You believe matter is eternal, although there are no known, verifiable facts that prove this. You believe that life must have come from non-life, that order arose from chaos, that consciousness evolved from non-consciousness, that the moral came from the non-moral, and that intelligence came from non-intelligence. There are no facts anywhere to support these assumptions, but you believe them anyway. How is this different from the “unsupported assumptions” you claim make up the Christian’s faith?
Those things mentioned above are all tenets of the General Theory of Evolution (viz., macroevolution). They are, whether you will admit it or not, the dogmata of your religion. Although you want to paint me with the broad brush strokes of dogmatism, the picture is not complete until you have painted yourself with the same brush. You, too, have your creed. Consequently, the question is not whether one is dogmatic or not, but this: which dogma is the best dogma with which to be dogmatized. I have attempted to argue consistently that Theism is a more reasonable faith than is Atheism. So far, you have not presented anything to make me think otherwise. In other words, the case for Atheism seems awfully weak.
And while we are on the subject, please be so kind as to tell me just one thing you know to be true about the General Theory of Evolution. Now, let me make it clear that I’m not asking you for empirically verified facts about the Special Theory of Evolution (viz., microevolution), which I have already acknowledged occurs. Instead, I am asking you about the General Theory of Evolution (i.e., the amoeba to man theory), which you and I both know is quite different than the Special Theory. I’ll be waiting for that one thing you know to be true about the General Theory. If you’re right, this should not be all that hard a task. However, and experience has borne this out, it is the hardest thing you’ll ever try to do.