Science has NOT shown how it could happen without a designer. Scientists have looked at the evidence and tried to explain what "might" and I stress might have happened. There is no empiricle evidence to support their assertations. I know I know, i can read and when I read their assertations I ask the same thing you are asking me. They are no longer conducting science they are thinking Hypothetically, regarding how it might have happened.
I'm guessing you don't really understand scientific methodology, from your response. That is the only way that you could say there was no empirical evidence to support what scientists have come up without knowingly lying about it. You see, the scientific method starts with an observation - the empirical evidence you say that scientists don't have. They then come up with an explanation for it, and test that explanation against the observation, modifying the explanation if they don't match. So as you can see, the whole point is that scientists do indeed have empirical and objective evidence to back up their explanations, contrary to what you might think.
How do the presence of vaccinations demonstrate the need to believe in evolution, exactly? To take a small amount of a disease and use it to avoid a large amount of the disease is not "evolution".
The microorganisms that cause diseases constantly evolve to adapt to our defensive measures (both the natural ones produced by the body and the artificial ones we use in vaccines and medicines). Therefore, an understanding of how that evolution happens is essential to being able to stay ahead of the disease organisms and keep large numbers of people from dying.
I am not a scientist. true, and I may not know all the ins and out of scientific mythology sorry method.
That much is obvious. In fact, the real question is whether you knew anything about scientific methodology in the first place. If you did, you've done an exceptionally good job of keeping it hidden.
But I am able to observe, and the world I see, the world I live in has design. I can expect gravity to work, the same every day. I can expect the sun to come up, every day. You can ignore the obvious in pursiut of your "science". But I ask you, wouldn't time be better spend enjoying the design instead of trying to ignore it?
Observations don't demonstrate design, arguments do, and to be blunt, your arguments in favor of design are so severely lacking as to be nonexistent. The only reason you think there is design is because it's obvious to you? Well, to many cultures, lightning was "obviously" an expression of divine wrath. Yet we've demonstrated that lightning has a perfectly natural and understandable cause that doesn't require a deity to make it happen. We've even successfully harnessed it to power the computer you type your messages on and many other things.
That is the reason we have science and the scientific method. You can say that our time would be better spent "enjoying the design", but without the people who you claim are "ignoring the obvious", most of the conveniences that you use as part of your daily life would not exist. At all. Imagine having no computer, no automobile, no cell phone, just for starters. No refrigerator. No electric oven. No central air conditioning. No airplanes. All of these things came about because of the scientists you're busy badmouthing because you dislike the idea of evolution.
Again, can you rebut my arguments? Especially, can you prove that modern technology would have come about without science? If you cannot, then your own arguments hold no weight.