The workings of God are, by definition, supernatural.
Tell me why.
I already listed two. Evolution and Spontaneous Biogenesis.
The only people I've seen elevate science to a religion are people like those in this thread who try to equate the two.
That's an odd thing to say. Who in this thread has treated science like religion?
Clearly you haven't seen the way people react to Neil deGrasse Tyson.
So you would argue that adaptation of any kind has never been observed? Ever?
That isn't what I said, is it? I'm assuming here that you know the difference between evolution theory and adaptation. Was I mistaken?
That's a big pet peeve of mine when discussing this stuff with people... it's always all-or-nothing, like you can either believe in evolution as a godless heathen or you can be a bastion-of-light-in-the-darkness as a Creationist.
It's a pet peeve of mine too. 99% of people I've debated Evolution with accuse me of arguing Creationism when I do nothing of the sort. People are polarized, and have a really hard time seeing other avenues of thinking.
You're asking me if science should point to God, and I guess I'm not sure as to what you're getting at. If what you're asking is literally should science point to the existence of God, I would ask how you think one would go about testing that.
What I'm getting at is this philosophical dilemma:
P1: God created the Universe
P2: Science is a reliable mechanism for telling us things like where the Universe originates from.
C: Science should (eventually) be able to tell us that God created the Universe.
Do you agree or disagree with that form?
My problem is that a lot of Christians make many, many statements about the nature of the universe, and our observations about the universe don't always line up with that. They disregard the observations based upon their beliefs and their interpretations of what the Bible says. I'm not arguing that you should immediately accept the results of every research paper that gets published. I would argue, though, that sometimes, it gets a bit stick-head-in-sand-y, or maybe plug-ears-while-singing-la-la-la-y.
It's true, many do. Closed mindedness serves no-one, and I'd argue that Christians who refuse to understand Science do so because their faith is weak and they're afraid of learning something that would shatter it. On the other hand, I see the very same stubbornness on the other side, when you get people who think they're superior because they've somehow managed to avoid religion. They don't want to understand religion because they're afraid of what it might make them see. Know how irritating it is to try and have a purely scientific discussion with someone who'd so closed minded that they can't get their head of the rut that the ONLY possible reason to be a skeptic of Evolution is religion?
I have a friend who is a high school Biology teacher, and he and I have debated Evolution. His lack of understanding of how Evolution Theory actually works is pretty shocking, and in one debate a mutual friend who is an actual scientist had to call this guy on some of his more inaccurate and illogical statements. I literally have a more solid understanding of Evolution Theory than this fellow, but still he calls me crazy (literally) for being skeptical of it. This has actually damaged a 25 year friendship, because he absolutely refuses to admit the gaps in his own knowledge. You'd think that if he's on the right side of the truth, he'd seek to fill those gaps, even if only to be a better teacher and do a better job debating the topic. But... nope.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."