Yes, because just because things evolved does not mean that they weren't designed with God's hand in the process the whole time. So there is nothing accidental about Evolution. When I say this, recognize that it is a religious conclusion by a Mormon that believes religiously in God, but that favors evolution as the best explanation for the process, that happens to be described by science. I am not a scientist, but I consider myself science-friendly. But I do not confuse my religious convictions with science. Science operates in a box called methodological naturalism. This means that scientists, whether they be religious people, or whether they are agnostic or atheist, come together in the lab to do science. When they actually do science, they operate within this box, where their spiritual or philosophical leanings to not meddle, regardless of which side they are on.oklds wrote: ↑September 20th, 2017, 7:44 am Something to think about. If we were created by some sort of biological accident, why is it that we all (birds, cows, horses, goats, sheep, rabbits, dogs, cats, giraffes, alligators, flies, gophers, an infinitum...):
Have four limbs, Have one mouth, Have two ears, Have two eyes, Have one nose (with two nostrils), Have identical aspiration systems, Have two lungs, Have one heart, Have one liver, Have on bladder, Have two kidneys; again, the list goes one ad infinitum... If all that's not enough: We even poop and pee and procreate the same way.
Inly a complete moron would call that an accident....
When scientists that are atheists are speaking as atheists, they are making a religious claim that there is no God. They are not acting as scientists when they do this. Because at the moment they do this, they are not practicing science, but instead are practicing ontological or philosophical naturalism, where they claim that science proves there is no God, something that science has nothing to say about. And so, they are making unsubstantiated, unscientific claims when they do this.
Similarly, when a scientist that believes in God gives his opinion that God was behind Evolution and that there was Intelligent Design, he is not speaking as a scientist, but rather, a religious person. If he says that science proves God, he has made an unscientific claim. If he tries to get Intelligent Design into the science classroom, he has done us all a disservice. Why? Because who's version of Intelligent Design ought to be taught in the science classroom? Nobody's. Because I don't want a Baptist teaching my kids the Baptist version of Intelligent Design. I want my kids taught the Mormon version of Intelligent Design in family home evening, in Seminary and in Institute, by good teachers that also know science, who perhaps were well-educated by science-friendly professors at BYU. I don't want Rod Meldrum's ideas, as an example, taught in the science classroom, because not only is it not science, but it is bad Mormon Intelligent design. I want Intelligent Design kept out of the science classroom, because it is RELIGION, but there are also bad versions of it, both Mormon and Non-Mormon. And confusing it with science is out of bounds, and is as evil as someone making atheistic, non-scientific claims, when so-called Intelligent design meddles in the domain of science and the science classroom, making unscientific claims. Religion belongs within its own domain, even though it is true in the sense that there is a God. Because I don't want my kids taught Young Earth Creationism, as an example, by followers of Rod Meldrum, or by Young-Earth Creationist Baptists. I don't want them indoctrinated by bad or apostate religious claims about creation.
Because as I said, science has nothing to say for or against the existence of God, or the non-existence of God. Science has nothing to say for or against spiritual things. Science, when kept pure, within its bounds, is non-theistic. And anyone that purports to use science outside of those bounds has become non-scientific, and has gone into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics, for or against such things, something that science itself has nothing to do with.
So science isn't against religion or religious claims as atheists say. But it has nothing to say for religion either. It is absolutely neutral with regard to anything that it cannot measure or test.