So, time and again, I see evolution working and fulfilling basic logical assumptions about it.
Yet it doesn't disprove a god like many evolutionists tend to state.
I can't recall of many named scientists engaged in evolution sciences/disciplines as claiming that evolution theory "disproves
". Perhaps you could share some notable quotes from more prominently affiliated scientists that would better support your assertion/insinuation "that many evolutionists tend to state
" (ie, that "evolution disproves god
"). Just who are
these "evolutionists" that state such claims?
Last time I looked (which was coincidentally, today), scientific facts/findings/conclusions render/offer no religious (or faith-based) estimations/explanation as support.
What evolution theory "suggests"...is that supernaturalistically-derived cause/effect explanations are preternaturally unnecessary/irrelevant in rendering relevant/reasoned conclusions predicated upon empirical evidences.
Science serves to neither blame nor praise any claimed deities. "Evolution theory" remains sustainable/viable whether or not any "gods" exist.
If you were not
born [existent] prior to JFK's assassination, then no one could rightly hold you accountable/responsible for the event that transpired. The (assumptive) fact that you
part in that assassination, should not
lead anyone to reasonably conclude that your absence
from the event would yet (somehow) preclude/influence it's inevitable outcome.
Whether or not you "existed" in that place/time is utterly irrelevant,
as to the circumstantial outcomes
that prevailed. You can feel "guilty" as you please about your "scientific" irrelevance
in (that) history, or you can choose to bear some personalized shame/guilt/sin for transpired events in which you had no say, nor could hope to effect any meaningful purpose/interference.
No matter what there are still the constants that, at the basis, makes evolution possible. If "god" controls the constants as I'm sure many theists would say then "god" not only isn't an idea in opposition of evolution but is necessary for it to work.
That's a pretty big "IF". ;-)
But then...theists, by definition, are compelled to believe
But my goal here wasn't to try to prove the existence of a "god" but a "guiding organizing designing process" ("the G.O.D. Process") which has not been denied by any evolutionists this far.
Umm...most "evolutionary scientists" have yet to identify (much less contend/debate) any evidenced or veritable "guiding organizing designing process".
Therefore, evolution, as many perceive it, seems to be actually right.
That's the compelling nature of evidence, examination, experimentation, testing, and consistently independent validation at work for you...;-)
The main dividing factor between creationists and evolutionists is the level of sentience that the universe has. Would that be a far-fetched assumption?
"Far-fetched"? Maybe. Probably. Likely...
If "creationists" could present some hypothesis/model for testing the idea of a "cosmic consciousness/sentience/intelligence", what then would it entail/encompass? What would such a hypothesis seek to detachedly measure or evaluate? What testable, evaluative, or measurable data/evidence (of a "sentient" universe) is available for any prospective or conclusive findings in subsequent validation or disproof? Wouldn't the best "argument" against science be for faith-based adherents to "prove" that [a/any/their] "god exists"?
Why are stars (trillions of miles away) still being created? Why do they "die"? Why would any sentient entity of divine properties "create" a cosmos that "evolves"?
If "creation" is simply for the benefit/amusement/entertainment of our lone "sentient" species on this planet, then why not just "creatively paint" a static and unchanging "picture" of the cosmos for us all to admire or fear? What is gained (in divine "message") by randomly appearing comets, or eccentrically orbiting moons/asteroids? Why does our own moon have so many impact craters? What possible import or "impact" are such observable manifestations of a natural cosmos meant to convey or validate regarding some claimed supernatural "creator"?
The question that remains to be resolved is; "Is a [any] 'creator' necessary/requisite to (best) explain the observable existence of the cosmos"?
Proofs/disproofs (scientific or not) of any claimed deity/god/force/supernaturalism reside beyond the scope or interests of empirically-derived evaluations/estimations/conclusions.
If the claims of some/any existent "creator" are sooo compelling and (ultimately) inescapable/undeniable...then why is it sooo difficult to provide any measurable/testable/objectively observable evidences of same? Burdens of proof always reside amongst the claimants themselves, and not upon the skeptics to otherwise "disprove" any given claim of "fact/truth".