Dave Oldridge wrote:
[snip]
Theistic evolutionists accept the physical science of evolution
Meaning of "evolution"?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution'
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
ID + common descent: A Proposal
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404181835.d59cf7d%40posting.google.com
non-secular religion and common descent
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405051933.522f5d0e%40posting.google.com
1910s remarks by Caullery, Edmund B. Wilson, and Bateson on the idea of
top-down unfolding/ [Bateson]"unpacking of an original complex which
contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living
things present"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405161853.5f28f100%40posting.google.com
but don't let it become a fallacious reason for rejecting theism. We do
NOT want our theological views to be recognized as science. They are not
science. We also don't accept (pseudo)scientists telling us that our
theology is invalid because of scientific findings that have no real
bearing on it. Devout, evangelical atheists don't like to hear that. It
undercuts their evangelism.
Are Dawkins and Dennett "devout, evangelical atheists"?
Ordinary, practical atheists don't give a damn.
.
