EvC Forum: Are theistic evolutionists really IDers?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Are theistic evolutionists really IDers?

Adminnemooseus

Administrator

Posts: 3976

Joined: 09-26-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 2 of 91 (464197)
04-23-2008 9:22 PM

I kind of like this topic - Maybe it will get promoted

Randman just started a 4 week suspension. Maybe that makes it an especially good time to promote this topic.

Going to let it age a bit first.

Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
	Message 3 by Admin, posted 04-24-2008 8:25 AM		Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus

Administrator

Posts: 3976

Joined: 09-26-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 4 of 91 (464328)
04-24-2008 8:48 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Per Admin's idea, the final sentence/paragraph of message 1 was "hidden".

I didn't think this topic belonged in the Intelligent Design forum, in the "Science" group of forum. "Faith and Belief" seemed the best place to me.

I would hope that this topic becomes something greater than just a "jump on Randman" thing. How about your ideas about the relationship between intelligent design and theistic evolution?

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

Adminnemooseus

Administrator

Posts: 3976

Joined: 09-26-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 87 of 91 (468812)
06-01-2008 5:21 PM

Troubled topic - Going to give it a temporary closing

Randman, I think Briterican has given you some very reasonable responses, such as the portion below the off-topic quote in message 78:

Briterican writes:

But to stay on the topic of the OP, I once again state my opinion that "theistic evolutionists" are NOT really ID'ers, and undoubtedly do not subscribe to the concepts put forward by ID'ers.

You can argue semantics and say that "if they believe in a God, then they must consider him intelligent, and so it's intelligent design"... but I am using the term "intelligent design" to refer specifically to the works of the likes of Michael Behe. I think it is misleading to use the term Intelligent Design (especially in caps as the OP did) in reference to anything other than the very specific works to which the term has been associated with.

The OP might as well have said "I think that theistic evolutionists believe in God..." well, of course they do, that's why they are theistic. Does that mean they agree with Michael Behe and irreducible complexity? Probably not.

You responded with:

Randman writes:

Uh huh....so a bunch of evos bash creationism and ID? what else is new?

Things seem to have gone downhill from there.

Closing down in 10 minutes.

Adminnemooseus

Adminnemooseus

Administrator

Posts: 3976

Joined: 09-26-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 88 of 91 (468919)
06-02-2008 12:25 PM

Reply to: Message 83 by randman
06-01-2008 5:07 PM

Topic reopened

Now let's try to keep closer to the topic theme, as presented in message 1 and the topic title.

Randman writes:

There is no rigorous examination of ID by it's detractors. That is most clearly seen by their numerous misrepresentations of it. Heck, they don't even understand it, much less can claim to have rigorously considered ID papers and claims.

Do even the proponents of ID give it a "rigorous examination"?

I doubt you really understand what "ID theory" is. As fuzzy as it is, I wonder if any ID proponent does. Perhaps you can propose a new topic to clarify what "ID theory" is? Such does not belong in this topic.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID (not not that ID).

This message is a reply to:
	Message 83 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 5:07 PM		randman has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	DrJones*, LamarkNewAge, Taq, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/1