Your entire reply confuses "did" with "must have" when looking at
evolutionary theory, and "didn't" with "couldn't have" and "did" with "could
have" when looking at PC . (So that when Van Till argues that the evidence
shows that EC -did- happen, you misconstrue that as arguing that it -must
have- happened [i.e., God -had- to do it that way], and when Van Till argues
that "theokinetic intervention" -didn't- happen in creating life forms, you
misconstrue that as -couldn't have- happened.)
That is a serious flaw, in that this is precisely the issue at hand.
This is the very same flaw you've been making throughout this entire, what,
month-long (?) discussion over and over and over again.
I don't know what more to say. The -entire- message -- every single
subsection of it -- rests upon this mistake, as have its predecessors.
Frankly, once again you're being sloppy and very uncharitable, though more
through carelessness than malice, I believe.
--John
P. S. I think your own rhetoric tends to carry you away. Just one example:
"1) Van Till criticises those creationists who believe that God could have
intervened supernaturally in the created universe".
Now this begs the question entirely, unless you're meaning that Van Till is
criticizing himself, too. (Which you clearly don't.) Between this and the
error noted above (as instantiated in your (1b) header), the message gets
utterly confused.