[moneyrunner]

One’s worldview does pre-dispose an individual toward the belief in a number of things. It is only logical that religious people should question an entirely naturalistic explanation of the beginnings and development of the universe. Just as it is imperative for atheists to require a totally naturalistic explanation for things as they are. After all, what other explanation (with the exception of space aliens) can an atheist use to explain the existence of the universe as we know it? Do you disagree with this analysis?

[VadeRetro]

One’s worldview does pre-dispose an individual toward the belief in a number of things. It is only logical that religious people should question an entirely naturalistic explanation of the beginnings and development of the universe.

But vast numbers of religious people accept evolution. And a lot of the people who say their objections to evolution come from a "scientific" scepticism just don't pass the sniff test.

Just as it is imperative for atheists to require a totally naturalistic explanation for things as they are. After all, what other explanation (with the exception of space aliens) can an atheist use to explain the existence of the universe as we know it? Do you disagree with this analysis?

It is the job of science to figure out what is going on. By now, naturalistic explanations should have earned the privilege of being the default assumption in cases in which we don't know the explanation. Assuming anything else amounts to punting.

[jwh_Denver]

Do you disagree with this analysis?

No. But what I do disagree with is so many people (including scientists) always talk about the Theory of Evolution as the Law of Evolution. This missing link is the biggest stumbling block to proving evolution from one species to the next species. So we're not talking about 1 missing link, we're talking millions of missing links. Say scientists find a fossil of a fish and they also find another fossil of a fish very similiar except the later find is of a bigger fish. Now they believe that no species rapidly evolves so they look for the missing link that ties the evolution together. The problem is that there has been NO missing link found for any species that shows natural evolution.

"It is only logical that religious people should question an entirely naturalistic explanation of the beginnings and development of the universe."

My question to you is why do evolutionists delude themselves and try to delude others in their "religious" views on evolution when their beliefs have a gaping hole in them? Why do they propound their beliefs as Law when in reality it is just another Theory?