What do you think?
Is this a “win/win/draw” compromise?
I could at least steer posting traffic TO a safe place where they can expect different treatment.
Who around here would identify as a “Christian evolutionist”? How many would do so under your definition, whatever it may be? Why should this new whatever-it-is be considered a safer place, and what would be the nature of that “different treatment”? This seems like nothing more than another manifestation of your paranoid fear of atheists.
Put yer reading glasses on… the actual table of categories listed says “Theist Evolutionist.” That’s yer big hint!
Im one. Joshua @swamidass is one. I think one if your @admins is one. @jongarvey is another.
I’m fairly sure Joshua rejects (or at least is fairly uncomfortable with) the label “Theistic Evolutionist”, which is one of the reasons he came up with the acronym CASE.
1 Like
And yet, none of them ever suggested or advocated for special treatment. It’s almost as if they do not actually share your problem, what ever that may be.
I didnt see that one coming! … some of the most unrestrained atheist reactìonaries … reacting.
And once again you quote and ping me to call my attention to a message that in no way addresses either the quoted passage nor anything else I said. I’d like to say I didn’t see that coming either, but… at this point, it’s about what I expected. 
Sometimes its the effort you exert to be annoying that is noteworthy.
Proper protocol would have me reference enough of the posting so that the discourse systen can include a link to the post in question.
In my many years of “Discourse experience”, you are the one and only user who complains about having his posting “quoted” for what you would think are trivial reasons… and you do it constantly.
Well, young man, you are not the center of any universe Ive signed up for … so develop some tolerance, some patience, or both!
Not “the one and only user”. Replying to a post, without quoting it, still yields a “Load parent post” icon:
Which in turn provides a link to “Jump to post’s original location” link:
Quoting a random piece of the post is not necessary.
1 Like
Even I didnt like the sound of “Theist Evolutionist”. I recall liking SOME combination much better… ah yes, here it is:
“Theistic Evolution” - - moving the term from the person … to what the person embraces!
Well, in my very few years I have witnessed other users raising that complaint against you specifically, so maybe it is a question of attentiveness, not of years of experience.
Though on the subject of being the only person complaining about something, have you noticed how you are the only one complaining about unfair treatment of creationists and theistic evolutionists, all because no special privileges are granted them? I have. I’m not alone in that either. You are. You are.
If you say ‘please’, I’ll consider it. 
1] Please find ANY other I poster who has complained about me quoting from his post. If you can find one, it will be included, as well as its date, in my doctor’s dementia file.
2] How do you figure I was looking for special privileges for me all these weeks? It has been less than two weeks that i have even mentioned separating Theistic Evolution (instead of ID!).
If I may, I think what people are really complaining about is your tendency to reply to a post by ignoring everything or almost everything in it and instead going off on something else entirely. For example, here you ignore most of what I say and most of my questions in favor of a trivial issue resulting from your own inconsistency in terminology.
What do you envision happening in this “Theistic Evolution” category/room/ghetto that doesn’t already happen? What would be the criteria for participation, and how membership be determined?
2 Likes
Okay. Ill say, Please?
And as for my memory, apparently I cant wager steak dinners or $100 bills any more! . Thank you for making the effort to find that post by Tim. Next time Ill just have to say “with the the exception of Tim”.
1 Like
Ironically, Theistic Evolution is not as monopolistic a topic title as some might imagine. At the link (below) is a book review for a collection of essays having exactly that title … and it is festooned with notorious ID writers:
I believe the authors were hoping to “corner the market” in the public marketplace of ideas. But it seems the authors have failed. The association of the word “evolution” with step-by-step genetic change (with or without God) is just too strong in the public mind!
The revew is by David Snoke, who did us all a great favor by pausing a moment on Dr. Behe’s contribution to the book:
The work “… directly addresses the proposal of many theistic evolutionists, … that God could have “front loaded” the universe with exactly the right initial conditions to bring about the origin of life, with no need for later intervention… [T]his proposal is problematic, but this chapter feels like an opening shot [pun onbBehe’s pool shot intended?]; much more thought deserves to go into the physics of this scenario. At first blush, his argument seems sound. Physical law has many information-erasing mechanisms, so that without miraculous preservation, any impressive fine tuning of the initial conditions of the cosmos would normally be washed away.”
There are those who want to shout “Deism” … but as long as there is a God in real time, responding to humans in real time (human real time anyway), and optionally punctuating NATURAL processes with the occasional SUPER-natural event, we are all safe from a watch-maker an uncaring watchmaker God.
Such a great question.
If someone starts talking about ID, the person who wants to argue that evolution doesnt need a designer would have to have STARTED the discussion (BEFORE THE DESIGN ISSUE CAME UP INSIDE THE CATEGORY) - - by first posting OUTSIDE of the category labeled THEISTIC EVOLUTION.
It would require coordination. But we cant ban coordination, can we?
If we allowed Atheists to respond OUTSIDE the category AFTER the ID topic began, the thread INSIDE the category would wither prematurely.
This recent quote (above) led me to this very old conversation (below):
[The follow-up…]
FYI, that response was opaque. I defy anyone to explain what you just said.
Exactly. How would you deal with that? All your recent claims have been regarding the “cosmic billiard shot” as the mechanism of providence. Doesn’t that objection kill your providence?