Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science deals with natural causes, but when we see signs that point beyond nature, like the origin of the universe, fine-tuning, or functional information, it’s reasonable to consider non-natural causes too. That’s not special pleading, it’s following the evidence where it leads, even if it challenges naturalism. Science may not be able to test God directly, but that doesn’t mean the universe shows no signs of design.

I'm just going to repeat what I said in the end of the comment you've responded to: If you want to claim that there is scientific evidence for God, then stop waffling on with claims and special pleading and empty rhetoric like above, and actually PRESENT the evidence. Just SAYING it isn't the same as SHOWING it.

 

[BCP1928]

Meaning does require a mind. And that’s the point: DNA contains functional, goal-directed information, like instructions to build proteins. We only ever see that kind of specified, purposeful information come from intelligence. So it’s not assuming a mind, it’s inferring one from the kind of information we observe.

DNA functions as a template, not "instructions."

What’s usually observed is modification or duplication of existing sequences, not brand-new functional information from scratch. Small changes within existing systems aren't the same as explaining the origin of complex, specified information, which is what’s at stake.

What's at stake is showing what "complex specified information" is and what role it plays in evolution.

Sure, many textbooks, museums, and science shows present evolution as a settled fact, not a theory open to challenge. Phrases like “we know evolution is true” are common, and alternative views, especially ones involving God, are excluded by default. That’s the double standard being pointed out.

It's far from settled in detail, as any evolutionary biologist will tell you. It is, however incomplete you may think it, the only credible explanation on the market.

It’s not special pleading, it’s applying consistent reasoning. Whenever we see complex, functional information or a cause for a beginning, we infer intelligence or cause. Rejecting design before examining the evidence is itself a philosophical bias. That’s the real issue here.

First you have to detect design, and I think we have here another definition to discuss.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I’m not claiming that science explicitly rules out God, but in practice, methodological naturalism does. It assumes all causes must be natural, so any evidence that might point beyond nature is excluded by default.
I’m not saying evolution must deny God, as I know that many evolutionists believe in God, but when it’s framed as a purely unguided, accidental process, it does conflict with key aspects of Christian theology, especially regarding design, the Fall, and death before sin. That’s the tension I’m highlighting.

When methodological naturalism (the operating paradigm of science) excludes any mention of god(s) or similar entities it is not "explicitly ruling them out" we are *IGNORING* them, because they are not regular or natural, which is the only kind of phenomena science is equipped to study: regular and natural. This is no different than plumbing operating on regular and natural causes and plumbers not casting spells or performing exorcisms to unclog drains.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're right that the 1 in 10¹²⁰ figure is based on comparing the observed value of the cosmological constant with theoretical predictions of vacuum energy, but that's exactly the point: the value we observe is vastly smaller than expected, and yet incredibly precise. Even if the constant could vary by a few times and still allow life, it’s still sitting in a narrow life-permitting range, and no one really knows why.

In what world is "several times larger" to "infinitely smaller (zero)" a "narrow range"? Hmmm.

Many respected physicists (like Steven Weinberg) still view this as a major fine-tuning puzzle. It’s not “garbage nonsense”, it’s a recognised mystery, whether one believes in design or not.

The apparent "fine tuning" is partially based on the limits of our knowledge about how things could work if they were different. (And things that we have no way of calculating anyway.) And partially based on our desire to find meaning in things and recognize meaning in randomness. I've seen legit physicists ramble on for 5 minutes on the Hoyle state and how amazing it is that it is there. Big whoop.

I see some moving away from the poetic rhetoric in science communication. Weinberg no longer makes those claims.

We can't map all possible universes, but that doesn’t erase the fact that our universe permits life only within a very narrow range of conditions. Saying, “Well, we’re here, so of course it looks fine-tuned” (the observer argument) just pushes the question aside.
The real question isn’t why we can observe a life-permitting universe, it's why such a universe exists at all, when chaos or lifelessness would be far more likely without guidance. That’s exactly what design seeks to explain.

I think you are not getting the final argument I am making. If we could identify that the Universe was one of the rare life-forming kind and agreed upon that, it would still tell us nothing. If it was in the multiverse it would be a rare universe with life in it. If it was created by a creator it would be a rare universe with life in it. If it was the only natural universe that ever existed and just got plumb lucky by dumb chance it would still be just a rare universe with life in it.

Being a rare universe with life in it tells us exactly *NOTHING* about the broader context of the origin of our Universe.

Fine tuning/rare life is a BAD argument for a creator because even identifying our Universe as rare does exactly zero to sort out its origin.