> By not addressing my substantive point that: "`TE has no original
> theory of `basic design' unique to itself", ie. "it believes in the
> same random mutation + natural selection mechanism as Naturalistic
> Evolution, with no intervention by God", do you not implicitly
> confirm it? :-)
Please.
I've posted megabytes on the difference between TE and naturalism.
Must I continually jump through that ugly, frayed old hoop every time
you hold it out? :-)
Steve, do you think there is any important difference between the
Christian view of microevolution and the atheistic view of microevolution?
If so, please explain.
> Now if "TE" could actually develop a "theory of `basic design' unique
> to itself" that differs in its predictions from what "Naturalistic
> Evolution", would predict (this is now difficult because NE has been
> progressively accommodated to fit the facts), then "TE" would join
> the ranks of theistic realists who believe that God actually makes a
> difference in the real world:
Don't stop there! Theistic realists also need a theory of
stellar formation which has predictions different from what
"naturalistic stellar evolution" would predict, don't they?
Theistic realists also need a theory of microevolution (say, rapid
speciation in a new environment) with different predictions from
naturalistic evolution, don't they? If not, why not??
You don't have to answer. You've already posted answers in the past
months explaining your scientific and theological reasons for why you
think "new biological designs" belongs in the "intervention" category
(like God's intervention in salvation history), while the formation of
the sun does not, just as I've given my scientific and theological reasons
for my expectations. Let's wait a few months before we trot them all out
again.
Loren Haarsma