No, I’m perfectly aware of the distinctions. But Richard Dawkins, the foremost proponent of Darwinism, is not, as you are well aware. He confuses evolution with atheism. There is not a shred of evidence connecting the two.
Dawkins is not the only offender. There are many contemporary neo-Darwinists who give a materialist interpretation to evolution. Their mindset is such that they actually take their ideology for science. However, this has not always been the case in the history evolutionary theory. There are periods when scientists have remained within the boundaries of evolutionary science.
I take the position, and confidently so, that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science properly studies phenomenal reality; causes closest to the phenomena, that is, proximate causes.
On the other hand, Newton, Darwin, and einstein were comfortable with assigning nature’s laws to a governing intelligence.
It appears that your knowledge of Darwin is superficial at best.
Darwin chose not to reveal the extent of his materialism. He did
not believe in a governing intelligence. If you think, he did, what is your evidence for that? Nonetheless, Darwin held to a rank materialism. He was atheist. I shall recommend Ernst Mayr in “What Evolution Is” and “One Long Argument” where he perceptively considers the nuancing in Darwin’s notebooks, which reveal Darwin’s atheism. It would do you well to become familiar with the scientists you refer to.
I don’t think it should be said that Einstein confused his science with his view of a superior reasoning power. That view could be obtained nowhere other than science.
You are projecting your own view about science onto Einstein. Scientific or non-scientific consideration of the cosmos can lead one to the belief in God. However, when a scientists speaks about God he is no longer speaking as a scientist. He speaking as a *man, *like anyone else, or as a
philosopher. It would be a rash assumption on your part to assert that Einstein’s physics revealed the existence of his pantheistic God. In any case, I do not see that you are familiar with Einstein’s religious beliefs to any notable degree.
It is you who have confused science with scientism.
Balderdash!
It is you who have not provided scientific evidence (because you know none exists) that life formed by accident. When will the evolutions learn that the same demand they make of ID they must demand of themselves.
You consistently make the common or vulgar mistake of equating Darwinisn and evolution. There is more than one theory of evolution.
Whether abiogenesis or biogenesis ultimately occur my chance or design is a philosophical question. It is not within the province of science to judge. If a Darwinist, or any natural scientist, asserts that only matter exists and the cosmos is ultimately random activities of matter and energy, he is not speaking as a scientist. Such a statement is not a scientific one. It is metaphysical statement that assumes the position of philosophical materialism.
In this sense, modern Darwinists have confused their science with their ideology. At the other end of the philosophical spectrum ID commits the same logical error by confusing science with its IDeology.
Where’s the beef?
I asked this question before. You chose not to answer it. Now, for the record, please answer it.
Did abiogenesis occur by chance or by design? Whichever answer you give, please state your proof.
At this point my answer would fall on deaf ears because you are not able to discern whether any answer I gave would be a meta-physical answer or a scientific answer.
