What does that have to do with this debate? Just because you might not like the consequences you see for "inalienable rights" if there is no creator does not mean that there then must be a creator.
Indeed. While we're at it, I think we should stop and consider the consequences if there were no Santa Claus. Millions of children would be disillusioned, and come to think of adults as inveterate liars. They would likely stop believing anything they're told, and take up drugs, sex, rock music, and the Green Party. Addiction rates, teen pregnancy rates, and crime rates are sure to skyrocket, as the youth of today waste their days ignoring the sage advice of their elders, preferring debauchery and violence instead. Obviously this is too horrible to contemplate, so therefore the conclusion is inescapable - Santa does exist. How can it be any other way?
There seems to be a lot of passion being expended over this issue, and I wonder why. How pollywogs evolved into pussycats could not possibly be farther from the day to day concerns of modern existance. And yet, Darwinists and Doubters "clash".
One point on which the existance of the Creator does impact my life is in my relationship with this particular government. I very much like my Life, my Liberty, and my pursuit of Happiness, and wish to maintain those things. My concern is that many of the people who advocate a Creator-free creation are the very same people who advocate creeping governmental incrementalism taking over more and more control over day-to-day life.
It is almost as if man needs a big, controlling influence that is beyond mortal control or understanding. If the Creator is rejected, they will find a substitute in overarching government.
That is what my point has to do with this debate. Since message board is more concerned with Constitutional government than pollywogs and pussycats, it seemed appropriate to bring it up.