another sign how deep the rift is between those who want to explain everything through god and those who think science is essentially naturalistic :The Legacy of Brainwashing
where the author has a go at Zack Kopplin, who obviously must be an atheist since he believes in evolution and thinks science should be naturalistic - still, how can you have even a common ground for discussion with someone who claims :
First, Kopplin makes the assumption that science has to be “naturalistic.” Now, there’s no reason that science must be naturalistic—this is simply an assertion made by Kopplin and atheistic evolutionists!
in what other branch of science could you say "i don't understand how that works, so i'll fill in the blanks with something supernatural" - science always has been about explaining evidence through natural means, so why should it be ok to claim the opposite just to have creationism accepted as science ? you may as well state that black equals white just because you feel like it
i'm afraid this sort of chasm is just unbridgeable - both sides may be using english as their language, but the underlying meaning is utterly incompatible
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet