Thank you for always being gracious and understanding to all sides of this issue.
Yes it would be relatively easy, Heartlander! But to be fair, we have to recognize that not all Darwinists are atheists.
I stated this out of frustration Betty… We see posts that state; ID = creationism, ID only wants to create a theocratic country, ID wants to destroy the integrity of science and take us back to the medieval inquisitions, etc… Surely I am not the only person who sees the ironic hypocrisy in these blatantly false statements. We both understand that it is a political game on both fronts and obviously a case could be made against the purely naturalistic philosophy that states; Neo-darwinism = atheism, neo-darwinism only wants to create a purely atheistic country, neo-darwinism has destroyed the integrity of science and has taken us back to the medieval inquisitions, etc…
"Since Darwinian evolution seeks to promote 'no-design' as a scientific concept, and since all scientific concepts are tentative and refutable, then the disagreement with the hypothesis of no design is scientific. It simply reflects the alternative. In other words, if it is scientific to argue against design, it necessarily is scientific to disagree and argue for it."I didn't realize that neo-Darwinists had dissociated themselves from the "soft science" of sociobiology.
- John H. Calvert
I am referring to the scientific answer to the morality question in the form of a ‘meme’ from Dawkins, Skinners conditioning, Blank Slate, Singer, et al… The whole Nature vs. nurture philosophy with Nature being the nurture giver to mankind according to the neo-darwinian paradigm.
But if we took this darwinistic ‘philosophy’ to the Nth degree in physics, we would find ourselves as merely chemical factories achieving equilibrium within our planet’s thermodynamic energy.
Indeed, it has become a political game. And here we are just wanting science to be done without unnecessary presuppositions. Sigh...