” create complex life, I believe that randomness doesn’t do the trick, and that some guidance along the way was required.

Indeed you may believe pretty much what you care to, but do you have any authority for this position, or are you indeed just stating your personal belief?

The reasons I believe this are many, and have accrued over a period of many years. But I don’t have “proof-ready” arguments handy just waiting for somebody to ask. And certainly I am allowed to believe something (without ridicule) even though I can’t prove it to someone else.

I can steer you to a few books whose names I remember. And I can ask you to read them with an open mind. Perhaps they would provide convincing arguments to you, perhaps not.

You may present anything you wish. I will and I’m sure others will examine it as to who’s claiming it and what and whether that agrees with known scientific information.

Finally, what would I do about the situation? Mainly, I ask that when evolution is taught, that it be made clear that there are holes in the theory (and what some of them are). And (optimistically), I’d like to see some mention that science can neither prove, nor disprove God. But that’s probably asking for too much. IMO without explicitly saying this, in today’s world where science has much credibility, students will assume the worst.

Like I said earlier, the places where the theory still has unexplained things is IMO being taught for obvious reasons. It helps stimulate and promote continuing investigation. I cannot agree that any theological statements should ever be attached to any science period. It belongs in philosophy or theology. I guess its still up to the Church to remind us all of God’s place in all this. I think that’s where it belongs.

Regarding books (on the fine tuning arguments) - there are many by Gerald Schroeder - Genesis and the Big Bang is good but so are his others. Also, by Paul Davies - The Mind of God. And “A Meaningful World” which is less technical. Other good books - “50 Questions on the Natural Law”, and The Science Before Science (which is 2/3 philosophy).

Thanks, I’ll see what I can discover and hope that some of the science-inclined here might help out as well in informing us of the credentials of those who have written theses books.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It’s not embarrassing to me at all, quite the contrary.

When ID is defined as 6 day creationism, as some have attempted to do on this forum, I agree that it is not science. I have stated many times that what is at issue is not whether the researchers have religious motives, but the methods, data, and interpretation of the data. To say that “when it can meet the standards…it no doubt will be” is to assume open minds which in many cases do not exist. They have closed themselves to scientific inquiry by stating in advance of any actual inquiry that something cannot be. Which is more of a religious argument really.

the fact remains that a solid proveable theory about anything cannot be denied forever. If there is something to ID or an ID look a like that can be proven experiemntally and can be predictive, it will come into the light sooner or later. That is and always has been the way of the world. Heliocentrism was pushed back for a good while as well, but nobody really doesnt believe it in now.

 

[ricmat]

the fact remains that a solid proveable theory about anything cannot be denied forever. If there is something to ID or an ID look a like that can be proven experiemntally and can be predictive, it will come into the light sooner or later. That is and always has been the way of the world. Heliocentrism was pushed back for a good while as well, but nobody really doesnt believe it in now.

I agree with you. I’m not saying that it can never come to light. But there are some people who are inclined to invincible ignorance, and for them there is no hope.

 

[ricmat]

Spiritmeadow, I offer my thoughts and suggestions, take them or leave them. It makes no difference to me. * I don’t have to win this argument* (actually I prefer discussions instead).

The only way you could miss these things (atheism in schools, evolution used as a wedge, etc) is if you don’t read newspapers, watch TV, or browse the internet… and just because you demand them does not oblige me to do the research to dig them out.

I brought up the idea of “beyond a reasonable doubt” since I thought it might appeal to you as an attorney. And since we both agree that science can’t prove anything absolutely, it was merely a yardstick that I thought we could share in a common sense way.

I really don’t know about the 'fine tuning" argument. If it means what I think, I kinda think that God was smart enough to get it right the first time without having to tinker. Multiple universes comes from physics and math. It is no doubt speculative, that’s nothing new in science. I’m sure atheists try to make use of it if they think that it could potentionally enhance their position. Again, what has this to do with the issue?

Certainly God could have, and did get it right the first time. That’s what the fine tuning argument means.

“Fine tuning” has nothing to do with God making adjustments “after the fact.” I explained this already. It means that the universal constants which make the universe tick (which were set at the time of the Big Bang) are finely tuned with respect to each other. So finely tuned that probability wise it rules out the scenario that if the constants had been a bit different, that the universe would also have been “a bit different”. The universe would have been wildly different (or non-existent) with extremely small changes.

