Help with Creationism vs Darwinism

[steveandersen]

please provide sound, scientific evidence for design

 

[Chris_W]

rossum:

Homo sapiens fits into the tree…
…In short the extremely high level of matching between the phenotype tree and the genotype tree and the fact the H. sapiens fits comfortably into that tree shows that the tree is real and that H. sapiens is physically descended from the same origin as all other life on earth.

But that logic only shows the plausibility of the assertion humans evolved. While I appreciate your efforts in explanation, I don’t think that actually answers my question: Does the theory of evolution necessarily have to assert that humans evolved? Or put another way, if a creationist said “I only object to the idea humans evolved” would that statement violate some law of evolution? I understand the evolutionist would argue that such a position is not reasonable to believe, but I guess I don’t see why an evolutionists should necessarily object to the statement since the creationist would not necessarily be challenging evolution altogether.

Perhaps its an inrrelevent question, I don’t know. I’m just curious why an evolutionist, because he accepts the theory of evolution, neessarily has to assert that ALL living things evolved. If the evolutionist has adopted an athiestic worldview, then it would be a logical postion for him to take. But does a theistic evolutionist need to make such a claim in order to remain an evolutionist?

rossum:

All species are unique, not just man. Each species has the attributes it needs for its survival… We are specialised for intelligence, so we see intelligence as important… Intelligence is only one possible strategy among many.

Intelligence is not unique to humans…If something exists in an ancestor then it can be increased by evolution…The most intelligent land animals after us are the apes, which are closest to us in the Tree of Life. Intelligence is just another characteristic moulded by evolution to allow us to survive in our environment.

Of course all species are unique, having attirbute that make it well suited in its existence. But the difference between humans and even apes is more than a varying degree of intelligence. There is not some small difference between man and apes, like between apes and other animals.

 

[rossum]

Sugar Ray:

Your post is very interesting and I’d like to learn more about the subject.

Evolution is a huge subject. For the Twin Nested Hierarchy in particular see this webpage. For evolution in general try Evo-Wiki or Talk Origins. If you want to try your local Library then I would suggest Ernst Meyer’s What Evolution Is which is an excellent summary. Of course there is always On the Origin of Species, though that does not cover areas such as DNA and genetics which were incorporated into evolution after Darwin.
Sugar Ray:

But is it really proof? Does it prove that humans evolved? Or could we not say just as easliy that it indicates a common creator rather than a common anscestor.

Science does not prove its theories. Any scientific theory can only ever the best explanation we currently have of the available data. It is always possible that new data will require modification of the theory or replacement by a new theory that better explains the data.

Yes it is possible for a common creator to make everything, however that does not explain anything. Why do humans have an appendix? Saying “God made us that way” does not explain anything. Many people believe that the common creator used evolution as the way to make different species. All the scientific evidence points to common descent.

Theories of direct creation have little explanatory power and, if they involve a divine creator, fall outside the boundaries of science. Part of science’s success comes from it deliberately limiting itself to things on which we can all agree - the evidence provided by the material world. There is no agreement on the question of a divine creator.
Sugar Ray:

Aren’t we all limited to theories because the evolution of man, if it occured, was a singular complex event that cannot be repeated and tested?

The American Revolution was a “singular complex event that cannot be repeated and tested”. How do we know that the American Revolution happened? We have documents from the time, just as we have fossils of early Hominids. The American Revolution had effects which extend into the present day, effects which we can observe. The evolutionary history of man had effects that extend to the present day and which we can observe. We have all the characteristics of apes, primates, placental mammals, tetrapods etc. We can tell that we are not descended from birds because we have none of the specific characteristics of birds.
Sugar Ray:

That being the case shouldn’t we stop saying that evolution is settled fact?

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is “the genetic makeup of populations change over time”. This is a fact and has been observed many times. Every time a bacterium becomes resistant to an antibiotic or an insect becomes resistant to an insecticide we can see the genetic makeup of that population changing over time.

The theory of evolution is the theory which explains the causes of this observed change. The change will happen because it is a fact; the theory can in principle be replaced by a better theory.

