JGS said:
It bleeds over in the parts that are verified. When they aren't verified, there's no logical reason to disbelieve something in place of another. There is nothing in regards to a creator that disconnects from evolution at all which is why belief transcends religion and we fit our religious beliefs to the notion.
Bleeding over is not the same thing as replecement & I'm merely going off what I can only assume to be a scientific mind is saying; that science can't prove something that can't be proven. If belief can't be proven nor can what's believed in be proven, then what the heck is the controversy? YEC? Ok, you got them, but so what? You've offically nabbed a pretty small portion of Christians that are actually interest in the sciences not to mention religious people in general. They are not affecting science in the slightest.
Even if I were a hardcore evolutionist, it still would not require me to give up believing that something higher than man, that is capable of creative acts, isn't out there somewhere. Just can't be proven. So why would I work too extra hard disproving it if that's not even scientific to begin with. It doesn't matter if someone else believes what I believe.
My second point is that "militant" atheists tend to suck at debating. It's not really a case of getting the leg up on a believer as much as it is having confidence in the statement made. This has nothing to do with asking/answering questions which I and others are happy to do. Assertive statements about my beliefs when ones have been corrected aren't even remotely the same arguing and impossible to swing as anything other than arrogant and rude.
In a perfect world, everyone would make those intricate distinctions; in the real world they rarely do. The whole point of evolution is that it does not necessitate any intelligent creator or intelligent intervention. If one wants to argue that a creator set this process in motion or something along those lines, one could. But again, it would be a fruitless pursuit. But yes, outside of Biblical literalism, deistic belief does not conflict with scientific belief. In fact, by very definition non-intervention would never conflict with any humanly pursuits. The underlying assumptions of belief are what most atheists are attacking; it simply manifests itself as something else. Things like faith as a virtue, or faith at all. Even if one is capable of conciliating these beliefs, the logic by which one follows to reach these beliefs matters. Now, from what I know, you are a Christian in some form or another. But yet, the God you described above is a foreign God to that specific worldview. People are never au fait. Idiots who cannot research themselves will latch onto whatever solidifies their belief. A zealot will manipulate and pervert non-applicable logic to their nonsense. WLC's entire career is made of this stuff. Small portion of Christians? Something like 60% of Americans believe the Bible is in some form (direct, or indirect) the word of the Creator? SMALL PORTION? Are you not familiar with all the cases of Creationism being taken to court? How about our presidential candidates? These may not be the deep ontological questions, but we create the environment for this nonsense to permeate.
Being familiar with argumentation theory and debates, I'd say most atheists here on GAF do a great job of breaking down non-sense arguments and defending their logic objectively. I'm going to assume this is "rude" but to a lot of people out there, religious questions equate to simple arithmetic. Not the more contemplative questions like God's absolute existence, but questions of historicity and the very man-made origins of these Biblical texts. It's like trying to argue that 2 and 2 doesn't make 4. (I know, reciprocity). Why would one concede or even respect someone attempting to make such an argument? Or if someone shows utter unfamiliarity with what the topic at hand? You can look up plenty of reliable polls that show the non-religious are more familiar with the religion itself than those who prescribe to it! Why? Because they constantly defend themselves. People conflate facts with arrogance. Logic with shrill personalities. "I find Dawkins rude and abrasive; LET US IGNORE HIS EVIDENCE AND CREDIBLE EXPERTISE."
