Sorry but this still doesn't prove that the mutation which did occur could not have been guided. Saying that you know for sure that it wasn't guided remains a statement of belief.
it would be an accurate statement of fact to say that there is no evidence that evolution is guided, therefore atheism/agnosticism is a logical default position.
There is no evidence proving that evolution could not have been / is not guided either. Hence the default stance of science is agnosticism, not atheism.
He's a practising Catholic.
Really? Just culturally or does he believe it? How does he remain a catholic despite knowing the adam/eve story as being false?
If you're asserting that evolution is guided then there are an awful lot of things you would have to explain, eg, mass extinctions, design flaws, vestigial organs, etc.
- Which mass extinctions are you referring to? Did nothing good at all come out of those mass extinctions?
- Which design flaws are you referring to? Did nothing good at all come out of those alleged flaws?
- The vestigial organs are helpful, if they hadn't remained we humans may have had a weaker case for evolution and we may not have tried to investigate it.
So God guided e Ecoli to evolve in the test tube? :-)
First off, I've used the word higher power, not god. It could be an unintelligent higher power, an evil higher power, a good higher power, etc. Secondly, yes, it could have been due to the guidance of that higher power that the mutation which occurred did occur. It could have been due to a higher power that a series of circumstances which led to the mutation in the DNA of that population of bacteria to happen. Can you disprove that?