Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,780 Year: 4,037/9,624 Month: 908/974 Week: 235/286 Day: 42/109 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 27 of 60 (567556)
07-01-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Practical Prodigy
06-30-2010 11:14 PM


Re: Theist and evolutionist or theistic evolutionist?
Hi Mr Prodigy!
Practical Prodigy writes:
I also only reject macro-evolution not the consensus on observable micro-evolution.
I believe that biological micro-evolution is merely another process within creation. It is what God employed to develop diversity and adaptation.
Thus you are in truth a creationist.
Rejection of "macro-evolution" is a rejection of a fundamental part of ToE and modern biological science. It's also a standard creationist talking point. You might believe that you simply differ with other evolutionists about where you draw the line regarding god/s's involvement with the evolutionary process, but in my opinion, if you really believe that it takes god/s to change a wolf into a dog, then you're a creationist at heart.
I also personally believe that theistic evolution is ultimately an untenable position, but that's neither here nor there.
Practical Prodigy writes:
Wikipedia writes:
[Methodolgocial Naturalism] is an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.
If that isnt a religious worldview I dont know what is.
I was originally going to give my standard reply when someone claims that atheism is a religion, which is simply:
Bald is not a hair color.
However, you're going beyond that if you want to claim that methodological naturalism is the same thing as atheism, which is what you appear to be doing in the end. Your logic seems to go:
1. MN is inherently atheistic, since it not only disregards, but actually denies the supernatural.
2. Atheism is a form of religion, as it takes a position on the existence of a deity, i.e. there ain't one.
3. Thus, MN is a religious worldview.
So I must point out that not only is bald not a hair color, bald is also not a shoe size.
Enjoy your stay here.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Practical Prodigy, posted 06-30-2010 11:14 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024