# Side Comments on Ann Gauger's Response to Themelios Review

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [August 26, 2018, 5:49am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382 "2018-08-26T05:49:09Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 15

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 8:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/15 "2018-08-26T20:06:15Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/15):
>
> This comment could be made irrespective of how clear the evidence is… there is always hypothetical room for the evidence to be clearer.  
> However with science, it’s a case of intentional blindness as much as anything… you can’t decide to strictly stick to methodological materialism and then claim you didn’t find any evidence for God.

@Ashwin_s (@swamidass),

And again we are being hijacked into the sideshow of ID’s position that God’s presence is detectable to science.

It is not.

However, if God wrote something coherent in my DNA… that would be enough for me to change all my views.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382)._