Do Scientists, especially who I refer to as "evangelical atheistic naturalists" such as Dawkins, Dennett et.al. apply a different "standard of proof" for naturalist scientific theories than for Design theories?
First, you ought to define "evangelical atheistic naturalists". Normally, evangelical refers to religionists (especially since the definition for term IS steeped in religion).
Second, you might want to point out what a design theory is. No "design theory" has yet to stand up to even the most rudimentary standards of what a 2nd grader knows as science.
For example when secular naturalist scientists refer to natural selection in evolution it is accepted as fact that there is such an entity. However can anyone prove the existence of natural selection?
NS is not an entity. It is a function of nature that is very well known. So well known, in fact, that we even have artificial selection (dog breeding, for example).
What if, as I believe, evolution is the continuous creation by a supernatural being, who created and continues to creathe and evolve the natural world?
You can believe whatever you want. However, this particular discussion happens to be in the science section of EvC so you might want to provide some evidence of your "god", catholic or otherwise.
How can sceintists accept a belief in natural selection as superior to my belief in the supernatural's continuous creation as the cause of evolution.
Easy. Natural selection is not a belief and has evidence. Anything supernatural can only be found inside the crazy minds of religionists and has no evidence.
Where is the proof?
Surely you mean evidence, as only mathematics deals in proofs. The evidence has been available since Darwin came up with the idea.
Darwin's Finches
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
™ Version 4.2
