Atheism makes an assertion, oh yes it does. It is agnosticism that says there is no persuasive evidence and so no evaluation is made, and it is the 'negative' form of atheism that says 'there is insufficient evidence, therefore I disbelieve the claims for God.'
Just as there is a difference between 0 and NULL, there is a difference between agnosticism and negative atheism and that is that negative atheism has formed a judgement, a value that other judgements and values are based on, constituting a values system that is the negative of a theistic values system that we refer to as a 'religion'. Yes, atheism is a religion, it certainly is, much as the Democratic Party is to politics, according to Bob Wills, IIRC.
ID has had over 100 years to "get its day". Modern ID arguments are essentially the same as creationist arguments 100 years ago.
LOL! No, they obviously are not, but go ahead and keep telling yourself that. MEanwhile the ID proponents are going to continue to gain ground and theism will triumph. Even Antony Flew agrees now that the evidence is on the side of theism (not against scientific evolution, but for creationism in the philosophical sense).
As a theist it warms my heart to see materialistic atheists put their hands over their ears and close their eyes and tell the world that there is no evidence for philosophical creationism.
Keep up the good work, all you monkeys, heheh.
"Atheism makes an assertion, oh yes it does. It is agnosticism that says there is no persuasive evidence and so no evaluation is made, and it is the 'negative' form of atheism that says 'there is insufficient evidence, therefore I disbelieve the claims for God.'"
agnostics do not believe in God. Agnostics lack theistic belief and are therefore a-Theist. In my opinion most atheists are agnostics.
The remaining atheists make an assertion that they know there isn't a God. That is faith based atheism and those people are..ahem..irrational..often rebellious kids.
"MEanwhile the ID proponents are going to continue to gain ground and theism will triumph"
I often hear an argument from ID proponents that ID is fit for schools because it is not based on religious belief. We are told that ID doesn't mention who the Designer is, it could be aliens, God, anything apparently. But everyone knows that in reality the Intelligent Design movement is the old Creationist movement in disguise. So it is quite funny that you accidently (?) reveal this by saying "theism will triumph" in reference to ID.
"Even Antony Flew agrees now that the evidence is on the side of theism"
Who?
"As a theist it warms my heart to see materialistic atheists put their hands over their ears and close their eyes and tell the world that there is no evidence for philosophical creationism."
The only evidence for supernatural design has always been a lack of knowledge. Thousands of years ago we could easily have considered *everything* to be a product of the supernatural. If with limited knowledge of nature we cannot comprehend how something like a rainbow can form then that has always been treated by many people as evidence that its formation is not natural.
The theory of evolution is currently strongest at the large scale level of fossils, species and populations and the general mechanisms for how they can evolve. This is essentially the kind of stuff Darwin produced. It is what convinces me.
How evolution occurs is smaller level stuff like genetics and molecular evolution. Despite over half a century of work these areas are still no way near fully understood yet, I don't believe it is evidence for evolution. ID locks onto this lack of knowledge to claim it is evidence of intelligent design. But the lack of natural explaination is possibly due to the lack of understanding of the ties between genetics and embyronic development. People ask what are the genetic stages of say eye evolution, but noone is in a position to answer that yet. A lack of an answer now doesn't mean a lack of an answer ever. If noone can explain how unchanged DNA works to develop an eye in a fetus then how can they be expected to know how slight changes to that DNA will affect eye development?
I expect that when scientists can actually simulate every step of expression of a DNA strand into an organism and can easily modify DNA to see the developmental effects it has, figuring whether structures can evolve or cannot evolve can actually be done.
Although I would find it bizarre if it turned out they cannot evolve as so much at the large scale convinces me that it has.