You have no evidence that this is true, which makes sense as such evidence is outside the realm of the observable.
the presuppositions of evolutionary scientists color everything they do
Everyone's presuppositions color everything they do, as your post illustrates. The important thing is to be able to identify and evaluate one's presuppositions.
Materialist presuppositions result in conclusions which are contradictory to the world. The Materialist cannot be consistent to the logic of their presuppositions, because the materialist lives in a reality which was made by something external to matter...God.
Once again, no evidence of this, it's outside the realm of the observable. You assume something does exist "out there," and you're taking it on faith that it is God as you think of him and not something or someone else.
Yet you call other people "brainwashed."
Yet you call other people "brainwashed."
It's time, once again, to play "Pin the tail on the strawman!"
With new, improved Flame RetardantTM.
Actually, a lot of it comes down to methodology as well as to presuppositions.
Garden-variety scientific empiricism is designed to minimize mistakes in the form of (if you will) false positives. "We will sell no metaphysics before its time" or "ECREE".
The problem is, in its effort to exclude everything which cannot be demonstrated to within some level of confidence (see also the oft-repeated "non-falsifiable"), there are a lot of things which are rejected -- not, as popularly claimed, because there is *NO* evidence, but because the evidence is either not of a form which science can test. Examples being argument from authority, hearsay, "old wives' tales", etc.
This is NOT to say that all old wives' tales are *TRUE*, but that by the scientific method, they are *assumed* to be false unless or until their claims can be rigorously tested. However, many things in common experience cannot be systematically tested; and therefore they are not given scientific credence.
In other words, TRUST "need not" be the same as "being brainwashed." But there is such a thing as "being taken for a ride" as well. There are just some things out there which the methods of formal scientific inquiry are inadequate to differentiate.
Full Disclosure: The other misunderstanding is the hobgoblin about absolute logical consistency and "uniformity of treatment" -- that is, if someone agrees (for whatever odd reason) to accept supernatural or miraculous claims on behalf of *ONE* religion, the skeptic somehow feels triumphantly vindicated by pointing out that the believer is "inconsistent" (and therefore presumably, if not presumptively, WRONG) if the believer does not also blindly accept ALL OTHER religions.
There are three issues at work:
1) Religion / the supernatural claim to be at the behest of a personal, purposeful agent--and therefore not necessarily strictly mechanistically reproducible
2) Religion is based on trust--and trust is an *individual* thing -- even if you trust one salesman, you need not trust any of the others
3) Since religion claims to deal with "personal" agents, rather than entities which are *necessarily* subject to fixed laws, falsifying a particular claim does not invalidate the whole structure, since it was never claimed there was an unyielding framework to which the supernatural agents' behaviour *must* conform. No "conservation principles" if you will ;-)
But since the scientists are SO used to dealing with these elements as the very framework of their thought and treatment of things, it is quite difficult for them to conceive of stepping outside of this framework as anything other that "sloppy thinking" to "special pleading" to "lies".
Cheers!