You posted a quote from one person. So what?
1) Science deals with the tangible, the observable. Science can make no claim about a God one way or the other.
2) Claiming that "evolution attempts to replace God," shows you don't understand either topic very well.
3) Evolution is a fact. You'd better get used to it. The "Theory of Evolution" is the body of thought science has gathered to explain HOW allele frequencies in populations change over time. If you still doubt that this happens, you might ask why we keep having to come up with new flu vaccines every year.
I appreciate the spirit of the original post, insomuchas its attempt to codify the point about the takeover of atheist thought in science. But...
As science learns more and more, I believe it actually reveals the hand of the Creator to the willing perception of those who choose to investigate. But as you point out, science cannot prove the existence of God. Nor, conversely, can it prove the non-existence of God. So...
Scientists with atheistic opinions may color their work that prejudice, but the body of their work either stands up to the scientific process or it does not. For this reason, I think that we are safe from bad science in the pursuit of atheism.
This was a reply to you, not me, I messed up the first time:
Yeah, I have no understanding of evolution--even though alot of my studies are on that very subject.
I would like to mention that many of the top scientists today disagree with evolution and also many of them believe in God.
A few examples of these scientists are:
1.Henry F. Schaefer--3rd most cited chemist in the world.
2. James Tour--Rice University Center for Nanoscale Sience and Technology
3. Fred Figwoth--professor of cellular and molecular biology at Yale Graduate School.
How about the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry and scientists at the Plasma Physics Lab at Princeton. How about the director of the director of the National Museum of Natural History, how the hundreds of other acredited scientists who disagree with the theory of macro-evolution? Are they all stupid hicks too?
In response to your post.
1. Agreed. Science cannot definitively prove anything about the supernatural because it deals in the natural realm. Nevertheless, to reject the possibility of the supernatural because we cannot observe it is not consistent with the scientific method. Science must remain silent on the supernatural.
2. Evolution has been used by many enemies of religion to attack the idea of a creator God. This does not necessarily mean that it attempts to "replace" God, but it's hard to argue with someone who sees the proponents of evolution as trying to eliminate the idea of God's existence.
3. Micro-evolution is a fact! No doubt. This explains the high mutation rates of viruses, and our need for annual flu vaccines. Macro-evolution, the idea that complex organisms emerged from simple organisms over millions or billions of years has too many problems to be considered a scientific fact. A growing number of reputable scientists are rejecting Darwinian evolution outright, and a large number of these can best be described as agnostic. In fact, each year science uncovers more and more evidence for the idea of intelligent design for life in this universe. This doesn't mean that that Intelligence did not use evolution as a tool in some form, but it is increasingly unlikely that life emerged unaided from some primordial stew and evolved to the point where it could argue over the Internet.
3) Evolution is a fact. You'd better get used to it. The "Theory of Evolution" is the body of thought science has gathered to explain HOW allele frequencies in populations change over time. If you still doubt that this happens, you might ask why we keep having to come up with new flu vaccines every year.
The theory of evolution is fact.....do you understand that a theory is a mere supposition to explain how something happened? Your argument seems a bit hypocritical.
"1) Science deals with the tangible, the observable."
There is absolutely nothing tangible and observable to indicate that inter-species evolution ever occurred, much less to indicate that we all evolved out of the primordial soup. I can't think of any other scientific theory that has held sway as long as Darwinian evolution, over a hundred years, despite the absolute lack of evidence. Which proves to me that it isn't a scientific theory at all-- it's a religious belief.
I'm still wondering where the humans with four arms or eyes in the back of their heads have gone.
I think blanket statements a somewhat useless regardless of who posts them...
Science deals with the tangible, the observable.
Not always. I don't think either one of us has observed an atom (please relax... I'm not disputing their existence). And while many experiments and predicted results have shown we have a good understanding of atomic structure the reverse has been true of evolution experimentation (fruit flies, etc). This takes us back to the whole micro/macro thing, and frankly there isn’t time.
Science can make no claim about a God one way or the other.
I have never heard "science" make any claims, and neither have you. Now then, if you are instead referring to scientists, they have voiced many opinions and from all prospectives based on all kinds of information.
Now to the issue - Claiming that "evolution attempts to replace God," shows you don't understand either topic very well.
I think you are the one grossly mistaken. Your standpoint that evolution is the straightforward pursuit of scientific truth without regard to theological issues is completely understandable. Many scientists study evolution in that way. But many do not, and if you are not aware if it you are poorly informed. Quotes from some evolutionists have plainly stated their vested interest in evolutionary theory is because they are unwilling to accept the alternative. I expect that you are familiar with the reverse reality; creationists unwilling to accept evidence that discredits creation. Please let’s not pretend, just as the Dims do, that those operating from a theological perspective are a pack of stupid ideologues. And if some evolutionists have concluded that evolution has supplanted God, it is silly not to recognize that the vast majority of Christians view it that way. Scripture makes it clear that humans are profoundly flawed by our sin nature, and we avoid God because contact exposes that nature and our sin. A reasonable, logical explanation for our existence neatly frees us to pursue anything we choose without accountability beyond whatever is current law or moral entanglements. You need not believe in God to recognize the logic of the conclusion, and since in your own words “Science can make no claim about a God one way or the other” the conclusion should be reasonable to you. To deny these realities is either ignorance or hair splitting for the sake of an argument.
Evolution is a fact. You'd better get used to it. The "Theory of Evolution" is the body of thought science has gathered to explain HOW allele frequencies in populations change over time. If you still doubt that this happens, you might ask why we keep having to come up with new flu vaccines every year.
I disagree, but that is really rather irrelevant. This is right back to the macro/micro thing and that ground is hard packed like diamonds. Later – and thanks for hearing me out.
Easy - microevolution. So many holes in the macroevolution make it unprovable and therefore just as much a leap of faith as ID.
Last I checked they were failing at trying to get flies to become a new species.