BTW - you seem to have some issues with God adjusting things after the fact. Which is the basis of Deism. But what is the incarnation, if not making adjustments (i.e. interfering) after the fact?

 

[ricmat]

I say no…evolution is not “unguided” evolution doesnt address this theological issue. It simply reports the facts. And more than one person here has stated like 10 times now, that its not truely random either.

Selective breeding of animals by humans is guided evolution. It is science. It is not a theological issue.

OK - forget “random.” It’s not really the right word. Think “unguided” instead. Or undesigned.

When you think about it, the fact that (as I hear) evolution is NOT random means that it has a high probability (beyond a reasonable doubt) some built in purpose or design. But that’s another story.

Indeed you may believe pretty much what you care to, but do you have any authority for this position, or are you indeed just stating your personal belief?

Personal authority? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. We all depend on other authorities. Read The Science Before Science. It has quite a few chapters on “authority.”

I guess i just wonder why you would if you concede that “God could have used evolution”. You really shouldnt deny the science just because you are angry that nonbelievers use it in a way you and I for that matter disagree with.

Yes, I concede that God could have used evolution. Data may still come in which might convince me of that. This process is called having an open mind.

“deny the science” - You are jumping quite wildly to conclusions here.

I’m not denying “the science” because I’m unhappy with non-believers mis-using it. I have a very good science background, and I disagree with “random non-guided mutations and natural selection” on the basis of math and science, not in spite of it.

Read “A Meaningful World” - it goes into these issues and is quite readable.

Like I said earlier, the places where the theory still has unexplained things is IMO being taught for obvious reasons.

Please prove this statement, as applicable to all situations.

Beyond a reasonable doubt will be good enough (for me at least)

Seriously, I respect your point of view, but my own experience leads me to believe otherwise.

It helps stimulate and promote continuing investigation. I cannot agree that any theological statements should ever be attached to any science period. It belongs in philosophy or theology. I guess its still up to the Church to remind us all of God’s place in all this. I think that’s where it belongs.

OK - I respect this position. I can also live without convincing you that this is a bad idea.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. If you don’t need to win, that is.

 

[edwest2]

The Church wants to synthesize Catholic doctrine and science:

acfnewsource.org/science/vatican_science.html

“Father Corbally says the current Pope has encouraged the Observatory researchers to incorporate philosophy and religion into their scientific work.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

ricmat…sorry I gotta go. We can pick up tomorrow. I have no need to win either, and the discussion is valuable to me at least.

 

[hecd2]

You’re arguing that science provides evidence to “support his worldview”. Thus, science can provide evidence to support the belief in the existence of God (which should be obvious but which has been denied by the evolutionary supporters here).

No – I am arguing that *he* uses his observation of the natural world to support his worldview (and I have a great deal of sympathy with that view).  I acknowledge that others use their knowledge of the natural world to support their theism.

You’re arguing that science contributes evidence to theological conclusions. That’s what Dawkins has done – used his scientific findings to conclude that there is no God.

Of course science contributes evidence for one’s “theological” conclusions – one presumably uses everything that one knows from whatever source to reason to a worldview.

If I’m right about your view, then you’re arguing against all of the people here who claim that science does not give any evidence to support belief in the existence of God.

Science itself does not seek to prove or disprove God – it is formally silent on the question - but one’s knowledge of the natural world can influence one’s belief or disbelief.

Dawkins uses his study of nature to arrive at an atheistic conclusion.

Dawkins’ view is a refutation (if he’s correct) of theistic evolution as well. His scientific conclusions are incompatible with the belief that God “guided” or influenced evolutionary processes.

Wrong – it is not his scientific conclusions that are incompatible with theistic evolution – it is his philosophical conclusions, based in part on his knowledge of science (which is the same knowledge that believing biologists such as Kenneth Miller and Conway Morris have), and his other knowledge and experience and his predispositions that are incompatible.

If the universe came into being through entirely natural processes, as Dawkins believes, then science has proven that there is no need for a God to exist since God would have no role in the process

.
No this is a non-sequitur, it does not follow from your argument that science has proven anything. If the universe came into being through entirely natural processes, then there is no need for God to exist – and that would be true regardless of what scientists accepted or what you and I believed. By the way, Dawkins has nothing to say scientifically about the origins of the universe.

So if Dawkins’ science is correct, then theistic evolution is false.

