Evolutionary science is a metaphysical research programme

Hey bigtown, I am well thank you and hope you are too. I will also rebut a few of your points, but I will include your texts for clarity.Before I start, I would like to point out that you failed to define the term "kind" and failed to give an example. I would like you to do so in the next round."So are you saying science does now not rely on good philosophy, as I think you are saying. Which in essence is bad." Wrong. I am only saying that rejecting the FINDINGS of science for philosophical reasons (in an ethical sense) is NOT good science. However, I believe that philosophy should be used in order to increase the "power" of the scientific method; the importance of falsifiability (Karl Popper), for example, is an excellent example of a philosophical addition to the scientific method. One could even argue that the whole scientific method is a product of philosophy."there are debates because the very purpose of that science is in essence promoting atheism" Once again, the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God."Fine, Newton is wrong, does it it try to attack the very essence of being human? Scale please, how has that changed my belief in a theistic God?" This is exactly what I consider to be bad science: rejecting a theory because of its sociological implications. As I said before, science addresses what is, not what ought to be. The fact that a theory challenges your belief in god is irrelevant to the theory itself."Theistic evolution is a weak middle ground position to keep some people happy and deluded and non argumentative." These people would most likely disagree with you on that."if you don't address the idea of a metaphysical being , you are left with atheistic materialism with Marx philosophy" Marx's philosophy? How is this even remotely relevant? I am not a communist by the way."Never heard of that one, conspiracy?" When you say that researches are being conducted in order to "COVER" some hidden atheistic agenda, you are alluding to a conspiracy.Define macro-evolution."You admit that your mind is physical, right?" I believe that my mind is DEPENDANT on my physical brain. Why do I believe that? Because when the brain gets damaged, the mind is often also damaged."remember that worldview is pure materialism" I would say naturalism, SCIENTIFIC naturalism, which is not to be confused with philosophical naturalism."you assert therefore that God does not exist full stop and you want too prove that to people" No no no no no. Even though it has nothing to do with evolution, I still need to address this: atheism is NOT the assertion that there are no Gods, it is the rejection of the claim "There is a God"."you looked at the whole universe, and said, God does not exist" If you are referring to atheism, then no. If you are referring to scientific naturalism, then yes; we must reject the supernatural explanation in order to investigate the natural world efficiently. However, this does not mean that we are asserting that the supernatural does not exist."we don't like the Bible" I plead guilty as charged, I do not like the Bible.I am refusing to use the logical absolutes in my argument? Do you know what the logical absolutes are?"You are an atheistic materialist, and nothing else exists" I am an atheist and I apply scientific naturalism in everyday life, but I am a lot of other things too."Therefore in your mind, the cause is material and the effect is immaterial" Not necessarily, it can go both way. What I see affects what I think and what I think affects what I do."In your material world view, (debating) is therefore logically impossible. The effect now causing the cause? I think not" How is "debating" illogical? The cause is the words I use and the effect is the change of mind. How is the effect causing the cause? The rest of this paragraph is completely nonsensical and devoid of any argument. I am pretending to be greater than God because I engage in debates? Are you saying that the All-powerful God is unable to debate?"So, why do you think you can change people"s immaterial minds that are in your opinion only material, without being anywhere around me?" As I said, mind are not material, they are DEPENDANT on the brain. What do you mean "without being anywhere around me?"? Are you saying that your computer is immaterial?"Tell me how in evolutionary terms it works please" I have indeed asked myself that question, but unfortunately I do not know the answer. "Evolutionary science as a doctrine is killing all that goodness and making me frustrated" Evolution is not a doctrine."It's not science versus religion, it's atheism versus theism." You're right, it's not science vs. religion, but neither is it atheism vs. theism. If anything, it's evolution vs. not-evolution and nothing else."By promoting it you are destroying the very essence of good science, I assure you." I would argue the opposite, that by denying evolution, you're denying good science.I await your answer.