Interesting response.
"What I wouldn't want is for my doctor to ignore the natural and inject my baby with saline."
So, you would want your doc to believe in true science, and not dwell into magic. If they believe in magic, then they would be shamans.
Similarly, I would want scientists and physicists to explore true science, and not dwell into magical creation by the supernatural force. That is the job of religious leaders and astrologers.
"If you're right about the origins of life; how long do you think it will take to come up with a natural resistance to abortion? "
Abortion is death. What kind of evolutionists believe in resistance to death? That is the job of eternal-life folks, aka creationists.
This -> eternal-life <- should have 'evolved' by now. Merely staying alive is a WHOLE lot simpler than all this reproducing we see goin' on all the time.
(It musta been REAL rough for them first critters, tryin' to stay alive long enough to evolve the reproduction thingies.)
What kind of evolutionists believe in resistance to death?
What kind of evolutionists believe in resistance to death?
You may want to think on that for a while.
Your response assumes incompatiblity of science and religion. 'True Science' is a pursuit of truth not an assumption of already having found it. Scientists cannot tell me what the weather will be like 2 weeks from no with any certainty, but they presume to tell me what are the origins of life WITH CERTAINTY.
Science cannot explain many things, but it is certain of one thing, any explanation including the supernatural is WRONG.
This is not science, it is arrogance. I've asked many times before- if every assumption made concerning evolution is true; how does that exclude a Creator?
If the origin of life is a settled issue, then why the continued study? It is what passes for 'true science' that puts it's head in the sand; engages in 'group think' and refuses to entertain ideas that are ouside the common paradigm.
Popular evolutionary 'science' begins not with a pursuit of truth; but with a decree of what is not truth.
"We hold this truth to be self-evident, that there is no Creator other than random chance. Any data that might SUGGEST otherwise must be conformed to this truth before proceeding."
So, when all's said and done, you won't shake my faith that God created man, nor do I find that imcompatible with science.
And likewise, I won't shake your faith (notice I didn't say 'science') that man created God.
But if you are right; if man created God; then the likely reason will turn out to be because man was trying to find some way to fight against the arrogant close-minds of pseudo-scientists to whom the hypothesis is more important than the evidence.