Gravity is another example. The fact that things fall down is the fact of gravity. There is also a theory of gravity which explains why things fall down. The theory used to be Newton’s action at a distance. Currently it is Einstein’s curvature of space-time. In the future we will have a new theory of gravity because there are problems in the area where quantum mechanics and Einstein’s gravity overlap.
Sugar Ray:

And, as ChrisW has said, shouldn’t we Christians defer to divine revelation as the higher truth?

I am Buddhist so “we Christians” does not include me. My scriptures are not your scriptures and my “higher truth” differs from yours. How are we going to decide which version of “higher truth” we are going to defer to? Are we going to split science into “Christian science” and “Buddhist science”? The power of science comes from limiting itself to areas where all can agree; scientific results do not depend on the beliefs of the individual scientist. The supernatural is an area where there is no agreement, and not even an accepted method of reaching agreement. It would be unreasonable to introduce such unresolvable disagreements into science.

You are free to introduce non-scientific sources into the discussion but then the discussion ceases to be scientific.

rossum

 

[Sugar_Ray]

rossum:

Throughout this thread evolutionsists have been stating that evoution is settled fact. What I have been trying to get at is that what most laypeople understand to be evolution, the gradual transition of apes to men is not settled fact.

That there are aspects of evolution that are proven I undestand, however when scientists make the blanket statement that evolution is fact they are actually reinforcing a false idea that exists in the minds of the average layperson.

You have come closer than any other evolutionist on this thread to acknowledging the above by stating that evolution is “theory and fact.”

I’d like to ask you to be more specific to see if we agree on this point: that the idea that man gradually evolved from apes is one aspect of evolution that is theory and not fact?

 

[Donald45]

Mike Rainville:

I just started reading a new book called “Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing” edited by William Dembski… The book explains the thinking and patterns of the case in its first few pages.

As a balance, you may also want to consider a couple of other books, both of them excellent:

Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God & Evolution (HarperCollins, 1999)

Robert Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism (MIT Press, 1999)

 

[Chris_W]

rossum:

Intelligence is just another characteristic moulded by evolution to allow us to survive in our environment.

As I’ve mentioned several times herein, the uniqueness of man is not limited to intelligence. However, I’ve had a difficult time communicating my thoughts on the matter, perhaps because man’s uniqueness is less than tangible.

I suppose I am trying to make a distinction between purpose and benefit. It is of no doubt that the attributes we observe in living creatures aid in their ability to sustain life and reproduce. But what we are observing are the **benefits ** of those attributes. At a surface glance it is conceivable I suppose that one might think “this attribute benefits the creature, therefore it may make sense that such a feature evolved out of necessity for survival”. But when you consider the **purpose ** of many things, that logic doesn’t apply (at least in my opinion).

Perhaps a more tangible example will help explain what I’m saying. You mentioned the eye of an eagle. Consider the eye itself. There is no doubt it is of benefit to living creatures, so one might say “it evolved that way because it helps the creature respond to its environment and thereby helps to ensure its survival”.

But then consider the purpose of the eye. It has only one purpose…vision. It is an astoundingly complex thing, the eye. How long must it have taken to evolve (assuming for this discussion that it did). 100’s, 1,000’s perhaps even tens of 1,000’s of years or generations?

Well, until it fully evolved into a part of the body that can see, what was that orb growing in all those years of evolving beings? What purpose did the unseeing eye have during that lengthy process? It had NO purpose. For generations and generations it would have had absolutely no purpose because it couldn’t see. So why was it developing all those years? It wasn’t something passed on to future generations because of a beneficial purpose to the previous generation. It did not help all those progressing organisms survive, so why would it have been a feature that was retained through all that evolution so that it could finally arrive at an evolved seeing eye?

How does evolution account for the evolution of the eye? The benefit is now obvious, but the purpose, clear up until the eye could see, cannot account for its development. For until the eye could actually see, it had no purpose.

This is the way I view the uniqueness of man. The benefits are obvious, but the purpose of its development (outside of a belief in God) is not at all clear from my unerstanding of the evolutionistic standpoint.

