[Cicero]

Nah, Darwinism is just a scientific theory; it is neutral in regards to god

On the contrary, Darwinism posits as its underlying axiom that God never intervenes in any way in the universe and that divine providence plays no role in nature or history. You could, if you liked, believe in some sort of Deist clockmaker God, if you liked, but nothing more than that.

You can make a pretty good Freudian case, if you believe that Freud was still worth mentioning, that Darwin was motivated by his desire to revolt against his religious, authoritarian father, as indeed many of Darwin's biographers have suggested. Samuel Butler paints a very similar picture in his autobiographical novel, "The Way of All Flesh." Darwin certainly had an agenda--which would be perfectly fine, as I've suggested, if his facts all checked. But they really don't. The odds against General Evolution, as opposed to limited evolution, are worse than astronomical.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"On the contrary, Darwinism posits as its underlying axiom that God never intervenes in any way in the universe and that divine providence plays no role in nature or history. You could, if you liked, believe in some sort of Deist clockmaker God, if you liked, but nothing more than that."

Evolution says no such thing. It says that science cannot test any claims about the existence of a deity, not that one doesn't exist. It is like ALL other sciences in that regard. Not one science makes claims that include supernatural, nonphysical, untestable explanations.

[aNYCguy]

On the contrary, Darwinism posits as its underlying axiom that God never intervenes in any way in the universe and that divine providence plays no role in nature or history.

This is simply not true, and I'm sure you've been told this before. The TOE, like any scientific theory, makes no claims about the supernatural. Your beef is with the scientific method, of which the theory of evolution is just one fruit.

Not to mention that the TOE says nothing at all about the origins of the universe, or solor system, or Earth, or indeed life. Scientists, in describing one class of observations, are honestly not trying to tell you that your religion is faulty.

[js1138]

You could, if you liked, believe in some sort of Deist clockmaker God, if you liked, but nothing more than that.

That was pretty much the perspective of Newton. Obviously Christians believe in specific miracles, but not necessarily continuous intervention. Science cannot be done if you assume the ground beneath your feet is continuously shifting.

[MeanWestTexan]

"On the contrary, Darwinism posits as its underlying axiom that God never intervenes in any way in the universe and that divine providence plays no role in nature or history."

Completely false.

To take the issue out of context, take the parting of the Red Sea and Moses.

Fairly recently, it has been shown that given the right wind, right tide/position of the moon, right sea level/swell, and right time of year, the Red Sea will, in fact, part rather dramatically for a brief time.

Aha! The atheists exclaim, "All is explained by nature, not God!"

The luddite Christian replies, "You are discounting miracles! And hate God, to boot!"

The scientific Christian replies, "No, God created the world and the laws of nature, and set everything in motion just so that this natural tide occurs just as Moses shows up and ends just as Pharoh's armies close in. Natural and still a miracle!"

Evolution of man is much the same.

[Right Wing Professor]

You can make a pretty good Freudian case, if you believe that Freud was still worth mentioning, that Darwin was motivated by his desire to revolt against his religious, authoritarian father, as indeed many of Darwin's biographers have suggested

Robert Darwin was a freethinker.

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." (p. 87)- Charles Darwin, Autobiography.

You guys just make it up as you go along, don't you?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You can make a pretty good Freudian case, if you believe that Freud was still worth mentioning, that Darwin was motivated by his desire to revolt against his religious, authoritarian father, as indeed many of Darwin's biographers have suggested."

Which biographers? His father was what was called a *freethinker*. He was hardly devout, if he even believed at all. You need to get better sources.