If by theistic evolution you mean that God uses supernatural miracles to meddle with the universe and the path of evolution, by procuring a desirable mutation here or a happy recombination event there, yes, all science, not just Dawkins’, is incompatible with theistic evolution. Science cannot accommodate the magical acts of gods, fairies, sprites, goblins, ghosts, elves or other supernatural beings. If by theistic evolution, you mean that God set up the conditions for the unfolding of the universe according to natural law, then that is quite compatible with Dawkins’ or anyone’s science.

But if God did, indeed, create the world and human life, then Dawkins’ science is false since he claims that human beings came into existence through “purely natural means”.

This is also a non-sequitur. Dawkins’ science and the existence of God are not mutually incompatible. Dawkins’ *philosophy *and the existence of God might be mutually incompatible. Correct science does not depend on the philosophical or theological beliefs of the scientist – just on the quality of the science. And Dawkins, like **all **scientists, posits only natural explanations for observed phenomena.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

“purely natural processes caused mankind to be”
Apparently you believe that to be correct. Do you believe that the human soul was created through natural processes alone?

I’d appreciate seeing the scientific proof of that.

It seems quite clear that everything that makes us peculiarly human: our intelligence, cognition, creativity, language, abstract reasoning, musical, visual and verbal art, tool use, sense of self, social reasoning, theory of mind, empathy, spiritual attachment, friendship, sense of morality, sense of justice, loyalty, deviousness, cruelty, will to power, mendacity, jealousy, greed etc, is an emergent property of the brain. If you want proof, just drop yourself head first on a concrete floor from a height of three feet, take hallucinatory drugs, cut the corpus callosum, or be unfortunate enough to suffer from early-onset Alzheimer’s. Or be born with a disabling mutation in FOXP2

I have no reason to doubt that the attributes that make us human developed through the process of evolution. There are many thoughtful books I could recommend including Steven Mithen’s absolutely brilliant “Pre-History of the Mind”

Alec
evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm

 

[hecd2]

Actually the work is dated from 1999; and is therefore not more anterior than what you have given me.

McFadden, JJ and Al-Khalili (1999). A quantum mechanical model of adaptive mutations. Biosystems 50: 203-211.

Noboby claim this to be a clear cut and dry hypothesis. Nothing in nature works this well. The point is that mutation is something still very mysterious and the logic is getting away from it as being something accidental in nature.The term “adaptive mutation” itself is new, and identifies this process to be separate
from the normal random (or what we may believe to be random)
mutation which exists when no enviromental stress is applied to the lifeform.
My point being that, if adaptive mutation is a responsive reaction of a lifeform towards it’s environment, as oppose to other accidental, and random types of mutations,then, it would be reasonable to claim evolutionary processes to be due to the same type of mutation or even maybe a different, more
specialized type of mutation, not yet observed.

Andre

I’ve already answered you fully way back in October, and yet you just pop up again with the same old fallacy, as though you had never been corrected. Don’t you ever learn anything, or are you just so committed to your religious ideas that no reason can get through to you? I will patiently repeat that October post in the faint hope that you will understand it this time:

This is all reasonably sensible stuff dating back to 1999 that attempts to explain how Hall’s and Cairn’s directed mutations could arise if we consider the cell to be a quantum particle in superposition (although I do think that the idea that cells enter a state of superposition only when they are starving is a little bizarre - most people would say that the suspension of metabolism is a classical effect promoted by enzymes and cell signalling - and nothing to do with quantum superposition).

But I don’ t think that these explanations are needed. More recent work by Patricia Foster who worked with Cairns (see Foster, Adaptive Mutation in E coli, Journal of Bacteriology, August 2004, p. 4846-4852)
has shown that although the mutational rate goes up when bacteria are starving on a novel substrate, the rate of the beneficial mutation does not go up any more than similar mutations nearby on the genome - there is no “direction” going on.(Quote from the paper:“Fairly early on in our studies, Cairns and I eliminated the hypothesis that mutations were “directed” toward a useful goal.”) It is not true that the cells only acquire the appropriate mutation when lactose is available - it is true that the mutation only fixes and spreads when lactose is available (but that is natural selection in action). The fitness landscape is obviously different depending on which substrate the bacteria grow. In the same way that the most primitive precursor to eyes, a light sensitive patch, would not have been conserved if light had not been available (and animals that adapt to live in darkness often lose their sight and end up with vestigial eyes) - the fitness landscape favours sight if light is available but not in the dark.

