The original post discusses the idea that future scientific discoveries about the origin of life may eliminate the need for God and leave theists with difficult questions to answer. I am pointing out that this approach to understanding reality rests upon various assumptions that are difficult the establish. Such as the assumption that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about the nature or existence of God. Also the assumption that human rationality is the measure of what is real and exists in the world.
See bolded text. That's not an assumption in science any kind. It's a claim made by those wishing to discredit science.
Also, one of the reasons science works the way it does it precisely because nature DOES defy human rationality. The study of quantum physics is proof of that.
These are hardly novel or even particularly "postmodern" ideas in the philosophy of religion. They are common objections to a purely materialist conception of reality. That you apparently give them no consideration is not, as you seem to imagine, proof that I am talking postmodern rubbish.
It's rubbish because the objections aren't actual things. In other words, they get no consideration because the premise is false.
If you have not considered these sorts of arguments it does speak well of the robustness of your own position that you trumpet with such confidence. Instead of trying to invent ways to embarrass creationists intellectually you could better spend time tidying your own intellectual back yard.
Instead of attempting to denigrate others for not being intellectual enough, have you considered making valid arguments based on actual things? In other words, in your attempt to tell other people how dumb they are, have you tried not being wrong?
