That's irrational, and points out how atheism is religious in nature.
I will go out on a limb and assume that you, like me, are a fairly intelligent person in a technical field. You might be familiar with tri-state electronics. Atheism is not the high-Z state. It is the zero state, and theism is the one state (reverse them if you like).
To use another example, atheism is the absence of a check in your browser's "settings" checkbox. It is not the checkbox grayed-out - that is the fallacy of pretended neutrality. No one approaches the subject from a neutral perspective.
Atheism is the logical conclusion of Darwinism.
One will build his life around that belief i.e. it is a religion or worldview.
One MUST therefore grasp and defend the basis of those perceived realities. To do otherwise, as yours and others' persistence illustrates, implies a radical moral re-evaluation of all of one's prior thoughts and actions in life. That is why, in my opinion, these threads become so heated (I do hope I have not contributed to that...)
To answer your point about science making presuppositions: I agree! That's the point. And those presuppositions make most sense in an ordered universe. And the premises themselves are not subject to scientific inquiry - you can't put an idea under a microscope. You can merely test a hypotheses, asking "what if..." and making a judgment based on the outcome. The very principles by which the universe is ordered (or orders itself, if you prefer) themselves point to an overarching intelligence that governs all. To deny that is to ask someone to believe in the irrational.
Please show the logical steps that lead from Darwinism to atheism. Be careful not to confuse lack of faith in the bible with atheism. AFAIK not even Dawkins has ever made this deduction.
The order of the universe does not point to a lawgiver.Again: Why should we assume that an atom or energy quanta or whatever fundamental building block is able to decide that it wants to do something other than what's built into it by its nature in the first place? Everything we know about the world tells us that the ability to act in a way that doesn't seem to directly flow from the constituent parts' previous positions & velocities takes a complex, partially chaotic/partially organized system - like a brain.That's irrational, and points out how atheism is religious in nature.
But atoms & molecules (as far as we know) don't have brains. So why should an atom or a molecule ever behave in opposition to the physical laws of nature? You don't need to postulate an external traffic cop, nor legions of angels to yell "Gee" or "Haw" at the molecules when they stop to smell the photons.
Your default assumption, IMO, is completely backwards. (Flip the battery terminals. Then you'll be thinking right. :-)
I will go out on a limb and assume that you, like me, are a fairly intelligent person in a technical field. You might be familiar with tri-state electronics. Atheism is not the high-Z state. It is the zero state, and theism is the one state (reverse them if you like).
To use another example, atheism is the absence of a check in your browser's "settings" checkbox. It is not the checkbox grayed-out - that is the fallacy of pretended neutrality. No one approaches the subject from a neutral perspective.
Hmmm... well then I think religious mysticism is like assuming that an unconnected CMOS input actually improves a digital circuit's performance because it's tapping into "higher truths" for its input. :-)
Atheism is the logical conclusion of Darwinism.
That is just plain false, at least in my case. Evolution never contributed into my atheism. It does, of course, hurt specific assertions about the details of creation put forth by various religions. But if God exists, and is this all-powerful, all-knowing person living in this timeless realm, I can only imagine that he's been utterly alone, and utterly bored for an infinite length of time, and he knows he's fated to remain utterly alone & bored for an infinite length of time in the future.
To such a God, the best hope he can have for some companionship or entertainment is to create a vast (by our standards) universe with the maximum capacity to surprise him. Evolution fits right in with such a universe, and I think that such a god would create precisely the kind of universe that's capable of such a complex process as evolution.