real life wrote:parados wrote:real life wrote:parados wrote:maporsche,
real life has claimed there can be no natural processes in a theory that says God created the universe and then left it alone to cause man to evolve.
A purposeful misrepresentation from you.
What did I misrepresent about your position? Please feel free to point it out.
Where did I say what you claimed I said?
The statement 'God guided the process of evolution' does not refer to a deistic scenario such as you describe, and nowhere will you find me making a statement resembling your twisted version.
Really? You have said just that. We know that some of the respondents in the 40% answered based on a "deistic" viewpoint. We have their statements showing that to be true. We don't know how many answered that way but we know some did. The question asked which of the statements was closest to their opinion. Not which one was absolutely their opinion. This means that even though you keep saying the statement is absolute, those that answered that way did NOT see it as absolute. They only saw it as closer to their opinion than any of the other statements.
Now.. Because we know that some of the respondents did NOT agree completely with the statement but still picked it as the closest to their opinion that means that several, and probably more than the 2 whose statements we have, felt that God created the universe and then left it alone. You have consistently stated that it is impossible for someone to think evolution can be naturalistic while thinking God guided it. That may be so if we look at the absolute but we are NOT looking at the absolute. We are looking at the viewpoints of those that had to pick the statement CLOSEST to their opinion. Your absolute statement quite clearly attempts to put those with the viewpoint I stated in the group that you think they should all be in. I have clearly not misrepresented your position at all. I have quite clearly expressed it as you have repeatedly done so. You just refuse to consider the entire question because to do so would mean you can't play your games of lying and mischaracterization.
Quote:
parados wrote:The respondents to the survey clearly stated God created the universe and then left it alone for man to evolve.
How many indicated a deistic inclination? 2 that we know of , that's how many.
How many did NOT indicate a deistic inclination? We don't know. We do know some did however. That means that your claims about the 40% INCLUDES those that did indicate a deistic inclination. Therefor you have consistently claimed that those with deistic inclinations that answered the question would have to believe that evolution is not a natural process.
Quote:
Dr Porter characterized 40% of the respondents (less these 2 perhaps) as 'theistic evolutionists'. He was surprised to see 'so many'.
A statement that doesn't say anything about what the respondents actually thought since he has similar information to what we would have. Not all of the respondents would have written why they were picking a certain choice so there is no way to know why they picked that choice.
Quote:
Do you think he was referring to these 2 as 'so many'?
What number do you think he was referring to? You have claimed he was referring to the entire 40%. We know however that the entire 40% was NOT included in your narrow definition.
Quote:
Or do you think he had the same problem distinguishing deism from theism as you have?
I doubt it.
Do you have evidence of which definition of "theistic" he was using? If so, please provide it. Of course he may have been using the actual definition of "theistic evolution" and not the definition of "theistic".
Quote:The term was used by Eugenie Scott to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution holding the theological view that God creates through evolution. It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting continued intervention. Others see intervention at critical intervals in history in a way consistent with scientific explanations of speciation, but with similarities to the ideas of Progressive Creationism that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Quote:Theistic evolution holds that the theist's acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. The latter two are also based on a methodological assumption of naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.
