Replies

Not having read any of Darwin's books, I cannot speak with authority about the inventor or original promulgator of evolution. Although I have read several times that he either started out an atheist or became one later in his life.

But my assertion still stands, as the modern propounders of evolution have as their foundation that (a) living beings evolved from inert matter, and (b) there is no soul, and therefore (c) there is no God in control, and the whole evolutionary progressive march is accidental, and therefore without transcendent meaning or purpose.

There may a believer in evolution here or there who differs with these basics, but in general - and as taught to the masses - these (a, b and c) are taught as the absolute truth. "Educated" people believe this as though there were eyewitnesses and notaries present during the transition of inert matter to life.

But my assertion still stands, as the modern propounders of evolution have as their foundation that (a) living beings evolved from inert matter, and (b) there is no soul, and therefore (c) there is no God in control, and the whole evolutionary progressive march is accidental, and therefore without transcendent meaning or purpose.

The case assumption is not quite (a). Evolution presumes that living beings evolve from other beings. The life-form zero origination isn't a matter anyone can address. There just are not any viral fossil records.

The Theory itself is silent on (b) and (c) for or against. They don't deal with the Soul. My opinion is that God guides history and the whole universe, and sets things in motion, and explained it to mankind in general terms and gross details.

There may a believer in evolution here or there who differs with these basics, but in general - and as taught to the masses - these (a, b and c) are taught as the absolute truth.

This is not a correct assertation, and I have an university degree in Anthropology, and advanced Engneering degrees. The issue is not inert matter at all. The theory supposes that life changes over time from other life forms.

"Educated" people believe this as though there were eyewitnesses and notaries present during the transition of inert matter to life

This isn't the case, for example, Antropology showed that the fertile crescent, which includes the Holy Land, has more species of native grass than anyplace else, and always has. We know this because of fossilized materials in that area, and no notary was used or needed.

If God provided a fossil record, should we not understand the meaning of those things He left behind?

Darwin died a believing Catholic, IIRC.

But my assertion still stands, as the modern propounders of evolution have as their foundation that (a) living beings evolved from inert matter

No, the theory of evolution does not speak to the origins of life.

(b) there is no soul, and therefore

No scientific theory attempts to cover a metaphysical concept such as the soul.

(c) there is no God in control

No scientific theory speaks to the existence or non-existence of God.

There may a believer in evolution here or there who differs with these basics, but in general - and as taught to the masses - these (a, b and c) are taught as the absolute truth.

Not true.

But my assertion still stands, as the modern propounders of evolution have as their foundation that (a) living beings evolved from inert matter

This is not at all a part of the theory of evolution.

(b) there is no soul,

The theory of evolution states no such thing, and the existence of people who believe in the existence of a soul and who accept evolution stand as a direct contradiction of this claim, making your claim completely false.

there is no God in control, and the whole evolutionary progressive march is accidental, and therefore without transcendent meaning or purpose.

Again not in any way a part of the theory of evolution.

but in general - and as taught to the masses - these (a, b and c) are taught as the absolute truth.

No, it isn't. You admit that you've not even read one of Darwin's books, yet you proclaim yourself an expert as to how evolution is taught. Something tells me that your alleged expertise is not quite what you claim it to be.