 

[rossum]

Chris W:

But that logic only shows the plausibility of the assertion humans evolved. While I appreciate your efforts in explanation, I don’t think that actually answers my question: Does the theory of evolution necessarily have to assert that humans evolved? Or put another way, if a creationist said “I only object to the idea humans evolved” would that statement violate some law of evolution? I understand the evolutionist would argue that such a position is not reasonable to believe, but I guess I don’t see why an evolutionists should necessarily object to the statement since the creationist would not necessarily be challenging evolution altogether.

An interesting question; not one of the usual questions that come up in these sorts of discussions. It is certainly possible that there could be organisms that did not fit into the Tree of Life; I mentioned a pegasus. Any such organisms would be noted and recognised as exceptions. However if those organisms had descent with modification and competition for resources then those organisms would still evolve, so they would be evolving but on a completely different tree. We might expect life on extrasolar planets to be like that - evolving, but not part of our tree.

However, this does not apply to humans; we fit very nicely into our place in the tree. There is currently no scientific reason to treat humans differently. By adding an exception for humans we would complicate the theory of evolution for no valid scientific reason. Complications are to be avoided in science - Occam’s Razor. Theories should be as simple as possible, provided that they explain all the data.

There is scientific evidence that humans are evolving. There is ample scientific evidence that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor. There is no scientific evidence that humans are biologically different enough from other apes to justify treating us differently.

If you do propose that the origin of humans was different to that of other life, then you are going to have to back up your proposal with data and at least a hypothesis as to how humans did originate. Scientists will then treat it like any other new hypothesis, they will try to tear it to pieces. Only those hypotheses that survive the onslaught make it to become part of science.

In short there are currently no scientifically valid reasons to complicate the theory of evolution in order to treat humans differently so by Occam’s Razor science will reject any such proposal.

Thanks again for an interesting and thoughtful question.
Chris W:

Perhaps its an inrrelevent question, I don’t know. I’m just curious why an evolutionist, because he accepts the theory of evolution, neessarily has to assert that ALL living things evolved.

There is no compulsion, except the compulsion of the evidence. There is evidence that all known species did evolve, and no evidence that any known species did not evolve.
Chris W:

But the difference between humans and even apes is more than a varying degree of intelligence. There is not some small difference between man and apes, like between apes and other animals.

Here we will have to disagree. I can see no difference that could not have evolved. We are not as special as we sometimes like to think we are.

I wrote this offline, so I have only just seen your post #146. I will get to that later.

rossum

 

[Donald45]

Chris W:

How does evolution account for the evolution of the eye? The benefit is now obvious, but the purpose, clear up until the eye could see, cannot account for its development. For until the eye could actually see, it had no purpose.

This is simply not the case, though in the absence of a cogent counter-argument, it may certainly seem plausible. This is an old anti-evolutionary argument (Darwin discussed it in The Origin), and it’s been rebutted countless times in popular scientific literature. Of course, as long as one carefully avoids an in-depth study of these sources, one is able to confidently hold to such oft-refuted arguments as that from the eye’s evolution.

Please—please—carefully read the books recommended in Post #145, which deal more than adequately with this point and others. Also, I’d get a copy of Michael Ruse’s Darwin & Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? (Harvard, 2003), as well as Robert Pennock’s Intelligent Design Creationism & It’s Critics (MIT Press, 2002).

God bless,
Don

 

[Chris_W]

Donald45:

This is simply not the case, though in the absence of a cogent counter-argument, it may certainly seem plausible. This is an old anti-evolutionary argument (Darwin discussed it in The Origin), and it’s been rebutted countless times in popular scientific literature. Of course, as long as one carefully avoids an in-depth study of these sources, one is able to confidently hold to such oft-refuted arguments as that from the eye’s evolution.

The chances of me being aware of every argument made by anti-evolutionists and subsequently refuted by evolutioninsts, thereby ensuring I avoid reiterating them, is about zero, Don. If I thought I knew everything about the subject, I wouldn’t be in this discussion.

Therefore, perhaps you could do me the courtesy of an answer to the question rather than a mere rejection of my having asked it?

Donald45:

Please—please—carefully read the books recommended in Post #145, which deal more than adequately with this point and others. Also, I’d get a copy of Michael Ruse’s Darwin & Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? (Harvard, 2003), as well as Robert Pennock’s Intelligent Design Creationism & It’s Critics (MIT Press, 2002).

