“Where is the damn solid evidence for Darwinian macroevolution?”
Sorry, ran out of crayons last night explaining ‘natural born citizen’ to Trumpers. Anyway, it’s there and it’s been roundly pummeled by peer review, and what’s come of it is is convincing to the greatest part of the science community.
"All I have ever heard and read is marginal evidence and lots of supposition along with a non or atheistic worldview that specifically rules out the possibility of considering the existence of God.”
SCIENCE rules out considering the existence of the supernatural. That’s the nature of science. There’s no way to test for magic, or gods. So, not possible to add to a scientific hypothesis.
“Science cannot imply God?”
No. YOu can infer it, but that’s your issue, not science’s.
“Complexity cannot imply God?”
Okay, you suck at math, not a reason for anyone to suspect the divine.
“To you people, it cannot because evolution is true.”
No, not the way it works. Evolution doesn’t rule out god. You just infer that it does, because Genesis can’t be taken literally.
Those that don’t have no problem believing in God AND Genesis, as an allegory. Eve’s sin refers to mankind’s CAPACITY for sin, stuff like that.
“Since evolution is true, complexity is due to evolution a priori.”
You really suck at science. Your criticism just reinforces this failing.
Tautological, completely.
“Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity is brought forth that might lend credence to the argument that you all so despise–the very NOTION of the existence of God–then research is done with the goal in mind (implicit or explicit) of finding an explanation that fits within evolutionary theory.”
No, the idea of ID is tailor-made to slip God into the classroom, pretending that it’s science. Irreducible Complexity is a claim that does not stand up to scrutiny when non-creationists look at the examples offered as ‘evidence.’
"Peer review rules out the possibility of even considering any outside-the-box thinking.”
Well, it rules out ideas offered without the slightest taint of supporting evidence, yes.
That’s the biggest problem you have. No evidence for your ideas that doesn’t also work for other ideas.
"Toe the pseudoscientific philosophical line or be ridiculed and marginalized.”
If you cannot actually do science, and present a myth as science, you deserved to be ridiculed and marginalized. Like if i tookmushrooms and then published a vision that i claimed God gave me. There are ways to explain the experience without having to agree that God did it.