Evolutionary science is a metaphysical research programme

Hi, Burncastle, thanks again for braving up to the challenge. I respect that very much indeed. I am presuming you are a scientist of some degree and are involved with science daily whether studying or practising. Here is where you are probably more advanced in technical terms than I am. I previously said that we won't go into all the wonderful scientific terms and what this or that scientist did and this holds. I am debating the reason for the scientific activity behind evolutionary theory and therefore the philosophy of it. I'm sure you believe that good science is ruled by best practise and best philosophy and you have a good or moderate appreciation of philosophically good science. It provides a framework to ensure results are not misinterpreted and therefore better able to be understood and you move closer to the truth. I like that idea, it makes me feel comfortable that results are for the best possible benefit to people or for further research. With that said, I think I can successfully defeat your position quite quickly, but I won't. So I'll will lead you nicely to it throu.gh question and reason So firstly, I put it to you that, 1. the theory of evolution invokes such an emotive response in people that it cannot be possibly be considered as a scientific issue at it's heart. Would I debate you on a scientific issue such as gravity, or the existence of DNA, the workings of the solar system etc? Ask yourself that question. I think you and I would both say no. I read debates and comments and on this issue and there can be some of the most insulting and ridiculous statements I've ever read. As said, any ad hominems in the debate will not be tolerated. Therefore by careful observation of this fact alone, I know it to be an issue of faith or in another way, the true object of it is to teach atheistic materialism, and the small amount of research done is just a cover to make it sound like science. So, if it smells like a duck, looks like a duck, walks luck a duck, it must be a horse, ooohhh sorry duck. That's better :-) Damn evolution. Fortunately my schooling was of such an impartial nature, that I did not have to be indoctrinated with this claptrap. Taught science, yes. Good science, I believe so. Creation and origins, absolutely not. It was moot. It was so self-evident to me, it did not take much for me to laugh at evolution as a concept really. As I stated adaptation and natural selection is not on this table for debate, because we would both agree. Also, imagine how hard you have to work in your mind to prove it even to yourself, and continue fighting it. Good luck with that. I don't have to try very hard at all to believe in God. 2. if I can conceive an idea of good science, then necessarily it exists. It's not hard to do. We investigate things to find objective truth everyday in our own lives, and we know how we do it. Logic. If you doubt objective truth exists then you are deceiving yourself like many others. Why would you be on this forum otherwise? To berate creationists? No. That's just your little bit of fun to show yourselves how superior you are intellectually. But unfortunately in doing that, it is also your downfall, and I will show you why in a moment with a classic example of may be one of your heroes. 3. does evolutionary theory fit this idea of good science that I have through using logic? No. I will provide proof of this by the way. If it's not good science, then automatically it must be bad science. Bad science, I think you will agree, should not be taught as fact to anyone, let alone small people in state sponsored education. So, let's look closely at the issue of religion firstly here. I'm sure you know the definition of it and naturally you must concur that materialistic atheistic Darwinism is most definitely a religion. Dictionaries don't lie. Religion is a world view, a system of beliefs and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Wow really, I just thought it meant pesky creationists and that God business. No, categorically not. There are competing religions of course, but religions all the same. Following that you must concur that to believe something you cannot ultimately observe or prove takes faith. I believe in God creating the universe, creating everything in it, it's species as individual kinds, and we are the uppermost being in that divine creation, as we are created with the ability to know it, sense it and ultimately prove it to ourselves through reason and logic through the human mind. If you deny logical absolutes exist, you are deceiving yourself only. Yes, I have faith and good reason for it. What do you have? Ok,I hope you may be able to reason with some of those items. As I said, I could quite quickly settle this, but I want you to think a little more about your position. Thanks and good luck