[exDemMom]

Spirited: Of course they did. But just as Richard Dawkins, Lewontin, and all such fools who pretend to discover something about mankind by studying slimemold colonies seek not truth and reality but rather personal power through propagation of “second realities” so was this the case with scientific Marxist socialists.

I do not know that Dawkins is a slimemold researcher. People who research slimemolds (fascinating organisms, btw) are not doing so because they're trying to discern any metaphysical components of what it means to be human, but because knowing the biology of simpler organisms informs us about the biology of more complex organisms.

Anyway, Dawkins and other atheists make a big mistake when they try to use science as evidentiary proof of atheism. Scientists can no more prove than disprove the existence of God.

There are some scientists who do not confuse their field of endeavor with philosophy and religion but many more who do. Of this last group are all metaphysicians (i.e. Dawkins) who falsely claim that evolutionism is a fact.

For the nteenth time, "evolutionism" is not a religion. No matter how many times you or any literal creationist try to make it one, it is not. Shall I once again link to the explanations of what a theory is, and what it does? Evolution, as a theory, works very well, as can be seen by the remarkable advances in the biological and medical sciences which wouldn't have been possible without that theoretical framework.

Unless you have arbitrarily decided that God cannot possibly exist if the book of Genesis is not a literal account, there is nothing intrinsic to the theory of evolution that excludes the existence of God. Nothing!

At bottom, the real purpose behind naturalism is keeping God the Father out while the real purpose behind evolutionism is the reconciliation of opposites. Death (matter) with life. Slimemold with consciousness. Man with God.

This is the very particular science of magic.

At bottom, the real purpose behind creationism is to convince people that science is just another religion, so as to discredit it as being an inferior religion. But science is only a method of describing the physical universe, which simply cannot be used to examine non-physical topics.

Put it this way:

Richard Dawkins says that the fact that the process of evolution occurs by well-defined chemical and physical mechanisms is proof positive that there is no God.

I say that the fact that the physical and chemical processes driving evolution resulted in sapient and sentient species despite the logic that would seem to indicate that awareness is not a property of physical matter is proof positive that God exists.

Which of us is correct? Who has the evidence on their side? Honestly, I would say neither.

[GourmetDan]

"Evolution, as a theory, works very well, as can be seen by the remarkable advances in the biological and medical sciences which wouldn't have been possible without that theoretical framework."

What remarkable advance could not have been made without belief in evolution?

"But science is only a method of describing the physical universe, which simply cannot be used to examine non-physical topics."

Evolution is just such a non-physical topic. It is a philosophical belief, unobservable and untestable. Evolutionary 'theories' such as punctuated equilibrium actually predict that evidence to support them cannot be found.

This is clearly philosophical no matter how many times you claim that it is not.

[GourmetDan]

"I say that the fact that the physical and chemical processes driving evolution resulted in sapient and sentient species despite the logic that would seem to indicate that awareness is not a property of physical matter is proof positive that God exists."

You may believe that 'evolution resulted in sapient and sentient species' as a philosophical position but it is scientifically impossible to claim that it is a fact. Real scientists know that and would never make that claim.