Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

Never said it was, it is still treated like it is one though.

By whom? I've never seen a church of evolution. There are no evolutionist priests that I'm aware of.

We are not talking about the use of reason; we are talking about the assumption that the future will resemble the past. In a purely natural world you have no basis to make this assumption, and yet you do anyway. Why?

Sorry about that. We're discussing a different problem then.

This difference in "worldviews" underscores how GodDidIt isn't satisfying as an answer. Science doesn't just study what happened but also why. Knowing the whys of what happened in the past offers a model for what will happen in the future. Baring any discovery of other factors, the default assumption should be that what has happened will continue happen (kind of like saying "these are the only factors we know of so our assumption is that these are the only factors until we discover other factors" (also see burden of proof, that something is assumed not to exist until we have reason to believe that it does)). On the other hand, saying GodDidIt, GodWillsIt or GodIsDoingIt offers us no understanding of the whys of it (to say nothing of the leap that this God must be Yahweh).

If you have to assume something to be true that can only be justified by a belief in the God of scripture you are actually proving that the God of scripture exists through negation.

First of all, this is an argument from ignorance. We don't know and so you take that as license to say GodIsDoingIt. Why not just say we don't know. Second, proving a god doesn't necessarily prove your god.