Are theistic evolutionists really IDers?

So are you saying that it is non-scientific to be theistic evolutionist? That the theistic aspect of their beliefs here are just a faith statement and not real science?

quote:

---

The topic is not about the fact ID theories espoused by the Discovery Institute are different than theistic evos. That is obvious.

---

So, you are saying that theistic evolutionists are obviously NOT ID'ers.

No, theistic evos are IDers. They believe an Intelligent Force/Designer aka God created the universe. They believe God designed/created the universe. It's a clear belief in an Intelligent Designer.What part of that isn't clear?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

How can Dembski say that ID is "no friend of theistic evolution" if theistic evolution is ID ? Shouldn't Dembski of all people know what is and is not ID ?How does your classification deal with a theistic evolutionist who is a noted opponent of ID ?It's really not clear how you can maintain that theistic evolution is aligned with ID in the face of clear disagreement between the two camps.

It seems to me you are simply evading the thread topic issues raised in the OP. Some YECers say Old Earth Creationists are no friends to creationism. So what?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Maybe it's similar to Catholics and Protestants. The Protestants say they are the same kind of thing as Catholics claim to be, but the Catholics disagree. Next thing you know someone blows up a schoolbus.

It could be argued that it's just a question of which and how many gaps the God is stuck in.I.D.ers seem to need to point to what they consider to be evidence of their designer, whereas those who stick their Gods in more remote gaps seem to be more in favour of the idea that faith is required in order to believe in their deities, rather than evidence. But there's no clear dividing line.This is a good topic title, certainly, and you have a strong argument, randman, if you're claiming that "theistic evos" are, in a sense, I.D.ers.

No, I am pointing out that the points in the OP do not seem to constitute a good definition of waht it is to be an "IDer".My grounds are that:1) It requires labelling a prominent opponent of ID as a supporter of ID.2) It requires saying that a prominent member of the ID movement didn't even understand what ID was.To which we could add that the modern ID movement originated as a relabelling of creationism (as revealed in the Dover trial), that a large majority of ID's output is anti-evolution and that ID seems mainly concerned with modifying the teaching of evolution in schools. If theistic evolutionists are opposed to a large majority of the output of ID and a - perhaps the - major objective of ID, why on earth should we consider them to support ID ?

The problem is that Catholics are accepted as Christian on the whole - even by many Protestants. To the best of my knowledge Catholics accept many Protestants as Christians (even recognising the ordinations of the Anglican church, for instance).So your point is really restricted to those extremist Protestants who deny that Catholics are Christian at all. But who among them could have the authority to speak for Christianity to the same extent that Dembski - one of the "Founding Fathers" of ID - could speak for the ID movement ?

I answered that in the next sentance in my post:

quote:

---

Creationists^TM believe that evolution cannot explain god's creation, so in that sense, TE's are not 'those type' of creationists.

---

The same goes with being an IDist. IDest believe that evolution is wrong. To say that a Theistic Evolutionist is an IDist would imply that they don't accept the ToE, but that is not the case.Its just confusing and unnecessary.

Why not address the points in the OP? Theistic evos claim an Intelligent Designer created the universe. Is this a scientific view?

Is it a scientific view to claim God created the universe or not?Moreover, if theistic evos believe God created the universe, on what basis do they believe the same Intelligent Designer would never intervene in the universe or in the formation of life on earth? Is it just the faith of theistic evos to insist that God could only be effective in direct intervention at the beginning?

What evidence do they bring? What tests or experiments have they conducted, and what predictions have been made and found to be accurate?In other words, are they following the scientific method?

Conversely, one could argue that there are no gaps at all, but that God is involved in every process. I think this is a point many misunderstand about Christian theology. From God's perspective, natural and spiritual mechanisms are all subordinate to Him from the Christian perspective. The idea is God upholds all mechanisms. It's not the God of gaps thinking many believe it is.But I hear ya.......IDers point to weaknesses as they seem them in evo theory aka gaps and use that as evidence for God filling that whereas theistic evos just have one big gap at the beginning. But a more complete look from a theological perspective is that God is in control of it all. That is what I am claiming. It would be interesting to see if theistic evos view their belief as science or a faith perspective.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

You'd have to ask them.