Evolutionary science is a metaphysical research programme

Hi bigtown. First of, whether or not I am a scientist depends very much on what qualifies as a scientist; I am currently studying engineering so I believe I am studying to become a scientist (not the labcoat version though). However, I am not a biologist and my studies regarding evolution are relatively shallow compared to that of actual biologists. That being said, this subject interests me greatly and that is why I enjoy debating it."I previously said that we won't go into all the wonderful scientific terms and what this or that scientist did and this holds" Does this mean that I am not allowed to quote any research or biology textbooks?"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 mostly agree, although I would point out that this process is not infallible."With that said, I think I can successfully defeat your position quite quickly, but I won't." Oh, okay. I will now address your points one by one.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" In virtually 100% of cases, the emotive responses are coming from people who are against the theory on a PHILOSOPHICAL basis and for religious reasons, both of which have nothing to do with science. Science studies what is, not what ought to be."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 don't get your point, are you implying that since there are debates about evolution it means that it is not science? Fun fact: Newton's theory of gravity is wrong; it made predictions which turned out to be false (about the way Mercury orbits the Sun)."the true object of it is to teach atheistic materialism" This is easily refuted: There are many theists who believe in evolution (1). Some of them even TEACH evolution (Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, etc.). There is nothing in the theory of evolution that even ADDRESSES the idea of God."the small amount of research done is just a cover to make it sound like science" You are dangerously approaching the "conspiracy theory" argument."As I stated adaptation and natural selection is not on this table for debate, because we would both agree" That IS evolution. You basically just said that you accept evolution.Accepting evolution was actually quite easy given the enormous amount of evidence. And I don't doubt for a second that you find it easy to believe in God; faith is extremely easy.2."if I can conceive an idea of good science, then necessarily it exists" If you mean that the IDEA exists, then I agree (although the existence of ideas is a very weird concept).I do believe that objective truth exists. I am not here to "berate" creationists. I think your last sentences is missing a couple of words; I am having trouble understanding it.3."does evolutionary theory fit this idea of good science that I have through using logic? No." Actually, yes. And I agree that bad science should not be taught as fact.Here is the definition of religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (2). According to this definition, evolution is NOT a religion (especially if you believe that it is atheistic)."Following that you must concur that to believe something you cannot ultimately observe or prove takes faith" If "observe" includes all methods of detection and measuring known to mankind, then I agree. That is why God requires faith and evolution does not. Evolution has been observed numerous times and is supported by the fossil record and DNA evidence; it provides accurate predictions and it is easily falsifiable (and yet has not been) and that is why it is considered good science. God has not been observed, it does not provide any accurate predictions and is unfalsifiable which is why it is considered bad science when it is considered science at all."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." That is a nice assertion, do you have any evidence to back it up? And could you define kind AND give an example of a kind?"If you deny logical absolutes exist, you are deceiving yourself only." Did I deny their existence?"Yes, I have faith and good reason for it." If you have good reasons, then you do NOT need faith. The problem is that you do NOT have good reasons which is why you DO need faith."What do you have?" Evidence and science.I eagerly await your responses.(1) http://www.pewforum.org...(2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...