Replies

It is no more significant to say that, e.g., 'chemistry does not presuppose belief in the supernatural' as it is to say 'bricklaying does not presuppose belief in the supernatural' or 'cooking decent chili does not presuppose belief in the supernatural'. Why is this pointed out so often in crevo yammering? I have no idea. Clearly Darwinians think it is mysteriously significant, and needs to be mentioned at every opportunity. Maybe it's a mystical mantra. Or a Zen Koan or something.

And what color is the sky on your planet?

There is no mystery her as far as evolutionists are concerned. We are quite clear, and perfectly consistent, in holding that no scientific theory logically entails any conclusion regarding either the existence or non-existence of a super-natural realm or supernatural entities, and hold that such opinions are necessarily extra-scientific. Even the evolutionists here who happen to be atheists seem to agree in this.

There are, of course, those scientific atheist types who believe that evolution and other scientific theories do imply atheism, but this view is not held by any freepers in the evolution camp so far as I can tell. (On one occasion I even offered to make a ten dollar donation for each example from FR's extensive archives of an evolutionist clearly arguing that the theory implies atheism, but had not a single taker.)

OTOH it is a number of creationists and IDers here who assert (often enough quite explicitly) that one particular theory (evolution) carries implications (in this case negative ones, apparently) regarding the supernatural, whereas nearly all other scientific theories do not. The closest we can ever get to an explanation of how evolution implies atheism is something to the effect that it "leaves God out". They problem is that every other theory in every other field of science "leaves God out," but this is never considered by creationists to imply atheism except in the case of one particular theory in biology.

The point to all this is that your correspondent (Virginia-American) was not egaging in incantation, but simply expressing the continuing puzzlement on the part of evolutionists here as to why the indifference of scientific theories to the supernatural is happily tolerated by creationists (in this case by gore3000) in every instances save one.

In truth we all know what the reason is, and we all know that these pretensions about only opposing "atheistic materialism" is hypocritical posturing without any principled and consistent philosophical foundation.

They problem is that every other theory in every other field of science "leaves God out," but this is never considered by creationists to imply atheism except in the case of one particular theory in biology.

I always wondered why they don't demand to include God in quantum mechanics for instance: ... and the electron tunnels through the barrier, so God will (or should I say insh'Allah).

Even the evolutionists here who happen to be atheists seem to agree in this.

You have it backwards. Atheists are evolutionists because of their atheism. They had been looking for an atheistic explanation of life since ancient times and atomism did not quite cut it.