I may look those up someday, Don, but do you realize how many books are recommended in these forums? If I read those books, someone else would pose yet more books to help me avoid my aparrently stupid questions. I come to these forums to explore, learn and test my knowlege. If I wanted to dive into some books on evolution I would do so and I wouldn’t be here discussing that very thing.

I don’t mean to respond harshly. You sound frustrated at my ignorance, but please understand that referring me to books really isn’t what I’m looking for. I suspect you will find people in every thread on this web-site who do not wish to be told “that question is so old…would you please just read…”

However, if you have read those books, and can provide answers to the questions you see asked in these forums, I’m sure others would agree with me when I say, by all means provide the answers.

 

[Chris_W]

rossum:

An interesting question; not one of the usual questions that come up in these sorts of discussions.

Thanks. Contrary to popular opinion, I’m not just reading through a list of anti-evolutionist arguments…else I might make better arguments I like contemplating tough questions (even if they’re only tough to me). It’s like brain exercise I guess.

rossum:

There is no compulsion, except the compulsion of the evidence. There is evidence that all known species did evolve, and no evidence that any known species did not evolve.

I see your point, and for you that may well be true (I don’t know enough about Buddhism to make conclusions). But technically, your statement should read “the evolutionist does not see any ‘scientific’ evidence” to the contrary, or something like that. I make that distinction because a theistic evolutionist, or in particular a Catholic evolutionist, by definition considers evidences beyond science or they likely wouldn’t be theistic. And there may well be non-scientific reasons for such a statement…I certainly think so anyway.

I have met in these forums several theistic evolutionists who acknowledge uncertainty of how to reconcile evolution with the claims of their own religion. I suppose it is in that case specifically that I wonder if the assertion is actually in fact **needed ** (that man, necessarily, must have evolved) in order for that person to remain an evolutionist in good standing, so to speak. I realize you may not be in a position to answer this for me, but it seems that if there is no reason necessarily to make that assertion, and if it does not actually contradict what is scientifically known, and if the faith a person accepts seems to contradict it, then why not take the position of accepting evolution in general with the exception that man did not evolve?

In fact, the potential exists, I suppose, for me someday to take that position (if I could just get over my gut reaction that evolution is just flat wrong ).

Peace,
Chris W

 

[Chris_W]

Hey, just thought I’d mention that I’ve got a busy weekend planned and I likely will not check in to respond to posts until Monday monring.

Have a nice weekend everyone,
Chris W

 

[rmcmullan]

Evolution is only a theory! That’s right, it is a theory because it is unproven.

There are two parts to the theory of evolution. The first is survival of the fittest. I don’t think anyone has any problem with this. But the second is that new species will arise from an established species and that has never been observed. Never!

What is it that defines a species? Why are the different kinds of dogs breeds and not species? And why are they a different species than cats? It all has to do with breeding. The different breeds of dogs can all have offspring but they can’t have offspring with cats. Mules and ligers (lion-tigers) are sterile. It’s almost a contradiction, that an established species could create a new one. By definition, species are seperated by who and what they can breed with.

Scientists have dedicated huge resources to trying to create a new species. They’ve used drosphilia which has a generation of just a few days. Although they have created quite a lot of horrible mutations, no new species. It’s just never happened so evolution is still a theory. An unproven theory. An unproven theory despite all the heroic efforts to the otherwise.

Now de-evolution is apparent today. Species are still going extinct. This explains the fossil record. And does support creationism.

Most people don’t understand this thing about new species emerging or know that it’s never happened so I have no idea why they put their faith in evolution.

 

[zian]

rmcmullan:

Evolution is only a theory! That’s right, it is a theory because it is unproven. …

Most people don’t understand this thing about new species emerging or know that it’s never happened so I have no idea why they put their faith in evolution.

I can only surmise from your post that you have perhaps simply skimmed this thread (at best) before posting. When you say that most people do not understand you seem to be putting yourself four-square amongst them. I recommend you go through an number of the earlier posts on this thread and several of the other recent evolution threads. When people make certain points regarding the scientific understanding of evolution, and if they provide a link to a resource, I recommend that you follow that link and read up on many of the useful resource links that have already been posted. You seem to have some misconceptions that I expect are already addressed elsewhere.

