SoConPubbie, post #10: “Actually, with the miniscule probabilities attached to a God-less evolution, it takes far more faith to believe in the religion of evolution”
Popman post #60: “Thats a point I always use when discussing this topic with evolutionist...
Typically just makes them mad...”
Strictly defined, in science there’s no belief, no faith, no doctrine and no theory is ever 100% “settled”.
All explanations are subject to change if/when new data or better ideas are found.
So, if somebody tells you, you have to believe in evolution, that’s a lie.
Until, much like leftists do, you disagree with BroJoeK. Then the Dawkins’ hat trick is used (dissidents are stupid, ignorant, or crazy).
What science does instead is accept, conditionally and temporarily, ideas that best fit all the available data.
In natural history, evolution has been the dominant idea, greatly modified over the past 150 years.
Such modifications have kept Darwin’s original idea relevant & up-to-date to the point where all of our understandings in such fields as biology & geology are based on them.
The “ignorant” portion of the Dawkins strategy used here.
As for your daunting probabilities, I assess the probability of the Universe existing absent God’s creation as zero, so anything we see in the natural realm is His handiwork, whether it agrees with our theological ideas or not.
God does not need our permission to create life through evolution or any other method which might suit Him.
Your idea of God is an unemployed loser unworthy of worship, like all other atheists.
He didn’t start life, he didn’t direct life’s progress to make a creature that could understand and worship Him. If I pushed you, you could deny his role in the creation of matter and time, thereby making Him the unemployed, fictional deity you wish Him to be.
By the way, it wasn’t Julian Huxley who spoke of atheism allowing sexual freedom; it was his brother Aldous:
“We objected to the [Christian] morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”
Ends and Means, 1937