Replies

I would agree that most biologists believe this, but it is not a theory or even a hypothesis. It is more of a conjecture, since there are no real details.

Would you argue that this shouldn't be taught in schools, then?

Are you asserting it is immoral to assume natural causes and work to find them?

I am asserting that it is an unsupported assumption. See my screen name. It may even be a perfectly reasonable and useful assumption to make but it's still just an assumption, just as the belief in a divine agent is. If evolutionists would embrace the fact that it's an unknown and allow for the possiblity of God to inhabit that unknown alongside their assumption of a godless universe, I think it would defuse a lot of tension that exists among religous folk who would not otherwise be extremists on the matter. For many religious non-Fundamentalists, the problem is not that evolution explains that mane arose from animals but that it refuses to leave any room for God in the unknown. It seems to assume a godless universe. And that's where the atheist fanatics jump on the bandwagon and start beating their drum.

If evolutionists would embrace the fact that it's an unknown and allow for the possiblity of God to inhabit that unknown alongside their assumption of a godless universe

1) Not all who accept evolution assume a "godless universe".

2) How would the scientific method be applied to divine intervention?

3) To which "deity", out of the thousands acknowledged and worshipped throughout human history, do you refer and why should that one be "assumed" over all others?

If evolutionists would embrace the fact that it's an unknown and allow for the possiblity of God to inhabit that unknown alongside their assumption of a godless universe

There are many Christian evolutionists (scientists) on this site.

the problem is not that evolution explains that mane arose from animals but that it refuses to leave any room for God in the unknown. It seems to assume a godless universe.

Evolution says nothing about whether a god or gods exist or not.

Sorry, but the assumption of natural cause is the only possible assumption that science can make. It has always been the assumption. Even when scientist were all searching for evidence of God, they were looking for regularities and consistencies, not miraculous interventions.

It is only when the regularities and consistencies began to impinge on Biblical literalism that religion started crying foul.

Real trouble started when geology began to resemble a clockwork, and the ticking traced back more than a few thousand years. The last straw came when life itself was compared to the clockwork.

Of course, true ID advoctes will not be worried about Biblical literalism. they are satisfied by the clockwork metaphor. What they find offensive is the assertion that varition is stochastic and that populations are shaped by the rather brutal process of natural selection. The notion that nature itself has free will is just too much.

So what it boils down to is that ID asserts strict determinism. Everything was wound up at the beginning, all the rules in place, everything that would happen in time was anticipated and known by the designer.