Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the difference between guesses and inferences. Whether one thinks natural processes are all there is or that there is divine power ordaining them doesn't alter the evidence we have for the natural processes we have identified or their effect on biodiversity. You may not agree with that evidence, but that doesn't make scientific inferences unscientific guesses as you characterize them. I'm still waiting in fact for your to justify your claim that evolution as taught doesn't fit the requirements for science beyond simply posting the definition of science repeatedly.
Address the lack of evidence for the worldview that all of life, including humanity, is only, totally, solely, completely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.
That particular creationist worldview doesn't fit the definition of science which requires observation and experimentation.
Your thinking is too black and white. As several Christians have tried to explain to you, it is perfectly possible to believe that our biota was created by natural processes.
Nope, you're trying to subtly change the issue. The issue isn't about created by naturalistic processes, the issue is concerning the teaching that all life, including humanity, was created solely, totally, completely, only by naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.
They accept that the natural processes we have identified are sufficient to create our biome.
They don't accept the viewpoint that Godless naturalistic processes are solely, completely, only the impetus whereby humanity was created.
They think that God created these processes to provide them means of creating. Please note this distinction. Both theistic and atheistic evolution proponents accept that natural processes are sufficient to produce our biota, the only difference is the former believe that those processes are created by God.
And that's a HUGE difference.
I certainly do understand. One is a Godless view of creation, with no evidence for the view, the other is a theistic view of creation, with no evidence for the view. They're both faith-based creationist worldviews with tremendous philosophical implications. Theistic evolutionist recognize that and reject your view of "evolutionism".
From Biologos.org......
"We at BioLogos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today. While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism. Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. Instead, we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created the universe and all life. Christians disagree, however, on how God created. Young Earth Creationists believe that God created just 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and disagree with much of mainstream science. Supporters of Intelligent Design accept more of evolutionary science, but argue that some features of life are best explained by direct intervention by an intelligent agent rather than by Gods regular way of working through natural processes. We at BioLogos agree with the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and evolutionary development of all species, seeing these as descriptions of how God created. The term BioLogos comes from the Greek words bios (life) and logos (word), referring to the opening of the Gospel of John. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made."
It is no different ultimately from believing that God just poofed everything into existence, but instead of using His "poofing" powers, God, used natural processes to create.
Yes, in the theistic evolution viewpoint, God was involved. A basic difference.
The point is that according to methodological naturalism (the proper way to do science), there is no way to distinguish between divinely ordained processes and natural processes alone. That's why the same theory is taught in both Christian and secular schools and why both Christians and atheists accept it.
No, once again, Christians do not accept any creationist viewpoint which eliminates God from creation and replaces Him with only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms to create humanity.
Give an example. You don't even believe in two species of the same genus (crows and ravens) sharing an ancestor, something which even most creationists pass off as change within kind. Do you believe that the classic peppered moth example where the colour of the moths changed based on the colour of the substrate on which they lived represents evolution?
Moths are moths are moths. Peppered moths do not represent, nor explain, nor support, the atheistic worldview being taught in our classrooms of today. It takes a tremendous amount of faith to interpolate moths becoming...moths...to the myth of a single life form producing the infinitely complex and varied life we observe today through only, solely, completely, totally naturalistic processes.
Stop teaching moth based creation myths in school.
