What Would Scientific Evidence for Guidance in Evolution Look Like?

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@gbrooks9

In SOME sense. But not in any scientific sense…. and in a poor philosophical sense.

If guidance is defined as a deviation from randomness then natural selection could be described as guiding beneficial mutations towards fixation.

@gbrooks9

Can you give examples where such “guidance” was NOT provided?

I’m not sure what you are trying to ask.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@St.Roymond

it assumes that God cannot alter the system from outside.

An alteration of the system from outside is not scientific evidence. Sounds to me like you are making God into a liar just like the creationists – having God alter the scientific evidence to say whatever He wants us to believe.

@St.Roymond

Invalid conclusion

Right… with something outside the universe altering the evidence to lie saying whatever it wants… that wouldn’t be more like demons than aliens.

@T_aquaticus

I think we could detect guidance (in a broad sense) without needing to ask “by what”.

I do not think so. We can only theoretically detect physical interactions. Science dictates only probability distributions not individual results within those probability distributions. So as long as the probability distributions are obeyed, there is nothing to detect if the cause is non-physical.