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
Who frames it that way? I don't think even atheists do that. It looks like we may have to consider some definitions of terms.
Many leading proponents of evolution describe it as unguided and without purpose, mutations are random, and natural selection has no foresight. That’s what I mean by “accidental.” If there’s no guidance or goal, then by definition, it’s purposeless.
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.
The fine-tuning of physical constants, the origin of the universe, and the information in DNA are all areas where design is a reasonable inference. These aren't just claims, they’re observations that many scientists, including non-theists, acknowledge as pointing beyond natural processes. But if you wish, you can choose to ignore them.
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.
Thank you. This proves my point.
If explanations that involve God are excluded from the start, then of course only naturalistic theories seem “credible.” But that’s not following the evidence wherever it leads; that’s limiting the options by philosophical bias.
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.
That’s fair, but ignoring God by default means science is limited in what it can conclude. If design or purpose did leave evidence, science, as currently defined, would miss it. That’s the concern, not that science asks natural questions, but that it dismisses certain answers outright.
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.
Even if some scientists now downplay it, fine-tuning is still a widely acknowledged issue in physics. It’s not just rhetoric, it’s a real question about why constants fall within such narrow life-permitting ranges. Dismissing it doesn’t make the puzzle disappear.
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.
Saying rarity “tells us nothing” assumes all explanations are equally plausible. But we don’t treat rare, functional outcomes as meaningless in any other context. If a code works by chance, we infer design. Fine-tuning raises the same inference, it doesn't prove God, but it makes design a rational explanation worth considering. (This really sounds like I am repeating myself time and time again)
How new functional genetic sequences arise is irrelevant to your claim. The fact remains evolutionary mechanisms do produce new functional genetic sequences, which renders your claim false.
The distinction matters. Modifying or duplicating existing sequences isn’t the same as generating complex, specified information from no prior functional template. Yes, evolution can tweak what’s already there, but explaining the origin of novel, information-rich systems from scratch is the real challenge, and that’s what design theorists are pointing to.
Of course, since evolution is an observed process. In fact, I'd be curious if you could provide an example of a population that doesn't evolve.
Microevolution, small changes within a species, is observable. But macroevolution, like a fish eventually becoming a monkey, hasn’t been directly observed. That kind of large-scale change is assumed over long timeframes, not witnessed. There’s a big difference between observing variation and assuming transformation.
And yet there are
de novo genes made from "junk DNA":
De novo gene birth - Wikipedia
Yes, de novo gene claims exist, but they’re rare, often disputed, and still rely on existing cellular machinery. They don’t explain how that machinery, or the genetic code itself, originated. That’s the deeper design question.
No, science deals with falsifiable hypotheses. It just happens that most falsifiable hypotheses involve natural causes. If a supernatural hypothesis were testable for us to determine if it is false, then it would be scientific.
Furthermore, the role of evidence in science is not to prove anything is true but to disprove competing falsifiable hypotheses to leave the one that continues to survive all the tests designed to try and falsify it. Following the evidence to where it leads is only a valid methodology when the goal is to try and disprove a falsifiable hypothesis. If a falsifiable hypothesis survives rigorous testing in this way, it is justifiable to tentatively accept it as the most reasonable explanation until such a time (if ever) that it becomes falsified. Otherwise, when the goal is to prove an untestable supernatural hypothesis is true, the methodology of following the supporting evidence only leads to confirmation bias because no quantity or quality of evidence will ever function to prove or disprove an unfalsifiable claim.
So, you are welcome to fantasize about the possbility of a divinely designed universe, but no quantity or quality of evidence will ever funtion to prove or disprove that unfalsifiable claim. In fact, whatever quanity and quality of available evidence you think exists to supports that idea, it doesn't even function to increase or reduce the probability of it being true or false. Apart from its value as a form of entertainment, the unfalsifiable claim about divine creation is basically a waste of time and energy.
Science does rely on falsifiability, but that doesn’t mean all meaningful questions are scientific ones. Historical sciences like cosmology and origins rely on inference to the best explanation, not just lab tests. If the universe bears hallmarks of design, it’s rational, not “fantasy”, to consider a designer, even if science can’t directly test God.
Also, macroevolution has big gaps, like missing transitional fossils and the unexplained origin of new complex information. These holes mean the theory isn’t complete. So, it’s reasonable to consider that there might be another explanation that better fits the evidence. Maybe, just maybe, there is a creator.
