I agree that most evolutionists claim to be Christians. The definition at issue is a self-evident objective description of ToE. Some TEists accept that God is not an explanation after First Cause. Other TEists subjectively insert Him contrary to all claims of ToE.
what claims of the ToE are contrary? the ToE makes no claim to where life started so this is a red herring
The objective fact of the matter is that ToE has no place for God IN its theory. TEists can subjectively make a place for Him but no scholar, starting with Darwin and ending with Dawkins, has ever said that
evolution is guided or that design actually exists. The real issue is why are persons who claim to be, or think of themselves as Christians, accept a theory that specifically excludes the Father of their alleged Savior from having any role in producing reality?
because you are making up a contrary ToE that has to do with the origin of reality and not using the ToE as science has had it for the last 100 years
your argument isn't about god its about claiming the bible as 100% fact when you have no evidence that it is. TEists aren't having problems with god in science, but with people who insist that to be a christian you must believe the genesis story is 100% fact and how god created the universe, which they believe is allegory
Again, the point is that the Johnson definition is objective corresponding to what every evolutionary scholar has said and the self-evident goal of ToE: explain reality apart from Divine power. TEists can invent their own definition of ToE but it is subjective since the whole point of ToE is to say that the Creationists and Paley are wrong.
nice redefintion of what science says ray. the ToE is to explain the evidence that we have with an explanation that doesn't invoke things we can't show are true, outside intelligence we see no sign of, unless we twist things to see it is not evidence
We explain TEists as I did above or, as I now will say: they are confused since the whole point of evolutionary theory is the exact opposite of Creationis
how are they confused? because they don't accept what you believe as fact?
having god as the starter of life and everything is a reasonable belief, if you also view science as a way to see how god did everything
as i said before this isn't about god being in or out of science, its about if you believe the genesis account is fact and how god did it or if science can show how god did it or not
why is it ray that for hundreds of years people had no problem with science finding things that differed from what the bible said? they said that science shows the work of god?
I have sources for my views, TEists do not.
maybe you think you do, that doesn't mean your rationalizing makes any more sense than theirs does
by the way what relevence does the quote from mayr have? thats his opinion, being as darwinism is a philosophical stance, maybe he believes they do not accept god as the source of life.
by the way not all people who accept the ToE are Darwinians! despite your absurd belief that anyone who accepts the ToE are.
™ Version 4.2