Adaptive mutations (a term that is at least 25 years old by the way, not new) are random with respect to fitness. In other words, when the bacteria are stressed all sorts of mutations occur randomly at a higher rate than normal (as my quotation from Patricia Foster shows - the mutations are NOT directed). Those very few bacterial cells that acquire a beneficial mutation (instead of a neutral or deleterious one), are then able to metabolise their substrate and happily return to a state of exponential growth. As far as all the huge quantity of evidence shows, **all **mutations are random with respect to fitness - there are no magic non-random (with respect to fitness) mutations

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Again, are you speaking of evolution, or mutations? While there are accidental and random mutations (life is not perfect), another term has “evolved” called adaptive mutation, which seems to be caused by a “response” of the lifeform towards a harsh environment, and is viewed as being different from other types of mutations which exists when the lifeorm is free from environmental stresses. In other words, evolution was thought of as being an accidental and random process because mutation was thought to be totally random. Now scientist are getting away from this way of thinking. How the process of adaptive mutation fully works is still very much unknown, and is also controversial.

But you are wrong here. Have you read the 2004 Foster paper? have you read any paper on this subject other than the peripheral Al-Khalili and McFadden paper? The only difference between normal mutations and adaptive mutations is that adaptive mutations occur at a higher rate owing to suppression of DNA replication correction mechanisms under stress, a process which itself appears to have evolved. Your claim that adaptive mutations are not random with respect to fitness is wrong and simply wishful thinking. Do catch up.

The only reason that evolution is considered to be a random process is because idiotic creationists who either don’t know better or who should know better and deliberately lie, fail to understand the fact that natural selection is not random. However, mutations are, in all cases, including in bacteria under stress, random with respect to fitness.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

It depends on the school (or college). My main issue is that evolution (and by that I mean random mutations plus natural selection) is taught as a hard fact, in the absence of “beyond a reasonable doubt” sort of proof. This is true (IMO) of all levels of school. It is a theory to explain the development of complex life, but one with many holes in it.

Really?? Such as?

Textbooks continue to include pro-evolution scenarios which have actually been proven false - such as a human embryo itself going through evolutionary stages with “gills”.

But it does develop gill slits. Sorry about that. You should learn a little real embryology before you listen to liars on creationist websites.The development of gill slits is one of the three major synapomorphies of the chordate phylum.

I have no issue with teaching this sort of evolution as a theory (minus the outright lies of course), along with “and here’s the problems with this theory.”

Problems such as?

You are free to disagree of course, but in my opinion there is an across the board effort by atheists to use whatever arguments they can find to undercut God, and religion. The evolution scenario above is only one element.

Of course. Why shouldn’t they use whatever arguments they can get hold of? You use whatever arguments you think supports your beliefs, so why shouldn’t they?

I believe that the common usage of “evolution” (no qualifiers) refers to an unguided process of random (as in, uncontrolled) mutations followed by natural selection. I also believe that this sort of evolution, whether strictly correct or not is usually referred to as “Darwinian evolution”. Let’s not get hung up on the name, it’s the concept that’s important. Although I admit the possibility that God could have used Darwinian evolution alone to “randomly” create complex life, I believe that randomness doesn’t do the trick, and that some guidance along the way was required.

Why do you think what you believe constitutes any kind of evidence? Your personal incredulity is of no scientific consequence whatsoever.

The reasons I believe this are many, and have accrued over a period of many years. But I don’t have “proof-ready” arguments handy just waiting for somebody to ask. And certainly I am allowed to believe something (without ridicule) even though I can’t prove it to someone else.

Of course you are allowed to believe whatever you like, but don’t expect to produce it on a public forum and get away with not being challenged.

Finally, what would I do about the situation? Mainly, I ask that when evolution is taught, that it be made clear that there are holes in the theory (and what some of them are).

Do enlighten us as to what they are.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Wolseley]

hecd2:

Don’t you ever learn anything, or are you just so committed to your religious ideas that no reason can get through to you? I will patiently repeat that October post in the faint hope that you will understand it this time

hecd2:

You should learn a little real embryology before you listen to liars on creationist websites.

hecd2:

Why do you think what you believe constitutes any kind of evidence? Your personal incredulity is of no scientific consequence whatsoever.

hecd2:

Of course you are allowed to believe whatever you like, but don’t expect to produce it on a public forum and get away with not being challenged.

