Students are adept at spotting the incongruities, double standards, and tendentious arguments that often accompany methodological naturalism.
I am reading a response journal from a student in my Science and Religion class and came across a comment that really captures why we do what we do.
Rather than showing how their theory could handle the obstacle, some Darwinists are hoping to get around irreducible complexity by verbal tap dancing.
Here is a modest attempt to summarize the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist.
Hossenfelder’s strongest argument is that many fine-tuning parameters cannot in fact be quantified.