[gobucks]

"..but it does not logically follow that only one specific philosophical foundation can lead to acceptance of the theory."

So, in other words, someone can, possibly, accept the 'truth' of evolution, from the position of more than one philosophical tradition? What about logical reasoning itself? Is that not also based purely in one or more philosophical traditions?

There is no absolute standard by which to trust logic .... is there?

What I'm saying is that in order to logically defend any position, one must hold to a single 'truth' reference, thus, a single philosophical tradition. The common one of course here is that gentle spirit, 'reason'. But reason itself is based in a philosophical tradition.

And the one I state that your typical Darwinist adheres to is this: the 'stuff' out there is all that there is. That is the beginning faith point, by which all else, including Darwinism is derivative. And, given the only evidence available, on a predictable basis, points in this direction, it is no wonder the world is chock full of materialists.

[Dimensio]

So, in other words, someone can, possibly, accept the 'truth' of evolution, from the position of more than one philosophical tradition?

Yes. Are you suggesting otherwise?

What about logical reasoning itself? Is that not also based purely in one or more philosophical traditions?

To some extent, yes it is.

There is no absolute standard by which to trust logic .... is there?

An appeal can be made to its consistency. Are you attempting to make a point?

What I'm saying is that in order to logically defend any position, one must hold to a single 'truth' reference, thus, a single philosophical tradition. The common one of course here is that gentle spirit, 'reason'. But reason itself is based in a philosophical tradition.

Reason is a function of thinking.

And the one I state that your typical Darwinist adheres to is this: the 'stuff' out there is all that there is. That is the beginning faith point, by which all else, including Darwinism is derivative. And, given the only evidence available, on a predictable basis, points in this direction, it is no wonder the world is chock full of materialists.

This appears to be a great deal of verbiage, but I do not understand how it supports your claim that the theory of evolution is "acidic", or that all who accept it are materialists.

[Dimensio]

And the one I state that your typical Darwinist adheres to is this: the 'stuff' out there is all that there is.

I misread this previously, and thus did not comment on it as I should have done so. You have made a generalization that is not true. Not all who accept evolution believe as you claim. You have not demonstrated that it is "typical" for someone who accepts evolution to believe that "the 'stuff' out there is all that there is".