[betty boop]

Do you not understand the difference between atheism, and believing that God created life with the ability to evolve?

Of course I do, tacticalogic.

I am a very strong proponent of the idea that "God created life with the ability to evolve."

But still there is a problem: If Darwinists want to promote inorganic matter as the magic genie that alone makes life and consciousness possible, then they have to "bump off God" first.

If I "insult you" by stating the obvious, I am very sorry for your pain....

[allmendream]

So would you be a “Darwinist” as well - if you accept that life can (and does) evolve?

Is it possible to accept evolution and NOT be a “Darwinist”?

Is it possible to accept evolution through natural selection of genetic variation and NOT be a “Darwinist”?

Are all “Darwinists”, by your definition, also atheists?

You sure seem to think so based upon your previous posts.

[YHAOS]

"If Darwinists want to promote inorganic matter as the magic genie that alone makes life and consciousness possible, then they have to "bump off God" first."

And there’s the sticker. A totally naturalistic explanation cannot be proposed without “bumping off” God. Either Mankind and the Universe “like Topsy just growed” or it is a product of creation and a Creator.

[tacticalogic]

The instructor teaching this class may well have been of the same mind. Assuming by "Dawinists" you mean "philosopical naturalists", there is nothing in evidence to indicate anyone involved in this was.

The premise of the argument presented in the article is everyone should hate "evolution", not philosophical naturalism, and your arguments play directly into that. Being a proponent of evolution, I'd think you'd know better.