How did I miss this epic debate?
The essential issue here is that structure and formations of thought between people from science and religious background is so different. This requires extremely precise wording which is difficult if not impossible in rapid or verbal debate.
1. For example, let's address fact vs. theory and the unexplained in science:
There are no general facts in observational science. There are of course specific facts like "I found this rock at GPS coordinates XXX". But for ideas like evolution or global warming there is only theory. However some theories are supported by so many diverse and unrelated observations that scientists name them "fact" as a kind of verbal shorthand. However, that does not mean that these fact-like theories will never be changed.
Actually, theories like the Newtonian equations and evolution are often changed. BUT in a way that is hard for many religious people to understand the theories were not previously wrong. What happens is that the theory is found to be imprecise or apply to a narrower environment then previously supposed. For example Newton's theory of motion turned out to be not perfectly precise at slow speeds and to be so imprecise as to become inapplicable as speed approaches that of light. And as we all know, it was superseded by relativity. But for all cases that Newton could see and to his measurement accuracy, his theory was correct.
Also, mathematically if you take the equations of relativity, and assume that the maximum speed is MUCH slower than light, certain terms become 0. What's left ARE Newton's equations! This is probably the ultimate demonstration of my point...
Similarly with evolution. Punctuated Equilibrium is evolution with more detail. Also, today biochemistry researchers are discovering that the cell has clever chemical ways of mixing and recombining mutations to make them less lethal. Additionally, the cell is structured so that mutations occur more often in stressed environments (using a mechanism that is not really understood). So maybe there is some "design" in evolution after all...
There are some facts in mathematics or other abstract disciplines. A better term would be "proofs". For example, if you take as given a whole host of assumptions we call the "Cartesian" coordinate system (i.e graph paper) then Pythagorean's Theorem is true (a fact). But if the REAL UNIVERSE is NOT Cartesian then it is not true in this the real universe (and right now the shape of the universe is a matter of great debate). So you see the entire fact must be written "If this and this and this, THEN this is true". But lazy people (and people who want to argue with science) shorten it to "...this is true".
2. The unexplained
It is true that there is the unexplained in science. Science does not claim to have all the answers. Often religious people make the mistake of pushing "answers" onto science that scientists did not really say (they skip the "if this and this and this" part of the fact). Scientists who say science has proven that there is no God are making the same assertions-without-proof as religious people. A better statement would be:
Historically, many phenomena that were attributed to the divine have now been explained by science. However, some questions (and many new questions) remain unexplained. These questions may never be explained by science and we may even discover God in them. However, the existence of questions not explained by science does not prove that there is God because these questions may be scientifically answered in the future.
3. Science allows for God
Einstein had a famous anti-Quantum Mechanics quote "God does not play dice" because quantum mechanics is all about probabilities. For example, there is a small probability that atoms "tunnel" through a classically-impenetrable wall of other atoms and can magically appear on the other side. In theory at least there's actually an infinitesimally tiny chance of any particular miracle (say trillions of water molecules jumping to the side, or light deflecting in a manner to form a figure) happening. So miracles actually CAN happen without breaking the laws of physics! Of course, the existence of this possibility does not mean that
Additionally, from an abstract direction, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem basically shows that any sufficiently complex logical system can posit a question that is obviously true but cannot be proven from within the system.
4. Additional fun:
Researchers are evolving algorithms in hardware:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolvable_hardwareI read some of the early research. One fascinating result is that the circuits that evolved tended to create small groups of high-feedback logic. The groups were then loosely interconnected. This result is very similar to what people see in cellular chemistry, genetics, and the structure of the brain. However it is VERY different from a computer program or human-made electrical design which tends to be very linear -- like the "TODO" list you might make for yourself before going on vacation.
Congrats and thanks to anyone who slogged thru all this! Mostly I wrote it for myself :-) After all, I will likely never meet you!
