Replies

Thanks for your post. A few things to add.

Whether logically consistent or inconsistent, most evolutionists seem to deny the theory as entailing abiogenesis. I'm not sure, why because if one is going to attribute everything to so-called "natural" causes, it hardly seems unnatural for matter to simply assemble itself somehow (if we even dare admit to the suggestion of an assembly, for that, too, implies design).

Second, it would be inaccurate to see the presence of organized matter as "proof" of intelligent design, or even "proof" of God's existence. The word "proof" carries too much certitude for human intellect on a scientific basis to allow its use for all but the most fundamental axioms. Science is happy to work with evidence and make reasonable assumptions based on the same. That's all either side should ask of the other.

Third, you are right in asserting that both sides go at the evidence with different starting assumptions. It seems both sides are unwilling to admit it, perhaps out of fear for compromising objectivity. Frankly there is absolutely no way for science to be completely objective because it is by definition a human undertaking. Naturalistic underpinnings will lead the observer to naturalistic conclusions, and reasonably so.

Finally, as far as public school policy goes, the federal government has no business endorsing or establishing solely atheistic principles. It is in principle atheistic to state that science can only be done to the exclusion of theistic underpinnings. Notice I did not say "theistic hypotheses" or "theistic experimentation" or "scientific attempts to prove the existence of God." Besides, it is entirely alien to science to allow its parameters to be framed by government fiat. If the public cannot handle generic references to a higher intelligence as a scientifically viable explanation for organized matter on a massive scale, then the public does not deserve or need government funded education.

"Whether logically consistent or inconsistent, most evolutionists seem to deny the theory as entailing abiogenesis. I'm not sure, why because if one is going to attribute everything to so-called "natural" causes, it hardly seems unnatural for matter to simply assemble itself somehow"

Because the origins of life are outside of the scope of the theory. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. The ToE simply isn't concerned with where life, or matter, came from, anymore than any other scientific theory is about these things.

"Finally, as far as public school policy goes, the federal government has no business endorsing or establishing solely atheistic principles."

Since evolution, as taught and practiced by scientists, is not atheistic, then there is no problem.

"It is in principle atheistic to state that science can only be done to the exclusion of theistic underpinnings."

No, it's agnostic, not atheistic. You don't seem to be able to understand the difference.

"Notice I did not say "theistic hypotheses" or "theistic experimentation" or "scientific attempts to prove the existence of God."

You didn't have to, they are all assumed with *theistic underpinnings*. Science should not assume a God or assume there is no God with weighted evidence one way or the other. If there is no weighted evidence one way or the other, the question is futile and incapable of being answered by science.