Does Romans 1:20 Mean There is Scientific Evidence for God?

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

So Joshua wonders about the tacit assumptions of the IDist. I wonder about how Joshua reconciles his doubt about God leaving (strong) scientific evidence or fingerprints with what Romans 1:20.

Interestingly, I also thought of this passage after the first time I ever heard of and listened to you - a video on Sean McDowell’s channel.

@swamidass

First, I’ve written specifically about Romans 1:20 here:

https://peacefulscience.org/swamidass-confident-fatih.pdf.

The reference in particular is page 175.

@swamidass

In short, I certainly agree that all creation declares God’s invisible qualities. That doesn’t mean that science can see God. Science is a recent and peculiar way of studying the world. It is much more than observing the world and thinking about evidence rationally (as certainly the ancients did). Science works differently, and Scripture wasn’t talking about science.

I’ll have to take time to watch the videos, but for now I disagree. Scripture still applies to today, so that passage can be talking about science today as much as it is talking about observing the world in Paul’s time. Even if humans then never thought about the world as scientists do today, God still created all of humanity to be ABLE to do so. And I think he created all of us with the capability to be scientists even if we don’t choose it as a career.

And I would argue that since we are created in God’s image, any of man’s designs are God’s designs, whether ours look different from His or not. And science is uncovering God’s design in nature. I believe the problem scientists run into is looking at design and often misapplying what it means or misinterpreting it, such as the example below. That’s why some parts of science, in order to accurately interpret reality, should be interpreted in light of the Bible–to understand what is God’s original design and how God governs that design providentially in light of natural evil in the world. From my perspective: another example - pathogens should be interpreted as natural evil providentially governed, not as an original design, as many have argued to me.

@thoughtful

@RonSewell

But there is when I became convinced for myself that evolution is not so much about complex new features mutating out of nowhere, but scaling, molding, and modifying what is already there to adapt. It was staring at that rat where I first though, yeah, that happened .

That’s Darwinism. God as an artist can do that as He formed the animals - make the next one like the previous form, but our genes can’t mutate to do that.