Is it ? You are fighting a strawman again dear Stephen.
Stephen <<"When he contemplates the perfidy of those who refuse to believe, Dawkins can scarcely restrain his fury. `It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).'"
(Dawkins R., Review of Johanson D. & Edey M., "Blueprints," New York Times, in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, p9). >>
Given the fact that the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming Dawkins has a point. Now if you meant mechanisms of evolution, then you have a point.
Stephen:
<<Second, I said that "God COULD have worked through evolution" (ie. fully natural processes) not that God DID work through evolution. The evidence (when not viewed through naturalistic philosophical spectacles) does not support that position that God did (at least at all levels) work through known natural processes.>>
Translation: When seen throught the right spectacles God did not work through known natural processes. But why would God invent natural processes only to work through unnatural ones ?
Stephen:
<<Third, Glenn *still* misses the point. What Johnson (and I) am "fighting" is not "evolution" but the naturalistic *ways of thinking* that assumes apriori* that fully naturalistic "evolution" is the only option:>>
It is the only scientific option. Now if you want to believe in supernatural causes then you should also allow the Tooth Fairy theory of evolution ? Heck, only imagination is the limit then. Given the many stories of creation on this world, I bet you that the earth and its surroundings were created at least a hundred times.