You know this is a false argument, AMD. These other disiplines can PROVE satisfactorily that you can go from point A to point B and beyond, using experimentation. Evolution posits that modification through descent, over millions of years, can transform an amoeba into a cat, elephant or human being. This has NOT been proven, and if it could be, would a “god” be necessary at all for life?
Of course, God is necessary for other physical disciplines as well, but we are talking about HOW things work, not WHY they work when we study them. Scientists WANT our young people to believe that all that exists does not need God to be explained, and you KNOW this. Bob
If to you that means that scientists want young people to believe that God is not needed, that says more about your own ignorance than about scientists and science.
One doesn't need to see entire canyons forming over millions of years to know that erosion was responsible.
Or is “micro” erosion not sufficient to explain the “macro” erosion of the Grand Canyon?
First of all, you're wrong. No scientific theory, in any discipline, is ever subject to absolute proof by experiment or observation. All scientific results of any importance are inferred and/or tested by fundamentally indirect means. Take chemistry, for instance. Chemical reactions, at the atom to atom level, occur very quickly. We've never actually seen — that is imaged, in any fashion visually recorded — a chemical reaction at the atomic level. NOT A SINGLE ONE. All of chemistry is based on assuming things happen that we never see happen, even once, and as a practical matter probably never will see. The entire science of chemistry is completely absent the level of proof you demand of evolutionary theory. And so is every other scientific field.
But, on the other hand, assume you are not wrong, and that the major theories and models in scientific fields other than evolution are provable. Now recall what you said earlier:
Show me where ANY scientific paper says that the mechanism of evolution is directed by God, and I will withdraw my statement that most evolutionist are anti-God.
Does it escape your notice that you are implicitly arguing for scientific atheism, at least outside of biology? You are excusing all scientific disciplines, except evolution, from including God as a mechanism, because they can prove that mechanism is not needed. You are effectively agreeing that a complete and satisfactory scientific explanation does and should exclude God.