For instance, claiming that evolution is a blind, unguided process, as Dawkins has done, is absolutely not scientific. That drags us into a level of theology because that gets us into the existence of a supreme being (unfalsifiable).
I believe this is invalid logic. There is no empirical evidence of a god, so whether or not he,she,they, or it guides evolution - science has nothing to say about the process. Evolution doesn't attempt explain the diversity of life without god, it explains the diversity of life without "magic". The question of whether or not god guides is of little value to a reality in which god apparently stays hidden and reclusive - except to a subjective believer. We can show that evolution CAN HAPPEN without god, but that isn't the same thing as saying god isn't there.
The theory of evolution doesn't care if you're an atheist like Dawkins or a Christian like Ken Miller. It simply is what it is.
reply to post by Bigwhammy
But that has little to do with the far reaching claims of Darwinism like common ancestry and unguided natural processes being the exclusive mechanism for it.
As clearly shown in the videos... it does. Here's a little protip for you; Nobody cares what your religious beliefs are, until they start spilling over into the realm of classroom or the laboratory. Science is largely a process of removing bias, and religion is one of the biggest slants of bias known to humanity. If you can't separate your religion from your research, your doctrines from your dissertations, then nobody is going to believe you're interested in finding out what's really true about reality... you'd be on a quest to find your god.
And therein lies the problem... creationists are pushing hard to get their religion in the science class, because they lack faith. They are afraid of reality disproving their doctrines - and by proxy, their religious and ethical philosophies built on their misconceptions. Their false idols.
So? Darwinism is not. (a fact) That's the point.
We know "Darwinism" is not a fact. It never was, because by the time Darwin's original theory had truly enough evidence to support it's proposition - evolution had already expanded well beyond Darwin's original framework. For instance, Darwin proposed some mechanism for information on traits to be passed down - and it was a big hole in his theory. It wasn't until an Augustinian (Read: Christian) priest by the name of Gregor Mendel proposed that mechanism by introducing his theory of genetics that the theory evolved into a truly workable basic framework.
Thank god that some of those who worship him weren't so blinded by bronze age stories to the point of denying the very work of his creation!
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Their creator. It doesn't mention who that creator is. It could be serendipity. It could be as simple as the reader's mother and father. What gave them the power to grant unalienable rights? Their creators... their mothers and fathers. All the way back to the first modern humans. What gave them that authority? The providence of being the first humans.
Why do you think the founders used such a vague term as creator? Because they wanted it to be subjective - and fit with EVERYONE'S belief, even those who had no beliefs. It doesn't say Christ, it doesn't mention Yahweh.... it doesn't even mention "God". It says "Creator".
reply to post by Gawdzilla
So, then, there is some supernatural being that is required for life to begin?
Dude, don't encourage the push into Abiogenesis territory. He's just going to use a currently incomplete understanding of a probable mechanism to obfuscate the entire debate through deflection away from facts into pointless and endless sophistry.
[edit on 14-5-2009 by Lasheic]
You have got to be kidding. 
