First of all, this has nothing to do with atheism.
If they reject the supernatural from the get go then that is atheism. Even if a person claims to be agnostic about God they are atheists by choice or conviction. Quote
Ernst Mayr has explained: “The real core of Darwinism, however,
is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for the Dar-
winian because it permits the explanation of adaptation, the ‘design’ of the
natural theologian, by natural means, instead of by divine intervention.”
12
Or as Mayr put it recently:
First,
Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. (That is atheism) The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution). Darwin pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible and the origin accounts of other cultures, was contradicted by almost any aspect of the natural world. Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so admired by natural theologians could be explained by natural selection.
Science is agnostic when it comes to the supernatural by its very nature;
Does not distinguish with scientists. Science here is addressed as an entity when it is not. It is an abstract field of study, wrong most of the time. If viewed from a historical perspective. The cholera example was provided earlier. To add to that, the cures of those in consensus actually poisoned their patients by making them puke and defecate all the more. Also bloodletting, absent from the bible, was practiced for centuries. Totally useless. Their incompetence bordered on the criminal.
science cannot make any claims one way or another about the supernatural.
Fishbowl logic.
Ultimately, that's up to personal belief.
Not to be voiced in the classroom. Bloodletting was group belief and was useless and so is atheistic evolution. Atheistic evolution is taught as science in classrooms where dissent is not allowed or considered injecting religion into the classrooms. They will not allow their pet theories to be challenged. They want an unchallenged monopoly, and that is what they have. Any dissent is to question science itself. That is how they marginalize dissenters. It is manipulation bordering on the abuse. ''I am going to teach you the science'' means we are going to ram blind watchmaker evolution down your throat and any dissent or questioning will not be allowed. The results of polls like this will change dramatically if they understand they are endorsing atheistic blind watchmaker evolution as science when it is nothing more than materialistic historical myth under the guise of science.
Second, I've always found it amusing this attempts at "compartmentalizing" science into what creationists find acceptable and unacceptable.
That is not a rational argument.
Especially since such compartmentalization doesn't exist in practice.
It does in practice. They teach exclusive blind watchmaker evolution in public education classrooms. They hit on it in two grades. Lucky for us, they do not cover it extensively.
Regardless, part of what is an applied science includes phylogenetic applications involving common descent relationships that creationists tend to reject. And naturally this includes humans sharing evolutionary relationships with other primates; exactly what was applied in one of the papers I linked (on phylogenetic shadowing).
None of it validates blind watchmaker evolution. You arguments fail as explained earlier.