Pax.

 

[rmcmullan]

wanerious:

And I’d add that it’s important to remember that the concept and inventory of “species” is not something handed down from on high, but is a manufactured scheme by humans, often before a true understanding of species’ relationships. We tend to classify how things look before we understand how they came to look that way. Some future, naive zoologist may well classify mastiffs and chiuauas as separate species, especially with only partial skeletons; but we, being witness to the evolution, recognize the gradual branches of the tree. I’d predict, though I don’t really know, that there are some extinct organisms classified as separate species that were later combined into the same species based upon more complete fossil or genetic information. So “one species changing into another” is really a meaningless phrase, since we are the ones deciding what makes a species. Even in today’s animal and plant kingdoms, it is very difficult to decide where in the tree a particular specimen belongs.

I really must have missed something then because I can’t agree with quotes like this. A species is something very tangible and not a manufactured scheme.

 

[zian]

rmcmullan:

I really must have missed something then because I can’t agree with quotes like this. A species is something very tangible and not a manufactured scheme.

Have a look here and here.

 

[rossum]

Chris W:

But then consider the purpose of the eye. It has only one purpose…vision. It is an astoundingly complex thing, the eye. How long must it have taken to evolve (assuming for this discussion that it did). 100’s, 1,000’s perhaps even tens of 1,000’s of years or generations?

According to Nilsson and Pelger the evolution of a camera eye takes 364,000 generations. For a simple fish or worm a generation can be a year or even less. Half a million years is very short in geological time.
Chris W:

Well, until it fully evolved into a part of the body that can see, what was that orb growing in all those years of evolving beings? What purpose did the unseeing eye have during that lengthy process?

The purpose of the developing eye was to give the animal that carried it some sort of visual sense. Remember that to an eagle what we see it a useless fuzzy blur. Our eye is useless to an eagle, but it is sufficient for us. Just so, very simple precursors to our eyes would be useless to us but are still useful to those animals that have them. In Chapter Five of Climbing Mount Improbable Richard Dawkins gives an extended description of the evolution of different types of eyes, shows how those eyes developed and gives examples of animals which have those primitive eyes now. There are examples ranging from a simple patch of light sensitive cells, through cup eyes which add some sense of direction, to pinhole eyes which have some focusing ability, to camera eyes with lenses like ours.

Darwin too thought of this question:To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

(On the Origin of Species: Chapter 6)

And he also answered it:Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
Chris W:

This is the way I view the uniqueness of man. The benefits are obvious, but the purpose of its development (outside of a belief in God) is not at all clear from my unerstanding of the evolutionistic standpoint.

Evolution is an undirected process. It has no long term goals, all it deals with is the short term - how do I successfully reproduce myself? There is no “purpose” beyond that. Random mutation and natural selection are not directed processes, they do not aim at some long term target. Evolution has not been directed to creating anything in particular; there is no reason to single out any one particular species as the “purpose” of evolution. Since humanity is still evolving we could not have reached any such goal anyway. If there was an externally determined goal then evolution would stop when that goal was reached; it has not stopped yet.

rossum

 

[rossum]

rmcmullan:

Evolution is only a theory!

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. See my post #143 in this thread or this webpage.

rmcmullan:

That’s right, it is a theory because it is unproven.

This is precisely the wrong way round. It is unproven because it is a theory. All scientific theories are unproven. Mathematical theorems can be proved, but not scientific theories. The theory of gravity is just as unproven as the theory of evolution.

rmcmullan:

But the second is that new species will arise from an established species and that has never been observed. Never!

There are many examples of observed speciation. You can see the evidence here and here. Your source was in error on this question. You will not do well in your arguments if you use untrustworthy sources like this one. Even Answers in Genesis agrees that speciation has occurred, see here.

rmcmullan:

Mules and ligers (lion-tigers) are sterile. It’s almost a contradiction, that an established species could create a new one. By definition, species are seperated by who and what they can breed with.

