"The scientists who believe in evolution and the uneducated man on the street all know something many others in the evolution/creation debate dance around: There is no place for God in an evolutionary view of the world.

Some will give lip service to the fact that God could still be the first mover who got the universe going then absconded. But as the books by Evolution's true believers like Gould and Dworkin make clear, there is no room for God in an evolutionary view of the world."

No, that's not true.

What they're saying is that there's no absolute *need* for God in *their version* of an evolved universe. Theirs isn't the only version of evolution.

"Consequently, the question of whether evolution is true is really the same as 'Does God exist?' So when the so-called experts tell us that "evolution is a fact" they are in fact saying "There is no God.""

Not at all. They're simply saying that there's no scientific evidence that either of the biblical creation stories (there are two of them in Genesis, and they contradict each other in some ways) are literally true.

"Well, if evolutionists want to assert these two things, fine. But don't be surprised if many in your audience respond with, "Then prove it.""

Except in specialized circumstances, a negative cannot be proven. Evolution and God can both exist - but maybe not the version of God that some folks want to believe in.

"Anyone even remotely familiar with the requirements of evidentiary law should conclude that the evolutionists have not, in fact, proved their case."

You're presuming your conclusion.

"Evolutionists believe they have and so alienate many by saying 'evolution is fact' and 'skeptics are fools.' But the evidence suggests that they have not made their case."

Neither have the "creationists". Whose idea is more credible: the one with lots of scientific evidence or the one without? O

"What exactly existed just before the big bang when bang? That is, if the big bang was the beginning, what was there before that became the stuff that makes up creation?"

I don't know. Nobody really knows.

In fact nobody really knows if the question makes sense. It's like asking "who made God?"

"Is the sacrificial love a mother has for her child simply a consequence of a parent's need to help its offspring multiply?"

Probably.

What about the sacrificial love a father has for his child?

"Or is it evidence that we were created in the image of a loving God?"

Maybe.

But consider what would happen in world where parents didn't have "sacrificial love" for their children. The result would be an incredibly high childhood death rate. The only way for the species to survive under such conditions would be to have enormous numbers of children in the hope that some would make it to adulthood. That works for some simple species, but for something as complex as humans - or even most mammals and birds - it simply fails.

So the strategy that works (have a few offspring but take good care of them) has become pretty much standard for people.

"What was it that allowed inorganic matter to be able to capture and then process the energy that would allow non-life to become life?"

The structure of the universe, really. The laws of biochemistry, for one.

Who is to even define what "life" is? Are viruses alive? How about prions?

"(Is modern science really still relying on those 60 year old Stanley Miller experiments for its belief that non-life can become life?)"

Nope.

"How did extremely complex organs like eyes and hearts evolve not only once but perhaps millions of times in a relatively short time?"

Through genetic variation and natural selection. Plus incredible numbers of generations.

Look how fast new viruses and bacteria evolve today, in just a few years. Who is to say what could happen in hundreds of millions of years?

The Big Question is: Who gets to define what God is? Who is to say that the laws of "Nature" are not God? Without the proof you seem to demand, why should anyone accept anyone else's version of "God"?

Some religions make a big distinction between "natural" and "supernatural", but is there really a difference? What if the real distinction is "things we understand" and "things we don't?"

Not too many hundred years ago, if someone claimed to be able to talk with another person on the other side of the ocean, thousands of miles away, instantaneously, they'd either be acclaimed as a prophet or burned as a witch. Then a few folks like Morse, Bell, Marconi, Fessenden and Armstrong showed how to do it. And now we all have and use cell phones and think nothing of it.

Radio has always been possible; humans just did not understand the concepts nor the technology needed to do it until a bit more than 110 years ago. What other knowledge and understanding do we lack?