ddunbar: Utter nonsense. Theistic evolution is not a form of old earth creationism. Theistic evolutionists do not consider themselves to be old earth creationists. Creationism in all it's forms is opposed to Darwinian evolution. You can't be a creationist and an evolutionist at the same time. Show me any reference work that defines old earth creationism as theistic evolution. Show me any creationist that accepts human evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution Theistic evolution, less commonly known as evolutionary creationism, is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations. More specifically, it is the general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In this way, theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who deny the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science. ...
LOL. 2cents pointed you in right direction. I'm not going to do your homework for you. But there are many many creationists who accept human evolution. I'm one of them. We fall under progressive creationism which falls under old earth creationism, which for many, incorporates the ideals of theistic evolution if not fully embracing it, which falls under creationism. So which alien believing cult or group do you indentify yourself with seeing as you don't know this much about christian theism? Good night.
ddunbar: Intelligent design and the blind watchmaker hypothesis are "methodologically equivalent"- that is, both prove equally scientific or equally unscientific provided the same criteria are used to adjudicate their scientific status and provided metaphysically neutral criteria are selected to make such assessments.
ddunbar, just thought i'd add, my facetiously dismissive comments are not intended at you, i actually respect what you said over these last few pages, and your personal beliefs: clearly, sentience is as likely to be a pervasive "property" of the universe / multiverse as not, and it could come in many forms, eg intelligent "forms" deployed over mega-parsecs, whose "thought" processes take billions of years to complete a "cycle", not just alien life forms on extra-solar planets etc... and it is not obvious at all that the "traditional" inert matter vs life distinction holds on all "levels", but simply saying that is insufficient... and scientific research continues unabated on all those fronts and more... there is no need for conflict between science and religion. but to date, while that may change if/when scientific results are forthcoming, ID is not science. and honestly these guys should be ashamed of the Wedge document... jmo... peace to you
Oops, it appears my previous link wasnt quite what i intended. I actually meant this, indeed, a good example of all or nothing thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre Will the real john frum, please stand up?
ddunbar, Reading with interest your comments through these last pages. I think it estimable the way you have succinctly established that imperative for clear distinction between what constitutes religious belief and what constitutes science . It is notable that neither Teleologist nor ZZzz are able to do the same and would readily choose to muddle and confuse children in education by trying to commingle two distinct categories into one incongruous hotchpotch. I must admit therefore in still finding it at least a little bit funny (name that tune), the way you appear to me to be selecting areas, seemingly unwittingly , where you will not maintain that same integrity. In similar vein to Teleologist, or Zzz although certainly not so inconsiderately ,, you don't drop the -'science'-, of a word, so that your beliefs may then try to make reasonable representation for your preferred position and understanding of it. But rather you will intermingle, alter or deny any certain knowledge and meaning of the word including its original , only in order apparently, to not allow that original and still valid comprehension stand against your own predilection. But that is what you took Teleologist and ZZzz troll to task for isn't it, and quite commendably in my view, setting out the main reason why their insistence to bugger up science only for the misguided opinion that belief must rate along side it, is wrong because, those are two quite different and separately definable subjects. Oh the irony. You know,,.. I am sure.., you will know,... the "rightful etymolgies " for theist is "with (a) God" Rightful etymology for a-theist is "without (a) God". . Everything after that including whether a person is or was cognizant , questions of ability, practice, learning, or an adoption of theism or atheism, is open for discussion and all falls into common or less common terms. Like for instance the distinctions between how a baby is atheist but would have to adopt a practice of atheism. None of which invalidates the rightful etymology. But Teleologist would invalidate the science, which you will argue against. And although you would invalidate the etymology, you would not argue against that,..And so I do instead. Put simplistically, I would bring to you on that etymology what you would bring to Teleologist and the ZZzz troll on science. Don't you really see ? Don't their religious beliefs disable them from separating science and belief and make them think both mix into one. Don't they want to misuse science just to seem like assertion can be validated by it at whatever cost, including the will to mis-educate children ? Not so importantly, but nevertheless similarly, don't you realize the same outcome by dismissing the 'science'which goes on behind and is applied in the study of the sources , of that one word atheist? Within the microcosm of a single word, aren't you displaying the same misguided approach as Tele by mixing a predetermination from belief . Their position I would venture is by downright mal-intention. Yours I would like to guess is by mistake. Something common to everyone. Can you explain ( as eloquently as you have to Tele ) how I am mistaken?