If horses and donkeys are different species then how do we get mules in the first place? There are even very rare examples of mules that are fertile. Horses and donkeys have not quite separated completely, though they are very close to it. Similarly for lions and tigers which can still produce ligers and tigons. Both are good examples of the process of speciation as it is happening now. It is also instructive to have a look at the different examples of ring species. Species are convenient labels but they do not do complete justice to the variation present in the real world.

rmcmullan:

Scientists have dedicated huge resources to trying to create a new species. They’ve used drosphilia which has a generation of just a few days. Although they have created quite a lot of horrible mutations, no new species.

Again your source is in error. See the examples of speciation I referenced above, there are examples of new Drosophilia species given there. Please do double check what your sources say before posting it here. It does get rather tiresome refuting the same old creationist arguments again and again. The talk origins website has An Index to Creationist Claims. If I see an argument that I cannot refute off the top of my head, then I refer to the Index. If you want to be prepared for probable counter-arguments then you should look at it before you post - forewarned is forearmed. You would also do well to find a more reliable source, the one you are currently using has let you down twice.

rmcmullan:

Most people don’t understand this thing about new species emerging or know that it’s never happened so I have no idea why they put their faith in evolution.

Your source was wrong; speciation has occurred and has been observed. Hence your argument fails. I see a mountain of evidence for evolution and I see nothing for YEC-style creationism.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Sugar Ray:

You have come closer than any other evolutionist on this thread to acknowledging the above by stating that evolution is “theory and fact.”

I may be the first on this thread, but I am far from the first to do so, see this webpage.
Sugar Ray:

I’d like to ask you to be more specific to see if we agree on this point: that the idea that man gradually evolved from apes is one aspect of evolution that is theory and not fact?

There is enough evidence to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. There is not enough evidence to show it beyond unreasonable doubt.

For example, granted the existence of Adam and Eve as the first humans it is reasonable to say that I am descended from them. If I was unreasonable I would demand a documented list of “begats” starting with Adam and ending with my father and myself. There comes a point when the demand for further evidence becomes unreasonable; in the case of the evolution of Homo sapiens that point has been passed. While not a strict mathematical fact it is well enough established to be treated as if it was.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

What your link did not mention however, is that the second law of thermodynamics is a stumbling block to the answer that enough time makes anything possible and that Wald himself conceded this was evolution’s biggest hurdle.

It turns out that the guy who developed statistical thermodymics, Boltzmann, was a Darwinist. Granted, evolution and the origin of life are two entirely different things, but it is pretty good evidence that thermodynamics doesn’t rule out increasingly complex structures in nature.

A hurdle that still has not been cleared.

Unlike evolution, abiogenesis remains to be definitively demonstrated. What do you know of the current evidence for abiogenesis?

 

[Chris_W]

rossum:

…Richard Dawkins gives an extended description of the evolution of different types of eyes, shows how those eyes developed and gives examples of animals which have those primitive eyes now. There are examples ranging from a simple patch of light sensitive cells, through cup eyes which add some sense of direction, to pinhole eyes which have some focusing ability, to camera eyes with lenses like ours.

Thanks for your answers, rossum. I thought I was being innovative in my question

rossum:

Evolution is an undirected process. It has no long term goals, all it deals with is the short term - how do I successfully reproduce myself? There is no “purpose” beyond that. Random mutation and natural selection are not directed processes, they do not aim at some long term target. Evolution has not been directed to creating anything in particular; there is no reason to single out any one particular species as the “purpose” of evolution. Since humanity is still evolving we could not have reached any such goal anyway. If there was an externally determined goal then evolution would stop when that goal was reached; it has not stopped yet.

I can understand your position, but I’d have to think even other evolutionists, if they are theistic evolutionists, may disagree with that. Scientists might observe what** seems** like random changes, but is there something that says they necessarily must be random? Who’s to say there isn’t a guiding force behind it (if the method is even understood properly)? That is not the same thing as saying there is scientific evidence which demonstrates that guiding force, but neither is there evidence that there necessarily isn’t.

As a Christian, I must assert that there** is** a purpose behind it, especially regarding mankind, though I understand others may not see the need to make that assertion (since it is based on evidence outside of science). But is that assertion somehow contrary to science?