Actually, the only people here asserting such things are religionist creationists imputing it as strawman arguments.
I'm an atheist and therefore don't believe in any god, yet I've never asserted that science proves or disproves the existance of god. On the other hand creationists routinely claim that Darwin is inconsistent with there being a god. So it is a creationist claim, not an evolutionist claim.
The trouble with religious belief is that it is not testable. You believe or you don't.
Science, on the other hand, is a method or system of applying rationality to real world observations. If you "believe" in science, it just means you believe in the evidence of your senses and your ability to think logically. If you don't "believe" in science, it means you think either that your senses are lying to you, that logic is meaningless, or that god is playing tricks on us all by sprinkling the world with false evidence, such as the fossil record. A twisted sense of humor, I guess.
Both Creationists, who deny Darwin, and Darwinians, who oppose creationists, are fundamentalists.
But unless one studied the Philosophy of science, you can't tell why both their arguments are based on unproven suppositions.
You have to go back to the arguments of the 12th century, when Aristolian arguments replaced the mysticism of the Platonic system.
Christian philosophers then insisted that logic and the ability to study the world was a gift given by God to men, and that a scientist doing such studies was in effect praising God by making us more aware of his creation.
So seeing the structure of evolution, or seeing the vastness of the universe, will not weaken the faith of someone who knows the immensity of God.
The fossil record tells us that millions of years and millions of creatures existed. It praises God in his diversity as lifegiver. Logic and science allows men made in the image of God to study this and devise theories.
Only those either ignorant of the philosophy of science or those who are fundamentalists in the religion of Scientism argue like this gentleman. But his argument is based on the unproven assumption that science is true. This is not the same as saying that the scientific method is an accurate way of investigating nature. It is assuming that scientists, like the religious leaders of old, are both infallible and have the ability to rule the rest of us. It also assumes that knowledge from experience outside of the scientific method (for example,intuition) have no place in the world. But philosophically, science does not deny intuition and other ways of knowing the world outside the scientific method. Only Scientists insist on this unproven statement.
They have of course an easy target in Creationists and others who are ignorant. which is why the rest of us tend to stay out of this ridiculous argument in the first place.
In Startrek, there is a scene where Kirk reminds Spock that something "is not logical but it is true". Truth is usually logical, but those who base "TRUTH" on incomplete data and deny what they do not perceive may be missing something.(Spock ignores psychology and emotions, for example, and those following the religion of Scientism may be ignoring the possibility that our machines are not sensitive enough to perceive God ).
He certainly denies the Bible specifically. He denies that God is the Creator of man. Darwin was also an atheist and toyed around with the idea of also saying that God did not create life. However, he found trying to prove such as too hard so he left it up to others to make the conclusion. It should be noted that of the outspoken spokesmen for evolution there is not a single religionist. They are all (or were, many are dead already) atheists.
This statement applies equally, if not more, to evolutionists! None of evolution theory's tenets meet the standards for scientific proof. To be scientifically correct, one must always include the descriptor, THEORY, when mentioning evolution. The overuse of the term "evolution" without the proper descriptive term, THEORY, has misled millions to accept this unproven THEORY as valid science.
Free Republic's pro-evolution posters would gain credibility if they would admit that their BELIEF in evolution THEORY places them on equal footing, at best, with their opponents!
Although this has always been a very divisive argument, those of us who believe in The Creator, who actually know Him personally because of Jesus' sacrifice in our place, only debate hoping that others earnestly seeking Him will also accept His offer of forgiveness and come to know Him.
That is interesting. So then is the fossil record what it is or what evolutionists want it to be?
Yes let us apply the Scientific Maethod to Evolution:
SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:
1. OBSERVATION -steps of evolution have never been observed (Stebbins )
In the fossil record we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.(Gould )
2. EXPERIMENTATION -The processes would exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter (Dobzhansky )
3. REPRODUCTION impossible to reproduce in the laboratory. (Dobshansky )
4. FALSIFICATION -cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science. (Ehrlich )
RESEARCH PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:
1. ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )
2. DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )
3. STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton )
4. GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss )
5. DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe ).
(DNA REPAIR: The genome is reproduced very faithfully and there are enzymes which repair the DNA, where errors have been made or when the DNA is damaged. - D.H.R. Barton, Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, Nobel Prize for Chemistry )
(CHANGE WITHIN GENETIC BOUNDARIES: Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt )
(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things are the most complex functioning systems in the universe.Science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.The genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal. Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 )
Actually, the only people here asserting such things are religionist creationists imputing it as strawman arguments.
I'm an atheist and therefore don't believe in any god, yet I've never asserted that science proves or disproves the existance of god. On the other hand creationists routinely claim that Darwin is inconsistent with there being a god. So it is a creationist claim, not an evolutionist claim.
I'll jump in here. Certainly there are some evolutionists who claim that evolution (and/or other scientific theories, conclusions or insights) provide postive grounds for denying the existence of God. (Richard Dawkins springs to mind as a prominent example.) Jlogajan, however, is absolutely correct in noting that the assertion that evolution somehow implies atheism is much, much, MUCH more commonly made by opponents of evolution than by its proponents.
In fact I have NEVER ONCE seen an evolutionist freeper flatly claim in any manner that evolution implies atheism. Furthermore many evolutionist freepers have explicitly denied that such an inference is valid (including some who are atheists and might otherwise be expected to further such arguments).
Notice, however, even in this very thread, all the complaints from creationists about freepers using evolution to promote atheism. This is largely a phenomena of "projection". It is the creationists much more than the evolutionists who have it in their heads that evolution = atheism -- in fact they are the ONLY ONES here on FreeRepublic making such assertions -- and they are doing doing much more to further the popular currency of this false (or at least highly questionable) "scientistic" equation than we evolutionists are (assuming we were even trying to advance such fallacies).
I once offered (I think it was something like a year ago) to donate something like 10 or 20 dollars up to a total of something like several hundred dollars to FreeRepublic for each instance from FR's extensive archives of an evolutionist freeper making any kind of clear argument or assertion that evolution implies atheism. Even though I made this offer repeatedly across two or three long threads, I never got a single taker. OTOH read back just through this thread and see how many instances you can find of creationists asserting that evolution implies atheism! Like I said... projection.