You are trying to shift the goalposts here Robert. You haven't engaged with any of the arguments I have presented here, but think you can just assume your philosophical naturalism is correct in advance.Robert Tulip wrote:Debates on evolution are based on a false pretence. The creationists pretend they are discussing science, but in fact that is not true. They are not really talking about science. Their big lie is to conceal their sole aim, which is to ensure that ignorant believers are not exposed to facts.
You accept the standard model of cosmology but it's obviously neither rational or scientific for a universe to come from nothing. You assume abiogenesis in the same way, though it faces real and probably insurmountable problems in terms of blind, lifeless and goaless matter performing what is even termed by some evolutionists to be a miraculous feat.
So what are the facts? That the universe naturalistically created itself and biological life, but you don't actually have to prove this.
There are different views among Christians ranging from young to old earth creationism,theistic evolution and the I.D. view of intelligence guiding built in processes,with in their view apparently, intelligent interventions in the process from time to time.Robert Tulip wrote:The real terrain of debate should be the social values that creationists wish to instil, and how they can maintain cohesion within their congregation. This can be hard for scientists to understand, since scientifically trained people are incapable of entering mythological thinking, where people only believe what they are told by authority and are never exposed to conflicting beliefs, except in the context of a story from their authorities about why those different views are wrong.
As far as your mythological arguments are concerned we have debated this extensively elsewhere and I certainly still maintain the position I have argued on that.
There is a war of philosophical ideologies in progress but it's naive to think it's good science versus bad religion. In other words many theists are prepared to engage with philosophical naturalism on the basis of the scientific evidence itself.
It's true that there is the element of what authorities are relied on. In the final analysis it's sometimes claimed that philosophical naturalism is supported by science,but that has to proved not assumed.
If the scientific evidence speaks against it then it's valid to raise the scientific objections to theories,that are not the same thing as science itself.