[saFeather]

So "scientific knowledge" require the belief that the universe is the product of random chance and has no intelligent designer behind it? Just a couple of things: 1) The theory of evolution makes no claims regarding the origins or development of the universe in general, and especially has no claims pertaining to whether the universe is a "product" of anything at all, specifically "random chance." 2) Current theory of evolution would quite specifically deny that species evolve randomly, although there may be some elements of chance involved. In essence, your point is a non-sequitur. Conversely, is it no also an "untestable belief" that there is NO intelligent designer??? No, because scientifically the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. To draw an analogy, if a person proposes that magnetic monopoles exist, the burden is on him to produce the experimental evidence that supports his suggestion; meanwhile the rest of us are entitled to believe his claims lack merit, or to join him in the search for evidence to support magnetic monopoles if we believe there is sufficient theoretical support otherwise. In no case could anybody say "magnetic monopoles exist" and be taken seriously in the scientific sense, unless he had actual hard evidence to back the statement up.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***1) The theory of evolution makes no claims regarding the origins or development of the universe in general,.***

No? Is not the questions assumed, "What is the cause of evolution?"


***2) Current theory of evolution would quite specifically deny that species evolve randomly,***

If there is no design then everything is by chance - you can't esape that.



***No, because scientifically the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. ***

Is that not, in a larger sense, what science is doing? Seeking to understand the nature of the universe and, by implication, whether it is 1. created, 2. self-creating or 3. eternally existant?

Your burden of proof does not work in this situation because you are giving priority to opinions 2 & 3.