By dogmatic evolutionist I mean someone who rejects out of hand the possibility of any basis in "knowledge" for the application of intelligent design in bringing about what is commonly referred to as "the natural world," and thus rejects out of hand any place in the classroom for discussion of the same.
This whole debate would not exist of everyone operated with the same givens. I count it as evidence that man is created in the image of God because he can operate intellectually from more than one point of view, and even "call things that are not as though they are."
Well no, but what we consider naturally reasonable and obvious to the senses may be wrong. That is, they may be contradicted by other reasoning and other sense perceptions. It is very common that, as our technology improves and out measurements become more precise, that it becomes clear that our prior perceptions are wrong.
I hope you don't oppose science accomodating itself to the best available evidence.
Are dogmatic evolutionists able to divest themselves entirely of "givens?"
In my view science is naturally conservative. This is a good thing, right? But the history of science, and evolution is right in this mainstream, is that when sufficient discrepancies become apparent and when there is a better theory, science will move. Evolution is not being contradiccted by the evidence.
It isn't like evolution hasn't been challenged and sometimes found wanting. Are you familiar with the concept of endosymbiosis? That is not Darwinian evolution and was stronbgly opposed but is now accepted. There have been many other opportunities for evolution to fail (fossil evidence, geological evidence, genetic evidence) but Darwin's concept has come through largely unscathed. These are the "givens" that scientists don't want to give up.
But I think you're talking about some other "given," namely methodological naturalism. As I said, science is conservative. You have to have enough reason to change. Making a bunch of (largely) non-scientists feel good isn't nearly enough. Nor should it be.
I count it as evidence that man is created in the image of God because he can operate intellectually from more than one point of view
In the first place, we're comparing theories here, right? So for this to be an interesting observation, evolution must not be able to explain how man "can operate intellectually from more than one point of view." But the explanation is trivial as I'm sure you see.
In the second place, if we're created in the image of God (and I assume you mean intellectually), why aren't we as smart as God? Why aren't we only loving? Why can't we read other people's minds? Why can't we simply will reality to be some way?
Ah, here you'll go all ad hoc on me - it's because of the fall you'll say. But then why didn't the fall also take away the ability to see intellectually from more than one point of view?
And that takes me to the third point. To be considered evidence for a theory, it isn't enough for a fact to be simply consistent with the theory, it must follow deductively from the theory and its negation must be logically excluded.