I’m curious…I have seen this phenominon on many and many a Darwinist website, and here it is again, in shining example…pray tell, does being “scientifically minded” cause one to become arrogant, snotty, denigrating, contemptuous, belligerant, and smugly self-righteous, or is that only for more “evolved” individuals of the human race?

Because if all “scientifically-minded” people treat other the way you do, Alec, I think I’d rather not claim to be a member of the same species.

 

[reggieM]

I assume that you’re an atheist or agnostic of some kind – not a Catholic. Correct?

An interesting question for you to avoid, Alec. Or perhaps I missed your answer.

It appears that you are, indeed, an atheist. That would explain quite a lot. But rather than jump to conclusions I would prefer an answer. I don’t see how you could be a Catholic since you deny a fundamental teaching of the Church (although many Catholics do such things).

 

[reggieM]

It seems quite clear that everything that makes us peculiarly human: our intelligence, cognition, creativity, language, abstract reasoning, musical, visual and verbal art, tool use, sense of self, social reasoning, theory of mind, empathy, spiritual attachment, friendship, sense of morality, sense of justice, loyalty, deviousness, cruelty, will to power, mendacity, jealousy, greed etc, is an emergent property of the brain.

I can offer a few examples …

Christ’s resurrection. It was not due to an “emergent property of the brain”, since his brain was dead and then rose again.

Additionally, those who were raised from the dead by the many saints of the Church were not brought back to life by an “emergent power of their own brain” again, since the brain was dead.

The apparitions of Jesus and Mary (many such) as well as apparitions of various saints (story of St. Joan of Arc) are other indications of human powers beyond the brain.

In any case, if science concludes that the human being is purely a product of natural, material elements – then that’s a very good example of how evolutionary science is not compatible with religion.

 

[reggieM]

I’m curious…I have seen this phenominon on many and many a Darwinist website, and here it is again, in shining example…pray tell, does being “scientifically minded” cause one to become arrogant, snotty, denigrating, contemptuous, belligerant, and smugly self-righteous, or is that only for more “evolved” individuals of the human race?

I’ve seen the very same thing on many a Darwinist webboards also. The passionate responses (about biology?) are filled with bitterness towards others and are well-described in the adjectives you use above.

 

[hecd2]

An interesting question for you to avoid, Alec. Or perhaps I missed your answer.

It appears that you are, indeed, an atheist. That would explain quite a lot. But rather than jump to conclusions I would prefer an answer. I don’t see how you could be a Catholic since you deny a fundamental teaching of the Church (although many Catholics do such things).

How can you conclude that I cannot be Catholic because I deny a fundamental teaching of the Church, although many Catholics deny such teachings?

It is interesting that you avoid the argument and instead want to focus on a label for me. My arguments stand or fall regardless of whether I am a Catholic, a Buddhist, a Communist, a green Martian, a Muslim or a Southern Baptist. The fact is that my beliefs are no secret and have been a matter of record on this site for years. I was a cradle Catholic who no longer believes in the existence of a personal God or in any other form of supernatural agent.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I can offer a few examples …

Christ’s resurrection. It was not due to an “emergent property of the brain”, since his brain was dead and then rose again.

Additionally, those who were raised from the dead by the many saints of the Church were not brought back to life by an “emergent power of their own brain” again, since the brain was dead.

The apparitions of Jesus and Mary (many such) as well as apparitions of various saints (story of St. Joan of Arc) are other indications of human powers beyond the brain.

What on earth has this got to do with the existence of ordinary human souls in ordinary human people? You asked me if I think the human soul was created through natural processes and I pointed out, that as far as we can see, that which makes us human is an emergent property of our physical brains. Your miraculous stories are irrelevant to the question.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

Of course science contributes evidence for one’s “theological” conclusions – one presumably uses everything that one knows from whatever source to reason to a worldview.

I fully agree. It might have been nice at some point in a prior “debate” that I had with Barbarian, if you had corrected him on his belief that science cannot give any evidence to support the belief in the existence of God. Actually, SpiritMeadow agreed with that notion, as did Tim.

But it’s clearly false. Of course science can contribute evidence to one’s theological conclusions – whether towards a belief in God or an atheist belief. It took me about a dozen posts to try to communicate that to Barbarian, before I finally gave up.