That theological definition is not addressed in science. Therefore, you need to be careful when describing evolution as unguided so that readers know which definition you are using.
1 Like
The only people that worry me are the ones who join a theological blog and keep forgetting that it is NOT a scientific blog.
You know anybody who fits the description?
I’ve restored the deleted half-sentence:
I certainly do have the facts in my memory, as evidenced by my recollection of the high proportion of YEC presenters at the conference and my ability to quickly list several.
You, on the other hand, claim not to know how many YEC presenters there were even though you have supposedly followed the ID movement for a decade and even attended the conference!
I didn’t refuse to back up my claim, I only refused to waste my time pandering to some-one who doesn’t even care about the answer - as is clear from the restored post above.
It does - and the story is that you are a dishonest quote-miner.
4 Likes
ID (cdesignproponentism), is like “creation – maybe through evolution and maybe not”. So the answer to the original question is “ID is creationism for people who believe the universe was created, but who don’t know who the creator was or how they created, and can’t figure out how to answer either of these questions”.
3 Likes
Not “ID is creationism for people who want to teach creationism in schools without falling foul of the establishment clause in the US constitution”?
5 Likes
Well that’s an objective view, yes. I was describing what ID’s own self-description sounds like.
4 Likes
“Science” is in the name of the blog.
5 Likes
Okay … the term “Science” is in the name of the blog. But you obviously have not been protesting over the rather frequent employment of God, God’s name, God’s nature, and so on … right?
And yet we know NO science for any of this.
So… do you think maybe you could recognize this IS a theological blog that discusses Science?
It is logical and acceptable that Theologians need to embrace and explain the Sciences, right? So to have Science in the name should be a helpful qualifier, not an excuse to go crazy, right?
“Peaceful” is also in the name of the blog.
Do you think you can recognize that this forum is open to people of all worldviews?
3 Likes
Yes, @T_aquaticus, and yet …
And yet I continue to avoid any discussion of “throwing the bums out” … I’ve always talked about prioritizing the “real estate” here so that atheists and ID folks that are uninterested in GAE scenarios can still dispute their pet topics … without disrupting those who are interested in GAE scenarios.
Why is this so hard to understand? In fact, it seems the Atheist/Agnostic audiences are the principle “mis-understanders” of my goal… which leads me to think it is not a comprehension problem - - but an “a factional interest” problem.
The goalposts seem to be moving all over the field. Earlier in this thread you seemed to chide me for daring to discuss science on this forum.
“The only people that worry me are the ones who join a theological blog and keep forgetting that it is NOT a scientific blog.”–gbrooks9
What was that about?
4 Likes
What about atheists, like myself, who are interested in GAE scenarios?
Then you should choose the factions that interest you, and I will choose the factions that interest me. Others can also make their own choices.
2 Likes
Nothing has changed. I am not moving goal posts:
I will continue to chide anyone who spends all day or all night arguing
[A] about Godless Evolution vs. Evolution guided by God …
or
[B] about whether Science has the ability to detect God or his Presence or his Affect on Evolution.
[1] These 2 questions (A and B) are not resolvable by conventional debate; so continued dispute has the tendency to increase the lack of trust and distaste for each side of the discussion;
[2] Prominent and frequent disputes on these questions give visitors the wrong idea about the position of GAE assumes.
[3] These questions (A and B) are not particularly germane to the main purpose of the list, since we already accept the idea that there is a God and that God guides evolution.
[4] And finally, I am not advocating expulsion for people who argue these points, I only argue that they are intentionally rude when they continue to do it even when it disrupts the focus of the blog … and that ultimately giving the “ridge-running disputers” their own room as part of the blog would be the ideal way to indulge people regarding their favorite hobby without hindering the “pacification” efforts of this blog.
1 Like
And that’s what you would tell the Rabbi who comes out of his office to confront the Hindu and the Calvinist who routinely come into the Synagogue at lunch time to eat and to continue the never ending dispute over whether they were predestined or not to marry someone of another faith?
You chided me for discussing science, not Godless vs. God guided Evolution.
I have left that one alone as well, as does science.
So again, why did you chide me for discussing science that doesn’t breach any of these problem areas?
4 Likes
But you were in a problem area. You were not arguing from the hypothetical viewpoint of a Christian “pro-Evolutionist” - - you were arguing AGAINST the need for God’s guidance in evolution. Goodness gracious, you can do that anywhere.
You can also post anywhere and visit other blogs . . . goodness gracious. If your only complaint is that I don’t share your beliefs, then you will probably be disappointed throughout life.
4 Likes
Wha… ? Did I get that right?
I can go ANYWHERE … to talk about de novo Adam / Eve …with God’s design… in the use of Evolution … all together… ANYWHERE?
I hope you mean the couch in your living room … because I can’t imagine where else you think people have convened to discuss this idea… have you let @swamidass know about these places?
Don’t hold back, Mr. T, we’re all hoping to go there to see what the Atheists there are arguing about !
I would probably suggest that they move their debate to the coffee shop across the street from the synagogue.
1 Like