The opponent of Creationism is Naturalism not Evolution

Hi Richard. Welcome to our little corner of the internet. Glad you have joined us. I see you’re another canuck. We have a few of you here. All good folks. Hope you hang around and contribute often. Welcome, again.We already know, and have known for some decades, that the EvC debate isn’t really atheism v creationism. The creationists who come here, however, think they are doing battle against godless atheism. We have a smattering of theistic evolutionists here, mostly of the deist variety, but, in truth, the majority of us are indeed heathen baby-eating atheists of the science nerd variety. So pick a chair and have a seat. Wrong start.Neo-Darwinism, the Modern Synthesis, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, whatever the accepted nomenclature is these days, the Theory of Evolution (ToE) can not be atheistic because it is science and science doesn’t do atheism or religionism or agnosticism or theism or any other —ism except fact-ism.If there were some kind of god or demon, wizard or spirit, necessary and evident in the dynamics of evolution then such would be an accepted part of the ToE. But there isn’t so, frankly, we just don’t care. Just so much wind and word salad until someone brings to the fore evidence, hard and fast, of such gods or demons or wizards or spirits, and lays them on the table for study, dissection, and critical examination. Absent this the human soul can not be said to exist. And the Pontiff, god bless his pointy little hat, can shuck and jive all over the stage insisting on the invisible, un-evidenced, conjured by faith doctrines as he so desires, the science of the ToE doesn’t care.So, yes, the creationist can accept the science of evolution without endangering his mortal soul and acknowledge the ToE as our best explanation of the diversity of life on this planet. What he cannot do is insist that the ToE accommodate his articles of faith. There, fixed it for you. God doesn't enter into the situation at all. If it did God would be a part of the science, a part of the natural laws, the naturalism.Until you can show some efficacy, evidence, reality for this God hypothesis it is ignored. Not opposed, not shunned ... just ignored. They can’t. They never could. They lost this war some 100+ years ago.Evolution, science, naturalism underpin the reality of this debate. When you step outside that box you lose.Welcome, again, to Godless Atheists vs Evil Creationists, Richard.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

No apologies necessary, Richard. Take your time. We're not going anywhere.And you needn't respond to each message. We're flexible.

You let your scholarship slip a bit, Richard.The big bang hypothesizes the universe may have had a beginning but the hypothesis certainly doesn't "show" or even hypothesize a creator involved in the universe. I think your religious proclivities have clouded your scientific rigour.I hope this isn't a sign of the discussion to come.

Really? Where? Who?What most have agreed to is that the contention that evolution = atheism is false. I haven't even seen any substantial agreement on a definition of naturalism.I challenge your statement.Don't bother going on until you have supported this contention. Show your facts.